Local Government Ombudsman Watcher: York Office

The Replacement LGO: Chronology of delay

2012-01-27T19:22:00.000Z

27th January 2012: Still no replacement for Tony Redmond.

When Tony was recruited during 2001 they knew he would be retiring during 2010, however, some 15 months after he left there is still no indication of when his replacement will start. If it takes the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) so long to recruit a replacement LGO no wonder the country is in such a mess.

See below for a chronology of delay and DCLG excuses.

19th December 2011: So Where is Tony Redmond's replacement?

Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England retired on the 11th November 2010.

Historically a replacement is recruited before an existing LGO retires, however, This is the second time they have not recruited a replacement Ombudsman until well after their predecessor left.

Rumours suggest that his replacement was selected long ago but no date has been given when they will take up post.

At least they won't be able to pick up any bad habits from their predecessor.

1st July 2011: Tony Redmond's replacement UPDATE

We have now received more information from the DCLG in response to a request for an internal review of an earlier FOI request.

1. The interviews were held on 15 February 2011.
2. 25 candidates applied for the post and four were interviewed.
3. The Department does not currently hold information on the planned date for the successful candidate to take up office.
4. The final selection has not yet taken place.

However, it still doesn't explain why they took so long to start the recruitment process. Especially since they knew Tony Redmond was going to retire in November 2010 when he was recruited in 2001.

I think there is still an unknown reason for the extraordinary delay.

24th May 2011: So Where is Tony Redmond's replacement?

Tony Redmond, LGO London office and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration for England retired in November 2010.

The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) knew he was going to retire in 2010 when he was recruited in 2001. So they had plenty of time to recruit a replacement well before he retired. However, for some unknown reason they didn't.

When asked why the hadn't begun recruiting a replacement well before he retired the DCLG stated that the couldn't because of the 2010 general elections. However, the reason given can't be true because Anne Seex was recruited in 2005 and just as in 2010 there was a general election in 2005.

My wife (part time assistant) submitted a second Freedom of Information in an attempt to root out the truth.

"Dear Department for Communities and Local Government, Please provide any and all information held about the recruitment of a replacement for Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration, who retired some 6 months ago. Or in the alternative any and all information held which would explain why he is not going to be replaced."

Whatever information they now supply can't mitigate the fact that they clealry provided misleading information in their response to her first FOI request.

Something I am personally going to pursue. Looks like the DCLG , like the LGO, are another body that doesn't like telling the full story.

"Dear Department for Communities and Local Government, You have previously gone on record stating that the reason you couldn't recruit a replacement Local Government Ombudsman in 2010 was because it was during an election year. However, Anne Seex LGO was recruited in 2005 which was also during an election year.

Therefore, I would like a copy of any policy/guidance changes between 2005 and 2010 that would explain the anomaly. Or if you prefer a better reason for not recruiting a replacement Local Government Ombudsman during 2010."

21st October 2010: Advert for Tony Redmond's replacement

An outstanding opportunity exists to lead the further development of the Local Government Ombudsman service in England. 'We are looking for a person of the highest calibre with a significant track record of achievement to fill the role of Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England and Local Government Ombudsman.

The Commission comprises three Local Government Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The successful applicant will have responsibility for investigating alleged maladministration and service failure by local authorities and certain other public bodies. The Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction has also recently been expanded to adult social care self funders.

As Chair and Local Government Ombudsman you will also have a key role in overseeing and directing the Commission’s Public Value strategy. Much of this activity focuses on improving local authority service provision and developing sound complaints handling arrangements. As Chair you will also play a leading role in advising the Commission in the development and implementation of the strategic and corporate planning for the organisation.

This high profile role demands strong leadership skills and the highest standards of integrity and sound judgement. Candidates must demonstrate high intellectual capacity and an ability to assimilate complex information.'

In the final candidate pack it states 'Tony Redmond leaves office on 11 November 2010, and his successor is now sought. It is aimed to appoint a new Ombudsman by the end of March 2011.'

This is the second time they have not recruited a replacement Ombudsman until well after their predecessor left. Whilst during 2005 they recruited Anne Seex well before Pat Thomas left so she could learn the ropes this didn't happen when Jerry White left last year. Dr Jane Martin didn't start until well after he left. The same now appears to apply to Tony Redmond, his replacement not starting for nearly five months after he leaves.

It's not just the LGO that accept council lies

2012-01-06T02:17:00.000Z

It is a well known fact that the Local Government Ombudsman will accept the word of a council without validation, however, a recent expose by Sky News has proven that they are not the only watchdog to allow councils to pull the wool over their eyes.

Read the full story on my other blog.

The woolly thinking Local Government Omudsman

2011-12-22T12:53:00.001Z

Council refuses to fork out £260,000 over homes row

SOUTH Holland’s councillors have refused to pay out compensation of more than £260,000 relating to a controversial housing development or to accept a report accusing them of maladministration.

District council members unanimously disagreed with the findings of the Local Government Ombudsman, who had been investigating a three-year-old complaint into the authority’s actions with the Nestwood Homes development in Old Main Road, Fleet Hargate.

A special meeting was held on Monday to decide what action to take on the report, which recommended compensation be made to the developer for reasons including stress, strain and damage to reputation.

The long-running saga into the site started when new homes were built on a different land level to existing properties, which prompted enforcement action and a public inquiry.

He added: “It seems to me the Ombudsman was thinking somewhat woolily and was at worst biased in favour of this company and against our council unfairly in my opinion.”

Coun Bryan Alcock also raised concerns about the “strange” report.

He said: “I find some of the inflammatory way of talking within the report strange.
“I can recognise the style because it’s one I have used from time to time and that’s why I am not an Ombudsman.”

Councillors had been warned Nestwood Homes may choose to take action through the courts but Coun Francis Biggadike urged his fellow councillors not to be “afraid” if they did not accept the report.

