Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Anti LGO Blog to Anti LGO Website

Blogs are a very useful tool but in some cases they are not the appropriate mechanism for what you want to do. They are excellent for random posts but not very good as a means of archiving evidence and such like. Therefore, I have decided to build a website to house the vast amount of evidence I have collected against the LGO over the last 12 years. Luckily I have now retired so I can dedicate more of my time to my new enterprise. Having said that this blog will continue along side my new website as a means of posting random thoughts.

The LGO was given a chance to do their job properly (twice); they didn't (twice), so now they pay the price. Public exposure and humiliation like they have never experienced before.

An example of the corrupt system of administrative justice system we have in this country. (2)

Further to my earlier post on the subject.

I am slowly wading through the documents and letters that the Council and the LGO exchanged (without my knowledge) during the investigation into my complaint (naughty). However, one common theme runs through all the communication between the council and the LGO's office. Whilst every letter sent to me during the investigation was very formal in nature, all the letters between the Council and the LGO were very informal and overly friendly in nature. Now one could understand this if both parties knew each other and had a close working relationship but in many cases this was not the case. In one example the LGO investigator did not even know and had not even met one of the people she was communicating with but the letters between the two were still very informal and overly friendly in nature. What impression does this give? Can you image having complained to the Police about a theft, then finding out that they had discussed the issue with the perpetrator in a very friendly and informal manner whilst at the same time dealing with you in a very formal and unfriendly manner before finding no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the perpetrator!

Example 2: The LGO may advertise te fact that they are imartial, they may even think they are impartial, but the impression they give is one of NOT being impartial.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

An example of the corrupt system of administrative justice system we have in this country. (1)

Background: During the investigation into my complaint the investigator and Ombudsman promised to send me a copy of the evidence that they would be taking into account when reaching a decision regarding my complaint. They never did!!

Following publication of their provisional report I submitted a formal FOI request for a copy of all communications between the council and the LGO. This, as usual, was refused using their standard FOI exemption clause. [Note: In a proper and open system of administrative justice both sides would be shown all the evidence and given the opportunity to controvert it.] The issue was quite clear; the investigator had kept the council in the evidence loop but not me.

In an attempt to obtain a copy of the council's defence to my complaint, something that an open and honest system of justice would ensure happened at the outset, I submitted a Data Protection and Freedom of Information request to the council. Like the LGO, they also turned down my request. However, they don't have the same statutory exceptions as the LGO so I submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner. Recently the Information Commissioner told them to reconsider their refusal to give me the information requested. As a result of this final warning the council relented and sent me the information.

Example 1: The LGO produced their final report into my complaint during August 2008, 6 months after they had refused to give me the information (March 2008) and 6 months before I managed to obtain it from the council (March 2009). This is information I should have been given before the LGO concluded their investigation not 6 months after.

Monday, March 02, 2009

The LGO always believe the council. Update 1.

Further to my recent post LGO always believe the Council

It has taken me longer to extract the information than anticipated. However, up to now only one council out of the hundreds that have already replied has admitted that a member of their staff has been criticised by the LGO. In this case a member of staff had merely removed a few hand written anotations on a letter and didn't even get a slap on the wrist. The LGO just told them not to do it again.

Up to now the majority of councils have all stated the same. 'On no occasion in the last five years has the Local Government Ombudsman suggested that any member of staff has lied to or misled them.'

Unfortunately a few are trying to avoid giving the information on the grounds that it would be too costly to extract the information. I have initiated a few internal reviews and up to now submitted a couple of compaints to the Information Commissioner others.

I am surprised at the number of councils unaware of their legal responsibilities when it comes to Freedom of Information requests.

Over the last five years the LGO will have received over 80,000 complaints. The majority of which are complaints against one of the 400 or so Councils in England. Yet not one of these complaints led to the LGO criticising a council member of staff for lying or misleading them during an investigation. I call that a statistical impossiblity.