Friday, April 17, 2009

Anti LGO Blog to Anti LGO Website (update)

Further to my earlier post stage 1 of my plans are now complete. I am now starting stage two which is my personal section of the new resource centre. I would like to thank Ombudsman Watchers Thomas and Ann for their help in developing this new resource centre.

Please consider adding your experience of the corrupt system of administrative justice to the resource centre. Everyone needs to know the truth about Public Services and Local Government Ombudsmen. We want the resource centre to be an antidote to the spin, manipulated statistics and dodgy surveys produced by Public Services and Local Government Ombudsmen.

The Local Government Ombudsmen wrongly suggest that there is a link between complainants who do not obtain a finding of maladministration and dissatisfied complainants. However, this is another misrepresentation of the truth. Gary Powell who started LGO Watch obtained a finding of maladministration and I have had two. Therefore, there must be something seriously wrong with Local Government Ombudsmen if complainants who have successfully achieved a finding of maladministration end up becoming the most vociferous anti ombudsmen people in the country.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The ineffective Local Government Ombudsman!

When I submitted my first complaint in June 1997 I was contacted by the Ombudsman's office to see if I would allow them to add my complaint to two others about the same problem. Two of my new neighbours were also complaining about the unadopted roads on their part of the estate. Since 1997 we have had two LGO investigations. Yet part of the roadway on the estate has, to this day, still not been adopted. During 1998 the then Ombudsman, Pat Thomas, recommended that the council adopts the roads without delay. In 2001, when the roads had still not been adopted (council ignored her recommendations), she craftily avoided the need for a second report by stating that the council were doing everything possible to adopt the road (a bare faced lie because it was patently obvious they weren’t). Two LGO investigations into the matter but many of my neighbours are still living on a road that should have been adopted over 12 years ago and still remains unadopted to this day.

Now that’s what I call ineffective!

Friday, April 10, 2009

With the LGO redress is never around but the injustice keeps going around.


Further evidence against the biased Local Government Ombudsman.

I submitted my first complaint in 1997. Unfortunately the council failed to provide the recommended remedy and the ombudsman did nothing about it. Even failing to write a second report as they should have done in such circumstances.

I submitted a second complaint during 2002. The LGO initially rejected my complaint based on a private telephone conversation with a member of the council staff.

During 2006 I managed to persuade the LGO to comeback on my 2002 complaint. The LGO wrongly rejected many of my complaints during 2008 using deliberately manipulated interpretations of the councils statutory powers and guess what, they dealt with the same person who had misled them during 2002. (Full damning story coming soon. I have been delayed because I have been busy building a new website as a permanent home for my case study.)

During late 2008 whilst supposedly providing a remedy for the earlier maladministration the council committed further and more serious acts of maladministration. As I had done in 1997 I copied letters about the councils actions to the LGO.

As usual the LGO ignored the fact that the council were trying to maladminister their way out of the problem they had previously maladministered their way into. However, this last week there was another development, the LGO has asked me if I want to submit a complaint about the council's recent actions.

So we are now in the position that the council has still not met the recommendations of the LGO's 1998 report, the current LGO has ignored this and also buried further acts of maladministration carried out during 2001 but now has the audacity to suggest I give them the chance to bury the further and more serious acts of maladministration committed by the council during 2008.


Are they barking mad?


PS: I suggest the LGO should use the logo above because it graphically represents their organisation better than words could ever do.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Did the LGO mislead the Government?

A few months ago Wilma Wright submitted a petition because Trafford Council refused to accept the York Ombudsman's recommendations.

The Government have recently responded to Wilma's petition. Included in the response is this very misleading statement.

'In all but a very few cases the authority being investigated complies with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report where maladministration is determined. Indeed, for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 there has been a 100% compliance rate. '

However, this is totally untrue and it's so easy to prove because Wilma's own case was determined during this period and Trafford did not comply and have still not complied.

The question is, did the LGO mislead the Government? If you think about it they must have because the only way the Government would know what their compliance figures were was to ask the LGO. Why are the LGO feeding false statistics to the Government? No doubt they don't want the Government to know the truth about the significant number of councils who do not comply with their recommendations.

If the LGO didn't mislead the Government, then why have they not been in touch with the Government to ask them to correct the obvious errors in their response to Wilma's petition?

PS There were other recommendations during 2006 to 2008 that were not complied with, here is another example. As far as the Ombudsman who dealt with Wilma's case is concerned there have been a significant number of councils ignoring her reports and recommendations over the last few years. Wilma's case is not the isolated incident that they would have the public believe.

Let's see if we can get to the truth behind the misleading assertion.