“I believe the Ombudsman’s report was far from factual and not at all impartial,” he said.

Councillors voted in favour of receiving the report but said the council does not intend on paying any compensation.

My comment: Complainants are already aware that most reports by the Local Government Ombudsman are strange, far from factual and not at all impartial but it's interesting that councils are now supporting that view.

Read the full story from the source Spalding Guardian

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year

2011-12-19T21:54:00.006Z

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to all visitors

So where it Tony Redmond's replacement?

2011-12-19T21:39:00.001Z

Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England retired on the 11th November 2010.

Historically a replacement is recruited before an existing LGO retires, however, This is the second time they have not recruited a replacement Ombudsman until well after their predecessor left.

Rumours suggest that his replacement was selected long ago but no date has been given when they will take up post.

At least they won't be able to pick up any bad habits from their predecessor.

My earlier posts on the subject. [1] [2]

Local Government Ombudsmen and other watchdogs: The final insult

2011-12-07T16:36:00.001Z

The Local Government Ombudsman costs the taxpayer many £millions a year. Other watchdogs and ombudsmen cost considerably more.

The bodies they supposedly investigate for wrongdoing such as local authorities, government departments etc cost the taxpayers many £billions.

Whilst the Local Government Ombudsman only has the power to recommend compensation, should they find a public body guilty of wrongdoing, other watchdogs, such as the Information Commission, can actually fine them.

However, recommended compensation or fine makes no difference to my 'final insult' argument.

No matter who is responsible within a public body and no matter how serious the offence, all our pathetic watchdogs can do is use a financial deterrent against the public body not individuals within a public body. Which means that the taxpayer also picks up the tab for any public body wrongdoing.

A triple whammy for the taxpayer.

(1) they have to pay for all public bodies.
(2) they have to pay for all the public service ombudsmen and watchdogs.
(3) they have to pay the compensation or fine.

Here are a couple of examples to illustrate my point.

(1) The Information found two councils guilty of losing unencrypted laptops containing sensitive personal data and fined them a total of £150,000. (There are many other examples available.)

Both laptops were password protected but unencrypted – despite this being in breach of both councils’ policies.

It must have been someone’s responsibly to ensure all laptops were encrypted. Therefore, the ICO should have the powers to force the council to sack, or at least discipline,the individual responsible not fine taxpayers for their wrongdoing.

(2) The Local Government Ombudsman recently found a council guilty of maladministration and recommended they pay £5000 compensation to the victim. (There are many other examples available.)

No one appears to have been sacked or even disciplined because the ombudsman states 'There has been comprehensive staff training since the events in Ms B’s complaint and so the Ombudsman has not recommended any further action.'

Unfortunately this case also illustrates a fourth whammy for the taxpayer.

The final insult is

(4) they also have to pay to train the staff responsible.

So the bottom line is that only victims and taxpayers suffer as a result of public sector wrongdoing. Public bodies, staff guilty of wrongdoing and elected representatives are all winners.

No wonder elected representatives and our public bodies prefer to keep our pathetic system of administrative justice.

Further evidence that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose

2011-11-23T11:25:00.001Z

Further to my previous post 'Evidence that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose'.

Another example has now come to light involving both the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman which confirms the view that they are clearly not fit for purpose.

This example concerns a man with down's syndrome who was ignored after he was detained in hospital and then locked up before he died. The full story can be read from the source The Telegraph.

The article starts by identify the fact that there were serious failings in the care provided to Mr J by Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle City Council and the Coquet Trust.

However, Mrs Seex shoots herself in the foot when she states "The failures in Mr J's case show how public authorities can neglect a vulnerable person's wishes and basic human rights to liberty and family life.

Mrs Seex is a watchdog and this happened on her watch and the reason public authorities can neglect a persons wishes, human rights and family life in the first place is because we don't have any public sector watchdogs who are fit for purpose.

What's even worse than having watchdogs who sleep on their watch is having those who once they wake reward wrongdoing by the public authorities by recommending pathetic levels of compensation for their wrongdoing. Mr J's family have been awarded £2,000 for their distress.

Were any of the perpetrators disciplined or sacked? No, just the usual 'lessons will be learnt' and 'procedures will be put into place', which we all know mean that as soon as the watchdogs go back to sleep everything carries on as before.

Why? Because there is no downside for public sector incompetence and wrongdoing. Worse case scenario is that they may have to give the victim a couple of thousand pounds and that's taxpayer's money not their own.

One of the comments on the article asks the question, how on earth, in the 21st century, does something like this happen?The answer to that question is because we have ombudsmen and watchdogs who are not fit for purpose.

We need proactive watchdogs, ones who are always on patrol and not sleeping in their taxpayer funded kennels like the current bunch until a scandal forces them into some sort of backside covering action.

Evidence that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose

2011-11-22T16:16:00.001Z

Many people are already aware that Public Service Ombudsmen are not fit for purpose. Note: When I use the term Public Service Ombudsmen I primarily mean the Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO) and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

However, those who are trying to persuade others of this fact now have some help from an unlikely source. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) herself.

The PHSO recently stated "Overly-bureaucratic complaint handling leaves people confused and exhausted, and wastes public money."

Whilst this is indeed true it raises a few question which all our public service ombudsmen need to answer.

The PHSO was established in 1967 and the Local Government Ombudsman in 1974. After 44 years and 37 years respectively in the business one would have assumed that by now they would have whipped the public sector complaints system into some sort of shape. So my questions are....

Q1: Just what have you been doing for 44 years and 37 years respectively if it has taken you this long to realise that our administrative complaints systems are not fit for purpose?

Q2: If it didn't take you 44 years and 37 years respectively to realise our administrative complaints systems are not fit for purpose, why didn't you address the issue much earlier?

