Friday, July 27, 2007

LGO: Unfit for the purpose? Part 2

In my earlier post 'LGO: Unfit for the purpose?' I used one of my complaints to illustrate how Local Government Ombudsmen appear to have difficulty identifying an unequivocal case of maladministration. Here I present another of my complaints to prove that it wasn't a one off mistake.

This is the third of the seven complaints I submitted during March 2002.

Without the necessary authority proceeded to execute plan CE/11329/50/29.

The road in question is not yet a highway. Under the terms of the Section 38 Agreement the Highway Authority only had the contractual right to complete the works in default. Or in the case of triggering the bond, (which they did) specify the default work to be carried out. Plan CE/11329/50/29 shows work which, under the terms of the Section 38 agreement, does not constitute default work. Therefore the Highway Authority has no statutory or contractual authority to implement plan CE/11329/50/29.

In addition they didn't even have planning approval or permission for plan CE/11329/50/29.

Adding to those acts of maladministration they later lied about their need to obtain planning permission.

So we have another situation in which a child could have proven maladministration within weeks of receiving my complaint, however, after 5 years the Local Government Ombudsman still appears to be having some difficulty.

Further supporting the argument that the Local Government Ombudsman is unfit for the purpose.

More examples to follow!

No comments:

Post a Comment