On the 3rd June 2010 a Mr Stuart Hardcastle submitted a Freedom of Information request regarding the published compliance rates of the LGO.
The LGO responded on the 11th June 2010.
The statistics supplied in response to the FOI request show a significant drop in second and further reports being issued from 1997.
There are two reasons why their compliance rates could be as good as the LGO suggest,
- they are telling the truth.
- they fiddle their statistics.
I can do this because I submitted a complaint during 1997 and the LGO found in my favour in 1998.
However, the council failed to comply with the recommendations in the LGO's first report. When I brought this to the attention of the LGO during 1999, Pat Thomas, the then Ombudsman, stated she was satisfied with what they had done, (which was nothing as later evidence proves,) and terminated any further involvement without producing a second report due to none compliance.
This simple con trick is just one example of how the LGO fiddle their statistics when it comes to their compliance rates. The rules state that a second report can be issued if the LGO is not satisfied with the council's actions. All the devious LGO have to do, even if the council have done nothing, is to state they are satisfied and hey presto, no need for a second report! With no bad press about their poor compliance rates or the fact that councils often ignore them with impunity..
Footnote: The councils failure to comply with the recommendation's of the LGO forced me to submit a second complaint about their none compliance during 2002. Logic dictates that this would not have been possible if the council had complied with the recommendations of the LGO during 1999.
Many more examples to follow but an earlier post also gives an example of how they even misled a government department about their compliance rates. As if fiddling their statistics over the last 15 years wasn't enough!
It would appear that they have also misled the Law Commission regarding their true compliance rates.