Q3: Why have you waited until the 2 longest serving LGOs retired and you are about to retire before publicly declaring what I and many others have known for years? That the system of administrative justice in this country is and never has been fit for purpose.

It's no wonder other watchdogs such as the Local Government Ombudsman and Care Quality Commission are so bad when the PHSO has taken 44 years to realises the complaints system is unfit for purpose and only publicises the fact just before she retires.

Local Government Ombudsman: Pot, kettle - what a joke!

2011-11-10T14:57:00.001Z

Ombudsman identifies common faults of school admission appeal panels

Lack of communication with parents, absence of impartiality and a failure to accurately record events have all been identified as common failures of school admission appeal panels.

In its latest report the local government ombudsman concludes that school admission appeal panels often make recurring mistakes, subjecting parents and children to unjust rulings.

Read the full story from the source Children and Young People Now.

My comment: How strange because these are exactly the same problems faced by complainant when they submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The LGO offices have an absence of impartiality (they believe the word of a council officer even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is available. Well they would do because most of them are ex local authority.) and nobody makes more mistakes and unjust ruling than the Local Government Ombudsman, well they would do because most of them are ex local authority. What a joke the LGO have become,

The LGO's Dumb and Dumber?

2011-10-26T13:20:00.001Z

Background: I have been off-line for a while due to a series of unfortunate events. Firstly my computer crashed and it took quite a while reinstall all my programs and back up files. Unfortunately this happened just a day or so before I was due to go into hospital for a long awaited operation.

I was expecting to be in hospital for two or three days but ended up being in for a week. In addition, I was in one of the wards that hadn't yet had the TV/Internet/Telephone service installed to each bed which made matters even worse.

As a result when I returned home and switched on my computer my email imbox was overflowing with mail. To make it easier for myself I decided to tag each email and group them before responding. It is an analysis of these tags that led me to write this post which I decided to misleading call 'The LGO's Dumb and Dumber'.

The analysis of my latest bunch of emails confirmed what I and many other people already knew.

1) More people are dissatisfied with the York Office than the other two LGO Offices put together.

2) Two names keep cropping up with regularity when people complain about the York Office, Mr Hobbs and Mrs Seex.

Hence the title of this post 'The LGO's Dumb and Dumber?'

I first encountered the work of this un-dynamic duo some 5 years ago when they set about trying to cover up the mistakes made by Hobbs and his staff during an earlier (pre Seex) investigation. It would appear from the many emails I receive that their MO hasn't changed after all these years.

To illustrate the point I am trying to make I am using a few of the things they got up to with my complaint. There are many more if you read all the posts on this blog.

1) Mr Hobbs accepting the word of a council solicitor without validation. Even though evidence, contrary to what the solicitor stated, was available and overwhelming.

However, when this was brought to the attention of Mrs Seex she neither castigated Mr Hobbs for accepting the word of a council solicitor without validation or the solicitor for lying to him. Neither did she put into place any procedures to stop this happening because 6 years later this is still the most common complaint against LGO staff. Which rather goes to prove that accepting the lies of a council officer, instead of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is not only accepted it's a well established practice.

2) Mr Hobbs using irrational and ludicrous reasoning to support his decisions.

If it is established that a council officer misled the LGO you can request comeback on your complaint. As a result of the council officer lying to the LGO I requested comeback on my complaint. Mr Hobbs initially refused to comeback on my complaint stating irrationally and ludicrously that I didn't meet the comeback criteria.

Whilst Mrs Seex did eventually comeback on my case, let's face it she didn't really have an option, she failed to put into place any procedures to stop this happening again because 6 years later, this is still a common complaint against LGO staff. Which rather goes to prove that the use of irrational and at times ludicrous reasoning to support their perverse decisions is not only an accepted it's a well established practice.

Within weeks of me persuading them to comeback on my case they introduced a 3 month time limit on future comeback requests making a similar request today impossible. It often takes much longer to establish that a council officer lied to the LGO let alone produce the evidence to request comeback within 3 months. Which rather goes to prove that they prefer to find ways to stop their use of irrational and at times ludicrous reasoning being challenged rather than eradicating the devious practice itself.

3) Mr Hobbs illegally initiating a complaint.

It was a well know fact at the time that, whilst the LGO could accept a complaint against a council, they were not statutory enabled to initiate a complaint themselves. However, this didn't deter Mr Hobbs from initiating a complaint against my council in my name without my agreement. The reason he did this was obvious, he didn't want to comeback on my original complaint, for that would have exposed his failings, preferring instead to illegally initiate another complaint.

When this was brought to the attention of Mrs Seex it was dismissed as a mere triviality. Which begs the question, if the LGO are willing to turn a blind eye the illegal activities of their staff what else do they conveniently overlook?

I had been suspicious for a years that the LGO had been giving me different information than that they gave the Council, however, until the Freedom of Information Act there was very little I could do to confirm my suspicions.

4 and 5 below are as a result of Freedom of Information and Data Protection requests to the council.

4) Statistical manipulation.

I was concerned at how this 'extra' illegally initiated complaint would be statistically recorded by the LGO because I was well aware that they had a habit of multi counting complaints to maximise the benefit to them. I was assured that this would not be recorded in any way beneficial to them. However, when I eventually obtained a copy of the letter they sent the council it contradicted that assurance. Which rather goes to prove that they are quite prepared to lie to complainants when it suits them.

5) Fabrication of documents.

During communications with the Council I became suspicious that a letter the LGO had 'supposedly' sent both of us had in fact never been sent to the Council. I decided to use the Freedom of Information Act to prove my theory, if the Council could produce the letter then my theory was wrong, if they couldn't then I was right, the LGO was just being deviously misleading by sending me a copy of a letter they hadn't actually sent the council.

