Wednesday, December 31, 2008

New Year Resolution

If anyone is stuck for a New Year Resolution may I suggest a few possibilities,

1) never submit a complaint to the discredited Local Government Ombudsmen.

2) do everything in your power to bring an end to the corrupt system of administrative justice currently operating in this country.

3) sign every petition that involves the discredited LGO. This one is about their involvement with Haringey.

4) do everything you can to expose the LGO for what they are, a bunch of biased ex council amateurs who do nothing more than peddle false hope whilst they bury maladministration for their friends and ex colleagues.

5) if you prefer to be a passive supporter then just let us know and we will add your name to our supporters list.

6) spread the word, tell your friends and family the truth about the discredited LGO.

Together we can make 2009 a year the LGO will never forget.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

12 Years of LGO involvement: A festive verse.

During their twelve years of involvement,
the LGO gave to me
Twelve blatant lies,
Eleven perverse reasons,
Ten stupid excuses,
Nine devious tactics,
Eight reasons for delay,
Seven misdirections,
Seex new laws,
Five false hopes,
Four offers to settle,
Three biased investigators,
Two flawed reports,
And proof that they bury maladministration for a local authority.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

I would like to wish all my readers a

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Each time we stand up for an ideal, or act to improve the lot of others, or strike out against injustice, we send forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. - Robert Kennedy (7 June, 1966)

Monday, December 22, 2008

What came first the chicken or the stupid excuse?

When Cheshire County Council bodged the unadopted highway in the vicinity of my property I naturally submitted a complaint to the planning enforcement section at Vale Royal Borough Council because the work being carried out was in breach of planning permission. Vale Royal Borough Council's response provides a typical example of the perverse logic used by Councils and Local Government Ombudsmen when faced with a complaint they can't logically answer.

Vale Royal Borough Council state that the highway in question is an adopted highway and as such Cheshire Highways do not require planning permission. Then they go on to say that consequently this authority have no powers to act in this matter.

Whilst their first statement is true it's wholly irrelevant because at the material time of the planning breach the highway in question was not an adopted highway. In fact Cheshire Highways only bodged the road because they desperatly wanted to adopt it without completing the road in line with pre existing planning permission.

So what came first, the breach of planning permission or the adopted highway?

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

With the LGO justice is never seen to be done!

In an article in the Times headlined Access all areas’ for media so justice is seen to be done there are some interesting comments from Jack Straw.

Mr Straw said yesterday: “My view is that public confidence depends crucially on the system being as open as possible – so the case for restrictions has to be a very strong one.”

A really important veil is being lifted on what happens in these courts,” he said.

Unfortunately the discredited Local Government Ombudsmen still operate like a court of star chamber denying even the most basic of rights such as natural justice and the right to cross examine, let alone allowing justice to be seen to be done. His comments do, however, explain why the Local Government Ombudsmen do not have the public's confidence and never will until they change their ways.

So come on Mr Straw, if you really believe that justice should be seen to be done why don't you also ensure that the administrative justice system in this country also operates in an open and honest way.

In most cases the Local Government Ombudsman even denies the complainant the right to see the evidence they base their perverse conclusions on. And I can vouch for that because that's exactly what happened in my case. As a result of never being allowed to see the council's defence to my complaints (or any other evidence conjured up by the LGO), I never had the opportunity to properly controvert anything they may, or may not have, used as evidence. It's a sad fact of life that the system of administrative justice in England is corrupt and just like the family courts needs a radical overall if they ever expect to gain the public's confidence.

Mr Straw, how an earth can a secretive and unfair system of administrative justice, controlled by a bunch of ex local authority amateurs, ever gain the confidence and respect of the general public? At least the family courts were run by proper judges.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Seex' Law 6

Seex' sixth law: Avoid the concrete conclusion and cultivate the delightfully vague.

A review of Seex' earlier laws.

