Monday, July 25, 2011

The Local Government Ombudsman and their fifteen pillars of injustice

Further to my previous update on the subject, the Local Government Ombudsman and their fourteen pillars of injustice. I have now decided to add another pillar of injustice to the list.

(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. 
(15) they don't report any potentially criminal act they identify during their investigations to the Police.

Compare the LGO fifteen pillars of injustice above to the Courts/Tribunal fifteen 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.
(15) a judge would report any potentially criminal act they identify during a trial to the Police. 

Local Government Ombudsmen are nothing more than a government sponsored quango whose remit is to bury as much of the unpleasant and offensive features of Local Government as they can.

If they weren't why does the government force everyone who has a complaint about Local Government to use such a discredited and biased system of administrative justice? Why no administrative tribunal with similar powers and accountability to a proper court?

No comments:

Post a Comment