The response to my Freedom of Information request took longer that expected but the reason soon became obvious. The Council didn't have a copy of the letter as I had suspected, however, rather than just admitting that they contacted the LGO who decided to fabricate a letter for them.

This in itself is suspicious because a Freedom of Information request is a request for information held and a valid response is that they don't have the information requested. So why go to the trouble of fabricating a letter?

There is only one logical answer to that question and that was an attempt to cover up the fact they never sent the Council the letter in the first place?

When I compared the letter the LGO produced for the Council to the one they sent to me years earlier it became obvious that they had fabricated the letter for the Council. Good job otherwise I would have been unaware of their duplicitous behaviour concerning this matter. Which rather goes to prove that they are quite prepared to fabricate letters when it suits them.

Earlier I stated that I had misleading called this post 'The LGO's Dumb and Dumber'. That's because they are far from Dumb and Dumber, it's just that when someone tries to arrive at a conclusion, that logic and evidence doesn't support, the only options available to them are

a) to use use irrational and fallacious argument to support their position. The one used by Mr Hobbs on many occasions during my complaint and if the emails I receive are anything to go by, he is still using today.

b) to overlook or ignore the issue or some available evidence. The one used by Mrs Seex on many occasions during my complaint and if the emails I receive are anything to go by, she is still using today.

The problem is that the above options make the most intelligent person look dumb.

It's a good double act though, one to initially try and put people off with perverse decisions supported by irrational arguments and the other to overlook or at least minimise any fallout created by the use of such devious tactics.

Tactics which due to their unaccountability they have been able to get away with for years. The only downside is that in using these tactics they make themselves look like Dumb and Dumber. More about the Dummies that work for them in a later post.

The Scottish Ombudsman has strongly criticised complaints systems

2011-10-05T13:43:00.005Z

The Scottish Public Service Ombudsman has wrong footed the Local Government Ombudsman by criticising complaints systems, something the Local Government has never done.

Worse still, the system he criticises is the system adopted by the Local Government Ombudsman, 'confusing, difficult to access, slow, cumbersome and overly bureaucratic'.

In addition he states: "Of all the complaints where it was fit for for the SPSO to investigate, a total of 34% were upheld either fully or partly.

"To put this another way, in over a third of cases that had already been investigated by the local service provider, through multiple, often lengthy, stages of review and appeal, that provider had got something wrong."

Compare the figures with the Local Government Ombudsman, one who goes out of their way to bury complaints for Local Authorities. Even after all their fiddling their own annual report still shows a figure of 27.1%.

Which could be put another way, in nearly a third of cases that had already been investigated by the local service provider, through multiple, often lengthy, stages of review and appeal, that provider had got something wrong.

Yet the Local Government Ombudsman still send out annual letters congratulating Local Authorities on how well they are doing. Contrast their burying heads in the sand approach to that of the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman, who has at least the balls to accept something is wrong with the system of administrative justice in Scotland, rather than adopt the Local Government Ombudsman's approach of pretending everything in the garden is rosy.

Read more about what the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman said here and here.

Another council exposes the LGO as a duplicitous toothless poodle!

2011-09-24T14:51:00.008Z

SHEFFIELD Council has been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman for its response to two complaints about housing repairs – including a case in which a tenant waited eight months for a gas service. Read the full story from the source The Star

The problem is that we have been here before, LGO criticises a council, council ignores them and carries on as before. The LGO can make recommendations but cannot force a council to follow them.

It's a bit like a judge saying to the defendant I recommend you go to jail for 3 months but have no power to put you in jail. Or I recommend you pay a fine of £250 but have no power to make you pay.

The LGOs are, and always have been, toothless poodles pretending to be watchdogs with only one option and that is to suck up to councils in an attempt to gently persuade them to do the right thing and stop all their wrongdoing. Now whilst this tactic may work with the few good councils, what about the Wirrals, Barnets, Sheffields, Traffords and others of this world.

A commentator on the original article linked to about sums it up when they say: "Every year the LGO criticises Sheffield City Council for the way it treats the people of the city and expresses concerns over the way the council is run. The council are always guilty of deception, laziness, a lack of urgency and contempt for the LGO. And every year the council are allowed to carry on just the same. They never change and it seems nobody can make them. They are above the law and act accordingly."

The bottom line is that the Local Government Ombudsman is a waste of taxpayers money for four reasons

1) they cost significantly more than they recover in compensation for the people who complain to them about injustice suffered through council wrongdoing.

2) in spite of them manipulating their statistics in an attempt to bury the truth, council wrongdoing has risen year on year.

3) in spite of them manipulating their customer satisfaction surveys in an attempt to bury the truth, the number of dissatisfied complainants has risen year on year.

4) they report too little council wrongdoing as maladministration, preferring instead to bury it with the help of the council as a settled complaint. Please note: The complainant cannot stop a council and local government ombudsman conspiring to bury their complaint this way. The average compensation is about £500.

The reason they prefer to bury complaints as settled is down to their lack of mandatory powers. If they were to report council wrongdoing for what it is, maladministration, the council is free to ignore any recommendations of compensation.

Therefore, if the LGO can get the council to agree to pay compensation this wouldn't expose the fact they can't force them to pay. However, they only thing they have to offer the council in exchange for agreeing to pay the compensation is that they won't record their wrongdoing as maladministration.

As a result most of the council wrongdoing in England is not reported it is hidden from scrutiny. Less than 1% of all complaints are reported as maladministration whilst some 25% of all complaints which consist of council wrongdoing are hidden as settled and not reported. In spite of the fact that the complainant had no say in the matter.

Unfortunately a full council only has to consider reports finding injustice through maladministration not settled cases, which leads to another and more serious problem. Settled cases aren't scrutinised properly by the council, allowing those guilty of wrongdoing, usually senior officers, to deviously cover their backsides at taxpayers expense.

