Tuesday, August 07, 2007

LGO: Unfit for the purpose 3

Another of the complaints I submitted during March 2002 was that the Councils 'acted unreasonably and took inappropriate decisions because of self-imposed constraints and ulterior motives'.

This was one of the self imposed constraints imposed by the Councils. [Evidenced in writing]

The chief executive of the County Council stated that he was not prepared to allow me to have a veto over the design and final construction of the roadway in the vicinity of my property. (Even though the roadway couldn't be completed without impacting on my property.)

This was one of their ulterior motives. [Evidenced in writing/meeting transcripts/behaviour]

They didn't want to pay to resolve the problem they helped create.

This is one of their inappropriate decisions. [Evidenced by their dodgy plan and their failure to produce cross sectional drawings and seek the necessary planning approval before they attempted to complete the works.]

Triggering the insurance bond in an attempt to get a third party to do their dirty work.

Another complaint in which a six year old child would have had no difficulty in finding maladministration in days, yet five and a half years later here I am still waiting for a decision from the Local Government Ombudsman!

Knowing Local Government Ombudsmen it's doubtful that they will even find the maladministration I complained about but even if they do just what is the point of having an Ombudsman who can't do their job in a reasonable amount of time.

A well known maxim is that 'Justice delayed is justice denied'

So by definition 'delay' is unjust and hence delay is 'maladministration'.


Curious how both Local Authorities and Local Government Ombudsmen are not afraid to commit acts of maladministration whilst carrying out their duties.

No comments:

Post a Comment