Seex's fourth law: When the going gets tough, make yourself scarce. Seex's fifth law: When you're unaccountable you can ignore normal things like fairness, natural justice and the truth. Seex' third law: If a particular piece of evidence doesn't fit your preferred conclusion just ignore it. (Even if it's a promise to another ombudsman.) Seex' second law: A Council can infringe a citizen's legal or human rights rights and deny them the right to challenge any interference by the simple ruse of refusing to tell the citizen concerned which statutory authority (law) they are relying on to legitimise their actions. Seex' first law: Further to my earlier post it appears that Mrs Seex has introduced a new legal excuse for a threat. Cheshire County Council have given me a choice of A or B with the threat of C [1] should I refuse to accept A or B. However, the York LGO, Anne Seex, doesn't accept it's a threat, as far as she is concerned Cheshire County Council are merely informing me of what they are going to do should I refuse to accept A or B. Therefore, if you are ever accused of threatening behaviour just use Seex' law as your defence. For example, 'I didn't threaten to hit the person who wouldn't give me their wallet, I was merely informing them of what I was going to do if they didn't give it to me.'

1) The Council refused to tell me what statutory authority allowed them to implement option C. Over the last 8 years the Council has also been refusing to tell me what statutory authority allowed them to implement the plan which was the subject of my complaint. The Ombudsman may find it convenient to turn a blind eye to their refusal to give me the information requested but I certainly don't. Please refer to Seex' second law for further information.

Slowly slowly catchy LGO.

Never trust a Local Government Ombudsman to look after your legal or human rights.

A Local Government Ombudsman can and often does find a a council not guilty of maladministration even though they are guilty of infringing your legal and/or human rights. With the courts this situation could never happen because unlike a Local Government Ombudsman they have to take your legal and human rights into account. A situation which after 11 years I am about to be able to prove thanks to Cheshire County Council. And once I have the York LGO will have some very, very, serious questions to answer!

Friday, December 05, 2008

Council logic: The cost/benefit ratio.

A recent Freedom of information request highlights an interesting issue.

The Local Government Ombudsman issued a report against Haringey council finding maladministration causing injustice (06/A/12508). The Ombudsman recommended that Haringey should make a payment of about £250 to the complainant.

The report also identified that Haringey made use of external legal advisers in relation to the LGO investigation. The cost to Haringey council, or more precisely, the cost to Haringey council tax payers was £8000 + Vat.

What a waste of taxpayers money. If Haringey had apologised and settled for a few hundred pounds they could have saved £9,400 plus all their own internal costs. In addition the LGO's could have saves the taxpayer the thousands of pound it costs to produce a report. The LGO cost the taxpayer about £12 million year and they produce about 125 reports. That works out at £96,000 per report.

To put everything in context Haringey's attempt to save a few hundred pounds following an act of maladministration cost the taxpayer, one way or another, over £100,000. Multiply that by all the councils in the country and literally £millions must be wasted every year by Councils trying to evade paying out a few hundred pounds each in compensation.

Cheshire County Council is another example, they have spent thousands more on trying to avoid the consequences of maladministration than it would have cost them to amicably resolve the situation. However, the key reason behind doing this is that spending thousands on external legal advice allows a council concerned to block or seriously derail an LGO investigation.

Using external legal advice allows the council to move the issue from 'one of fault in procedure' (maladministration which the LGO can investigate) to 'one of merit' (which the LGO can't investigate). This may be an expensive and dubious tactic to use but it nicely excludes the LGO from getting too involved in anything the council doesn't want them to get involved in.

What makes this tactic even more interesting is that by law any legal advice the council receives is classed as privileged information so the council involved doesn't even have to show the LGO, or anyone else, the advice they received. The bottom line being that a council can hide behind legally privileged information and lie to the LGO and there is damn all the LGO can do about it.

If the council say they took legal advice (even if the legal advice didn't support their position) the LGO is history because the issue is has been moved from an argument about procedure to one of merit.

Unfortunately, the LGO realise that they can't let the complainant in on the trick because it will just expose the stupidity of the whole situation. Therefore, the LGO tend to hide the problem by finding the council guilty of a trivial act of maladministration, such as delay, whilst finding them not guilty of any issue they have managed to 'avoid' using the devious and dubious tactic outlined above.

Monday, December 01, 2008

Time has told (2)

Proof the York LGO's office is willing to lie to a complainant. This last week Cheshire County Council adopted the highways on phase one of the development, which is strange because the York LGO's office told me, apart from a small stretch in the vicinity of my property, they were adopted months ago.