If a Local Government Ombudsman's investigation is likely to reveal maladministration on the part of a senior officer all they have to do is offer to pay a few hundred pounds compensation to settle the case and hey presto the case is settled. The amount of compensation is usually less than they can spend under delegated powers and no report of injustice caused through maladministration is published. That means that the full council does not necessarily know about the incident. All that is reported to the full council in the LGO's annual review is how many cases were settled, not the full detail.

What doesn't help is that fact that many LGO and their staff are ex officers and were brought up knowing how to escape full council scrutiny by settling complaints early. Therefore, now working for the LGO they can hardly stop this devious practice because if they did they would have to admit they benefited from it when they were council officers.

Therefore the most accurate description of a Local Government Ombudsman is a duplicitous toothless poodle.

Wirral Council: Where was the Local Government Ombudsman?

2011-09-22T22:11:00.015Z

Wirral council have been in the news recently, read more here.

Mr Morton’s claims of bullying, cover-ups and maladministration have now led the independent inquiry to conclude that the authority needs a root and branch change in its culture.

The council was in the grip of a “corrosive” and “inward-looking culture where the needs and rights of residents had become submerged under its bureaucratic machinations. Read the full story here.

How could such a badly run council have such a low number of findings of maladministration against them by the LGO?

2010/11 34 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2009/10 166 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2008/09 43 complaints 1 finding of maladministration reported by LGO.

2007/08 87 complaints 1 finding of maladministration reported by LGO.

2006/07 95 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2005/06 100 complaints NO maladministration reported by LGO.

2005/2011 525 complaints against Wirral Council and only 2 findings of maladministration reported by LGO. Now I call that a statistical impossibility unless your objective is to hide the true level of council wrongdoing or like Foulkes you were asleep on the job.

If a very badly run council like Wirral can get away with only 4 out of 525 complaints being reported as maladministration over a 6 year period just how much wrongdoing is reported by the LGO against the average council in any one year? Answer Less than 1%.

However, if you think that is a ridiculously low figure, the LGO responsible for Wirral Council only found maladministration in only 0.1% of all complaints submitted in 2008. That's only 1 in 1000 complaints submitted were reported by Ann Seex as maladministration. Ten times lower than the national LGO average. And that why councils like Wirral can get away with cover-ups and maladministration for years....until of course someone else does the LGO's job and blows the lid off council cover ups and maladministration.

UPDATE 23/9/2011: The reason why the LGO are so bad?

Now I am in the fortunate position of being able to tell you how easily badly run councils can deceive the Local Government Ombudsman. During a discussion with an investigator they stated that they had 'no reason to disbelieve anything a council told them'. Followed by the breathtakingly naive statement 'why would a council lie to us'.

How an earth can a complainant get a fair and impartial investigation of their complaints with the odds stacked so firmly in favour of the council? Even though the Local Government Ombudsman manipulate their statistics to make them look better than they are, they still report less than 1% of complaints as maladministration. Maybe the fact that all Local Government Ombudsmen and most of their staff are ex council will give you a clue.

I have been trying to blow the whistle on the LGO for years but like Wirral Council, the Care Quality Commission and others, they can get away with it for years until a scandal forces the press and our elected representatives to lift the lid on these corrupt quangos an public sector bodies.

An old joke about the LGO but still valid

2011-09-16T15:50:00.008Z

Question: Why is a Doctor held in much higher esteem than a Local Government Ombudsman?

Answer: A Doctor makes an analysis of a appalling illness whereas a Local Government Ombudsman makes you ill with a appalling analysis!

BONUS JOKES

Q: What's the problem with jokes about Local Government Ombudsmen? A: Local Government Ombudsmen don't think they are funny whilst other people don't think they are jokes.

Arguing with a Local Government Ombudsman is like mud wrestling with a pig: after a while you realize that the pig actually enjoys it.

Council Chief Executive responding to a Local Government Ombudsman, 'If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you'.

I'd like to see things from a Local Government Ombudsman's point of view but I can't get my head that far up a chief executive officer's arse.

A Local Government Ombudsman is about as useful as a windscreen wiper on a goat's arse.

Judging by the old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you," makes a Local Government Ombudsman practically invulnerable.

The Local Government Ombudsman promises to keep an open mind. The only problem is that everything goes straight through.

We all spring from apes but Local Government Ombudsmen didn't spring far enough.

LGO and Council silly season is here again

2011-08-27T13:21:00.010Z

It's that time of year again in which councils receive their annual ~~spin~~ letters from the Local Government Ombudsman. Get your councils full annual letter here and find out how many cases of wrongdoing and maladministration the LGO buried for them.

Local press all around the country are printing extracts from their council's letter with the misleading headline...NO MALADMINISTRATION. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It's all down to the use of a devious tactic I like to call statistical gymnastics.

When is maladministration not maladministration? If an ombudsman finds maladministration but the council agree to pay a paltry amount of compensation it is not recorded as maladministration. However, should the council refuse to pay a paltry amount of compensation it becomes maladministration and reported as such.

This forces the council to publicise the fact that the ombudsman has found maladministration, which usually costs more than the settlement the ombudsman would have been happy with. Therefore, only a stupid council would turn down the ombudsman's offer to terminate a complaint if they pay the complainant a paltry amount of compensation. Which on average is less than £600.

A cheap and nasty pseudo system of administrative justice allows local government ombudsmen, councils and government to bury council wrongdoing and maladministration on the cheap, so it's a win, win, win situation for them.

The only losers are complainants who don't get the justice they deserve and of course the general public who are left in the dark about the true level of council wrongdoing and maladministration.

Another not fit for purpose toothless watchdog?

2011-08-11T14:40:00.000Z

Most people are already aware that the Local Government Ombudsman is a not fit for purpose toothless watchdog whose sole purpose appears to be to give false hope to complainants. Just long enough for other remedies to be no longer available to the complainant and then they bury the complaint as quick as they can. Unless of course it's a high profile one that can be used for propaganda purposes as part of their evangelical agenda.

