Sunday, September 07, 2008

What's good for the goose!

The York LGO finds and reports maladministration in only 0.34% of all complaints submitted to her. To put that in perspective, that means out of every 10,000 complaints submitted to her she thinks fit to report only 34 as maladministration. That's an extraordinary low figure which can best be analysed by comparing it to other Ombudsman. For example her colleague in Coventry finds and reports 3 times as much maladministration whilst the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds and reports 200 times as much.

If that's not bad enough the York LGO has the greatest number of councils rejecting her findings and recommendations. The York LGO only produces some 20 reports of maladministration a year, however, an every growing number of councils are rejecting these. Trafford (two), Sefton (two) and Tynedale are recent examples. More may yet be discovered but it proves that the York LGO misled the audience when she stated on the Radio 4 You and Yours program that a council ignoring an Ombudsman was a rare event. Trafford even demanded that another Ombudsman looked after any future complaints.

If councils can reject an ombudsman and their findings then so can a complainant. Therefore,
I also reject the York LGO's investigation and report into my complaint on the following grounds.

They, took into account irrelevant matters, failed to take into account relevant matters, manipulated evidence, failed to take into account my legal and human rights, biased the report in favour of the council, misled me on numerous occasions, refused to let me see, let alone controvert, the evidence supplied by the council, misinterpreted statutes..... and the list goes on and on. In fact the report is so bad I can't understand how the York LGO dared put their name to it. I suppose being totally uncountable helps.

No comments:

Post a Comment