Sunday, April 24, 2011

The Local Government Ombudsman and their fourteen pillars of injustice

Further to my previous update on the subject, the Local Government Ombudsman and their twelve pillars of injustice. I have now added another two pillars of injustice to the list. (still more to add when I have time)

(1) They work in private,
(2) you can't appeal their findings of fact,
(3) they don't have to be qualified for the job,
(4) they can, and indeed do, delegate their job to a junior member of staff no matter how unqualified or incompetent,
(5) they don't have to show all the evidence to the complainant and they usually don't,
(6) they can and often do talk to the council without the complainant being aware any discussion took place,
(7) they settle the complaint with the council. A complainant can't refuse such a settlement,
(8) they don't have to follow previous decisions/precedents/case law,
(9) they are free to define maladministration as they see fit,
(10) they are free to determine the level of injustice you must suffer before investigating your complaint,
(11) they are free to engage in propaganda (or as Justice Lightman calls it an evangelical agenda),
(12) they probably don't meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act. Justice Lightman's view,
(13) they often accept false statements from a council officer as the truth without any validation (Their 5th pillar of injustice ensures nobody else is in a position to challenge this ludicrous pillar of injustice),
(14) they don't take action against any council officer who has lied to them.

Compare the LGO fourteen pillars of injustice above to the Courts/Tribunal fourteen pillars of justice below.

(1) Court proceedings are held in public,
(2) either side can appeal a judgement on a finding of fact,
(3) the judge is qualified,
(4) a judge can't delegate their job to a junior member of staff,
(5) all evidence is shown to both sides,
(6) a judge can't talk to one side without the other side being present,
(7) any out of court settlement is agreed between the two parties. The judge plays no part,
(8) they have to follow case law or provide a valid reason for not doing so,
(9) statutory definitions exist for all legal wrongs,
(10) a judge can't stop you taking court action even if the injustice you have suffered is slight,
(11) a judge cannot use self promoting publicity (propaganda),
(12) all court/tribunal cases have to be human rights compliant.
(13) statements are not accepted as the truth by a judge without (a) being made under oath and (b) tested by counter argument and cross examination by the other party.
(14) action can be taken against anyone who commits perjury in court. 

Whilst the LGO should be sanitisers of [to make more acceptable by removing unpleasant or offensive features from] Local Government they are in reality nothing more than a cheap scent attempting to mask the stink from the unpleasant and offensive features of Local Government.


  1. also they get the council to write a list of procedures that they have revised or have changed. Its all bull. the LGO say the same injustice wont happen again. It does as the council dont by law have to stick to any procedures. also in my case the procedures the LGO investigator said they had to note about my case were ignored while the council just wrote a list of nationally revised procedures. I could challenge most of them as having not worked as most of them were around when my case was on and didnt stop my injustice. Only a biased LGO could accept the above and are "assured that it wont happen again"

    Then bizarrely the LGO say they havent got any powers to do anything so why not tell the public this.

  2. This has been a very significant blog indeed. I’ve acquired a lot of helpful information from your article. Thank you for sharing such relevant topic with us. I really love all the great stuff you provide. Thanks again and keep it coming

    removals London