Well it looks they are not alone...The Legal Service Ombudsman appears to be another not fit for purpose toothless watchdog.

Read more on the link particularly the comments.

My favourites

1) How happy are the 3768 people with the service?

My answer: Like the LGO I doubt they will ever allow an independent organisation to ask them all. More than likely they will pre-select a few and then ask the right questions to get the answers they want.

2) £21.4M / 3,768 complaints investigated = £5,679 per complaint (or a bargain basement £2,202 against operating costs only). The report says they have 263 employees. That's an average of 14 complaints dealt with by each of them. You couldn't make it up, could you? Did Sampson keep a straight face when he said "the organisation had had a cost-effective and efficient start, and was proving to be an effective model", as he trousered a very "cost-effective" £161K for a job worth about half that?

My answer: The LGO also keep a straight face when they talk about how cost effective and efficient they are whilst trousering vast sums of taxpayers money.

No maladministration my arse

2011-08-06T12:26:00.004Z

There was an article in an on-line local paper recently which was essentially nothing more than a rehash of press releases issued by local councils together with extracts from the annual review letter sent to councils by the Local Government Ombudsman.

At this time of the years you will find many local newspapers doing exactly the same because every year the Local Government Ombudsman sends out an annual review letter regarding councils' performance. If you are interested in your own council download their annual letter here.

If you ignore the usual padding, information which is included in every annual review sent to councils, such as what training the LGO can offer a council, or a summary of any changes to their remit, basically what you are left with is scant detail of a councils performance when it comes to complaints.

Using the "No maladministration here" article from the newspaper above as an example

"NO findings of maladministration causing injustice were found against either West Norfolk Council or Breckland Council in the Local Government Ombudsman’s latest annual review. "

This statement is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. Whilst it may be true that no reports finding maladministration leading to injustice where issued it is not true to say no maladministration was found.

Reading on you will see how this misrepresentation is made possible with a little help from their friends the LGO.

"In regard to the borough council [West Norfolk Council] .... two [complaints] were resolved through local settlements"

"In Breckland [Breckland Council] .... two [complaints] were local settlements.

So what is a local settlement and why, if you were not guilty of maladministration, would you agree to pay a complainant compensation?

This is how it works, during the investigation as soon as it becomes obvious to all concerned that maladministration leading to injustice has taken place, a local settlement is either offered by the LGO or asked for by the council. If a settlement between them is agreed, further investigation is dropped and a report finding maladministration leading to injustice is never issued.

It is important to note that the complainant cannot stop the LGO terminating their complaint as a local settlement. It is agreed between the LGO and the Council. Therefore, it can't really be classed as a settlement and neither can it be classed as local. Something I have been arguing for years. Here's is an early post on the subject, there are many more, just put local settlements in the search my blog bar (top right).

Since they were illegally introduced by the LGO some years ago, local settlements have received so such much criticism the discredited Local Government Ombudsman has finally been forced to discontinue using the misleading term.

Local settlements will in future be described as ‘Discontinued investigation: injustice remedied'.

Back to the original story. The Local Government Ombudsman is empowered to investigate maladministration leading to injustice. The article proudly boats "no maladministration here", however, if the investigations were discontinued because the injustices were remedied, logic dictates that the councils in question must have been guilty of at least two counts of maladministration each.

So why do councils mislead the public and why do the LGO appear so keen to help them?

The Local Government Ombudsman and their fifteen pillars of injustice

2011-07-25T17:56:00.005Z

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 who's 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?

Local Government Ombudsmen and Internal Complaints

2011-07-14T16:31:00.001Z

I have been asked on a number of occasions recently whether it is worth a complainant submitting an internal complaint to the Ombudsman.

Here are two, of many examples I could give, that illustrate the futility of submitting a complaint to a Local Government Ombudsman about the way in which your complaint was dealt with or for something else you think they did wrong.

I once submitted an internal complaint because an assistant ombudsman instigated a complaint in my name without my permission. Something that they had no legal right to do. However, when I brought this to the attention of the Local Government Ombudsman my complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the assistant ombudsman was only trying to be helpful.

Therefore, if the Local Government Ombudsman is happy to dismiss quite serious complaints about her staff what chance does the average complainant have when submitting a lesser complaint?

On another occasion I submitted a Freedom of Information request to my local council. The council could have quite easily stated they did not have the document but instead they contacted the Local Government Ombudsman's office who fabricated a copy of the document I had requested from the council. The council then sent me a copy of this fabricated letter which, if I hadn't been able to prove it had been fabricated, implied that they had the document I had requested all the time.

When I brought this to the attention of the Local Government Ombudsman, by way of an internal complaint, it was once again brushed aside as the office only trying to be helpful.

Considering the Local Government Ombudsman's response to very serious complaints one has to question whether it's worth submitting an internal complaint at all.

In a later post I will tell you more about why and how they often wrongly categorise internal complaints.

Prime Minister admits turning a blind eye to wrongdoing

2011-07-09T20:02:00.007Z

David Cameron talking about the Hacking Scandal: "The deeper truth is this... because party leaders were so keen to win the support of newspapers we turned a blind eye to the need to sort this issue, get on top of the bad practices, to change the way our newspapers are regulated," he said. "I want to deal with it."

However, whilst David Cameron has now been forced into action regarding the failure of the Press Complaints Commission to stop phone hacking, he and others in power are still turning a blind eye to other wrongdoing.

For example, what he said about the PCC could equally apply to other watchdog, whilst I have used the Local Government Ombudsman as an example below you can substitute any other watchdog you wish. The Care Quality Commission would be another good example.

