Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Puzzle solved!

The final piece of the puzzle has recently fallen into place regarding my complaints.

I can now start to write the last chapters of my story about Local Authority maladministration and the abject failure of the Local Government Ombudsmen using my 1997 and 2001 complaints as a case study.

I now know why the Ombudsman has been doing their level best to bury my complaints for the last ten years. Knowing that puts everything they have done (or not done) over the last ten years into perspective. Therefore, I don't have to wait any longer to complete my story. In fact any further delay in resolving my complaints will just reinforce my arguments that the Ombudsman prefers to resolve the underlying problem for the benefit of the Council rather than investigate any complaints of maladministration.

More information soon.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

A visitor's website

Problems with Social Services, home education and the Ombudsman!


The SS/LEA have been a disaster. We contacted the LGO, and their actions were as described on your site (and others). We involved our MP, which got us a bit further forward, but not much!

The fact that these people can behave as they do, and still live with themselves, never ceases to amaze me. As I've said, I can have no respect for them. I do not suppose that bothers them in the least, but I like to think that I, at least, have some sort of standard/integrity.

Keep plugging away, but don't ruin your health for the sake of these people. They really are the lowest of the low.

Cheers. Mr L

Ineffective Ombudsmen?

It's been 12 months since the Ombudsman agreed to comeback on my 2002 complaint. However, I have still not received a copy of the Council's defence to my complaint nor a copy of the associated plans.

The County Council should have submitted a full set of plans to the Borough Council during 2001 for planning permission but they didn't. If they had I would have been able to comment on the plans then. However, at that time the County Council needed to circumvented any real scrutiny of their plans so they just lied about the need for planning permission and stated they were exempt.

5 years after I first submitted a complaint about this matter to the Local Government Ombudsman and 1 year after they agreed to comeback on my complaint and the Ombudsman still hasn't obtained a copy of the plans for me to comment on.

Whatever the reason, whether it be impotence or incompetence it does at least prove they are ineffective when it comes to offering any sort of remedy for local authority maladministration.

When a Council officer is on record saying that delay is helpful to them it makes you wonder!

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Once an Ombudsman...

In a few weeks it will be 10 years since the LGO first became involved with my complaint.

During that period they have used every trick in the book (many of them more than once) to bury serious acts of maladministration committed by both Borough and County Council staff.

One of my friends wondered why an Ombudsman would do that. "Surely", my friend argued, "if the Ombudsman knows that they are being scrutinised they would do their level best to be seen to be doing a good job"?

My answer to them........ "It's in their nature"!

A scorpion asks a frog for help crossing a river. Intimidated by the scorpion's prominent stinger, the frog demurs.

"Don't be scared,'' the scorpion says. "If something happens to you, I'll drown.'' Moved by this logic, the frog puts the scorpion on his back and wades into the river. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog.

The dying frog croaks, "How could you -- you know that you'll drown?''

"It's my nature,'' gasps the sinking scorpion.

Once a scorpion always a scorpion.

Once a chief executive always a chief executive.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

3.8 minus 0.7 = between 3.5 and 3.8?

It does if you apply Ombudsman logic.

The road (carriageway) adjacent to my property should have been constructed 3.8 metres from my boundary. (Official approved and bonded plans prove that beyond a shadow of doubt.) The County Council are on record stating that the road has been constructed 0.7 metres closer to my boundary than it should be. (Council plans and surveys also prove that beyond a shadow of doubt.) That clearly proves that the road is now only 3.1 metres from my boundary or conversely my boundary is only 3.1 metres from the edge of the road.

However, in spite of Council plans and statements proving the position of my boundary beyond a shadow of doubt the Ombudsman is still trying to argue that my boundary is between 3.5 to 3.8 metres from the road.

Why does the Ombudsman's office use warped logic? Because they always reach a decision first and then manipulate the facts to support their decision.

So if, 3.1 equals maladministration and 3.5 to 3.8 equals no maladministration then their only option, if they want to bury the maladministration, is to argue that 3.8 - 0.7 = 3.5 to 3.8.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Human Rights

Public Authorities (This includes Local Government Ombudsmen) may also have a positive obligation under the HR constitution. As a result it is envisaged that a situation may arise in which they have to take positive steps to protect an individuals human rights from being infringed by another public authority.

Another LGO petition.

Another petition has been posted on the Government petition website by William Fribbence. I do not know Mrs & Mrs Fribbence but I would like to wish them good luck with their petition.

Their petition states

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that Laws are created to ensure that the Local Government Ombudsman, has to issue a report and name the local authority concerned when maladministration is found. Further that any financial settlement fairly reflects the situation from the aggrieved party's point of view and is not used as a way to let a council of the hook'.

If you would like to add your name to their petition please click here.

Obviously Mr & Mrs Fribbence have been victims of the LGO local settlement scam.

If anyone knows Mr & Mrs Fribbence please tell them that they are not alone.

Tell them to visit LGOwatch or

Friday, May 04, 2007

It's a kind of magic!

Further to my last post. How does the council manage to give the illusion that they can complete a ramp with a gradient of 1 in 12 when in reality the best they could ever achieve is 1 in 7.6 (and that's before any drains and transitions are taken into account.) Easy, they just use part of the gradient to pull off their illusion.

Here's how the trick it works, instead of quoting the gradient for the full length of the ramp they just quote the gradient for part of the ramp. What they don't explain is that the rest of the ramp has to have a gradient of 1 in 2.5 in order to to pull off their trick.

A cross sectional plan would prove how the council has bent reality but in spite of numerous requests I have still not been given one. A magician uses an attractive assistant to distract the observer, however, the council's favourite is to introduce a number of irrelevant issues in an attempt distract the observer.

This simple trick appears to have fooled the Ombudsman's office for nearly 6 years, which makes me wonder if the ombudsman is in fact part of the act, a kind of stooge to give credibility to the council's illusion. Only time will tell but if an average ten year old child can understand how the council illusion works why is the Ombudsman's office having so much difficulty?