SOUTH Holland District Council has refused to pay compensation to a developer following a planning wrangle.
A Local Government Ombudsman had recommended Nestwood Homes receive more than £250,000 after maladministration by the council in the way it dealt with a development in Old Main Road, Fleet, dating back to 2006.
But councillors stuck by a decision they made in December not to pay up because to do so could result in an eight per cent hike in council tax for the district.
My comment: This can't have come at a worse time for the Local Government Ombudsmen who recently have been pursuing a campaign of positive publicity in advance of the forthcoming select committee investigation. (See my previous post for more information regarding this)
This also ruins their constant efforts to manipulate events so they can argue they have a 100% compliance rate. As does this and many other cases over the years including the well publicised Trafford case. They have also declined to support their claims with proof
Furthermore, I have first hand experience of how easy it is for the LGO to fiddle their statistics. They made recommendations to my council in 1998 following a finding of maladministration leading to injustice. However, the council did not fulfil all the recommendations yet the LGO compliance statistics suggested they had. How did they manage this smoke and mirrors illusion?
All the LGO have to so to avoid having to issue a second report, which would highlight none compliance and also damage their reputation, is to state they are satisfied with what the council has done. Hey presto, no second report and no damaged reputation even though a council may not have provided the recommended remedy.
A Comment from below the article also raises an interesting point "...what value does the ombudsman bring to the process if their findings can be ignored."
Read the full story from the source Spalding Today