1) What he could also have said about Local Government: "The deeper truth is this... because party leaders were so keen to win the support of local government we turned a blind eye to the need to sort this issue, get on top of the bad practices, to change the way local government is regulated."

So there you have it, a not fit for purpose Press Complaints Commission, Local Government Ombudsman (or any other watchdog you wish to name) because it helps those in power turn a blind eye to the need to sort anything out and get on top of bad practices.

Toothless poodles

2011-07-09T01:12:00.000Z

Ed Miliband described the Press Complaints Commission as a ‘toothless poodle’ today.

Funny because I have been saying that about the LGO for years. (Please note since the linked to post was made only fluffy remains, Fifi and Fido have left the building.

It obviously takes a scandal to get senior politicians to take notice.

Law Commission Review of Public Service Ombudsmen

2011-07-05T11:47:00.009Z

I am expecting the review to be published shortly but don't hold out much hope of improvement as far as complainants are concerned. When problems with the Local Government Ombudsman have been exposed in the past the Government either ignored them or gave them extra powers to legalise their actions.

Remember local settlements! The LGO introduced these without statutory authority using devious semantic gymnastics to get round the problem. What they did was call maladministration administrative fault if they wanted to locally settle a case. They did this because the law said they had to publish a report if they found maladministration. Hence the semantic gymnastics. Even Tony Redmond, the then Chair of the Commission for Local Government Administration in England admitted they were the same thing. When this was pointed out to the Government did they stop the LGO using illegal local settlements? NO they didn't, they just amended the law to make local settlements legal.

The Government also had a chance in 2005 to improve the rotten system of administrative justice in this country but cut short their investigation into the Role and Effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman after the Chair of the Select Committee, the driving force behind the investigation, retired.

In addition, the Government has had many chances to improve the system over the years and failed to do so in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is not fit for purpose. Indeed they made matters much worse in 1995 when they started to recruit ex council staff as Ombudsmen. That's when it started to go downhill and as of today it is still going in that direction.

So much so that the only way they can look at all slightly effective is to manipulate their customer satisfaction survey and their compliance statistics.

Hence my fear that nothing good will come out of this review as far as complainants are concerned.

Like all public consultations, the organisations concerned know what they want at the outset. Public consultations are just a means of giving the public the impression they were involved in the final recommendations. Just because organisations consult with the public doesn't mean they have to listen. As can be evidenced with most local authority consultation exercises. And the fact that we now have one of the worst systems of administrative justice in the world.

Furthermore, name one Watchdog or Ombudsman in England that's fit for purpose. You can't because the Government don't want effective watchdogs and ombudsmen because if they did then we would have them and they wouldn't be staffed to the gunnels from the authorities they are supposed to be investigating/monitoring.

Tony Redmonds replacement UPDATE

2011-07-01T15:29:00.001Z

Further to my previous post Where is Tony Redmond's replacement?

We have now received more information from the DCLG in response to a request for an internal review of an earlier FOI request.

1. The interviews were held on 15 February 2011.
2. 25 candidates applied for the post and four were interviewed.
3. The Department does not currently hold information on the planned date for the successful candidate to take up office.
4. The final selection has not yet taken place.

However, it still doesn't explain why they took so long to start the recruitment process. Especially since they knew Tony Redmond was going to retire in November 2010 when he was recruited in 2001.

I think there is still an unknown reason for the extraordinary delay.

LGO second reports

2011-06-21T19:15:00.003Z

The LGO are supposed to issue a second report if the authority concerned does not provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman in their initial report.

However, the LGO don't always issue a second report because the wording of the Local Government Act allows them to evade doing so. [If the Local Commissioner - is not satisfied with the action which the authority concerned have taken they can issue a second report.]

What goes on between an initial report and the second report, should an authority concerned refuse to provide the recommended remedy, is a period of negotiation in which the LGO tries to persuade the authority concerned to provide a remedy that will satisfy them even if it's not the recommended remedy.

Therefore, if a council refuse to provide the recommended remedy but offer a lesser remedy the LGO often accept the lesser remedy by simple stating that they are satisfied with the action the authority concerned has taken, and hey presto, no need for a second report even though the authority concerned failed to provide anything like the remedy recommended in the initial report.

However, there comes a time when even these devious tactics can't be used and on occasions the LGO is forced to issue a second report. Below is a list of the LGO's 2008/9 second reports.

Note the delay between issuing the initial report and issuing the second report. to the authority concerned. [The Local Government Act states, If the Local Commissioner - does not within a reasonable time receive confirmation from the authority concerned that they have taken action, as proposed, to the satisfaction of the Local Commissioner.]

Unfortunately, just as the word 'satisfied' is clearly open to misuse so are the words 'within a reasonable time'. For how long is a reasonable time for an authority to provide a remedy for an injustice they have caused.

In Tyndale's case the LGO concerned was obviously quite happy waiting 14 months before issuing a second report. In the King David Primary School example the LGO was obviously quite happy to wait a similar amount of time.

Local Government Ombudsmen don't like issuing reports at all but dread issuing second reports because it proves conclusively that they can be ignored with impunity by the authority concerned. Therefore, they will do everything in their power to resolve the problem before being forced to issue a second report.

Knowing this gives the authorities concerned a very strong bargaining position when negotiating a lesser remedy than that initially suggested by a Local Government Ombudsman and is just one of the reasons why Local Government Ombudsmen have to dance to the authority's tune.

I am sure this is what the Government wanted when they introduced toothless Local Government Ombudsmen. As far as the public are concerned they are a system of administrative justice but as far as the authorities under investigation are concerned they are just a watchdog they can either control or ignore.

Why recruit a replacement LGO at all

2011-06-15T11:31:00.002Z

The previous chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England and Local Government Ombudsman retired during November 2010. Since that time we have only had two out of the normal complement of three Local Government Ombudsmen in England.

Therefore, why should the taxpayer fork out £170,000 plus for a replacement LGO when it is now evident that they are not needed. They had little effect on council wrongdoing before November 2010 and nothing has changed since.

So why not save the taxpayer some £16million a year and get rid of them all. The ineffectual LGO have no impact on council wrongdoing just as the ineffectual Care quality Commission has had no impact on care home wrongdoing.

Currently our watchdogs are nothing more than taxpayer funded government sponsored window dressing that have now become part of the problem not part of the solution.

An upside of the LGO, don't be daft!

2011-06-04T14:50:00.013Z

One would imagine that if you are one of the lucky 1% of all complainants who manage to prise a finding of maladministration leading to injustice out of a Local Government Ombudsman you would be a happy bunny.

Not so, some of the most disatisfied of all users are those who have managed to persuade the LGO to find a council guilty of Maladministration leading to injustice.

Here is a recent example of why complainants, who successfully convince a Local Government Ombudsman to find their council guilty of maladministration leading to injustice, have every right feel the system of administrative justice has badly let them down.

East Staffordshire Borough Council were found to have provided ‘maladministration causing injustice’ and agreed to pay compensation to four complainants.

In 2006, a farmer submitted a planning application for the erection of a building to be used as a free range egg laying unit.

The application was considered under delegated powers and was refused on the grounds that the size and position of the building would have an imposing impact on the surrounding area and would be visually prominent.

The applicant appealed against the decision and permission was subsequently granted by the Planning Inspectorate.

As part of the appeal process, the council submitted a response but did not include any conditions it considered should be added if the inspector was minded to grant permission.

The applicant then imported more than 100,000 tonnes of material to the site to build up the land and produce a level area on which to build.

Dr Jane Martin, on behalf of the Local Government Ombudsman, said: “The complainants had a reasonable expectation that the council would do more to protect their position and defend the appeal, but the council had done the minimum required.

“In my view, the council then had a duty to defend its decision and respond to the Planning Inspectorate. The council did not robustly defend the appeal. It had the opportunity to suggest conditions but did not do so.”

As a result of the investigation, the authority agreed to make a payment of £500 per household to the complainants who lived in the three nearest properties — a Mrs Parker, Mr McCarthy and Mr and Mrs Noble.

A payment of £150 to a Mr and Mrs Dyer was also made to recognise their time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. [My emphasis] Read the full story from the source Burton Mail

So there you have it, initially let down by their council and then let down again by a Local Government Ombudsman. £500 compensation for each of the three families who have to put up with a problem created because of their council's maladministration for the rest of their lives.

No wonder Councils tell complainants to go to the LGO.

Now compare what the council had to pay out for maladministration with the £5,000 that the council wanted to fine people who left their bins out too long and refused to pay the £100 fine within 14 days.

UPDATE 6th June 2011: Even the council is unhappy with the LGO.

A COUNCIL has hit back after it was criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman over its handling of a planning appeal.

My comment: I can understand their anger, after all these years they must have got used to the LGO burying complaints against them, it must have been a real shock to actually receive a report finding maladministration.

Read the ful story from the source Burton Mail

UPDATE 27th June 2011: Houses of Parliament read this post today.

Twenty three complaints

2011-05-26T12:20:00.004Z

Ms Mildmay, from the Sheringham Campaign Against Major Retail Overdevelopment, questioned the effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman and said: “The report is complete rubbish, mildly predictable and not correct. The whole thing was very dubious and highly questionable.”

My comment: Join the club.

Whilst councils are allowed to gain an indirect benefit from a development (Planning gain section 106 agreements, more accurately described as a means through which a council can legalise a bung) there will always be questions over all developments.

Did a council really want the development or were they more interested in securing the contents of the section 106 agreement? Unfortunately section 106 agreements allow the richer developers, the ones that can offer the biggest section 106 contribution, to get planning permission where others often fail.

Read the full story from the source Norwich Evening News

Why some people won't go to the LGO

2011-05-24T19:26:00.002Z

You Tube Video obviously posted by someone who doesn't want to use the discredited LGO.

Who can blame them, I for one wouldn't advise anyone to use the LGO

Where is Tony Redmond's replacement?

2011-05-24T14:47:00.004Z

Tony Redmond, LGO London office and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration for England retired in November 2010.

The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) knew he was going to retire in 2010 when he was recruited in 2001. So they had plenty of time to recruit a replacement well before he retired. However, for some unknown reason they didn't.

When asked why the hadn't begun recruiting a replacement well before he retired the DCLG stated that the couldn't because of the 2010 general elections. However, the reason given can't be true because Anne Seex was recruited in 2005 and just as in 2010 there was a general election in 2005.

My wife (part time assistant) submitted a second Freedom of Information in an attempt to root out the truth.

"Dear Department for Communities and Local Government, Please provide any and all information held about the recruitment of a replacement for Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration, who retired some 6 months ago. Or in the alternative any and all information held which would explain why he is not going to be replaced."

Whatever information they now supply can't mitigate the fact that they clealry provided misleading information in their response to her first FOI request.

Something I am personally going to pursue. Looks like the DCLG , like the LGO, are another body that doesn't like telling the full story.

"Dear Department for Communities and Local Government, You have previously gone on record stating that the reason you couldn't recruit a replacement Local Government Ombudsman in 2010 was because it was during an election year. However, Anne Seex LGO was recruited in 2005 which was also during an election year.

Therefore, I would like a copy of any policy/guidance changes between 2005 and 2010 that would explain the anomaly. Or if you prefer a better reason for not recruiting a replacement Local Government Ombudsman during 2010."

LGO & CQC: Two failing watchdogs in the same pod.

2011-05-10T19:17:00.007Z

Dr Heather Wood “The CQC appears anxious not to rock the boat with any significant criticism of the NHS. My sense of the CQC is that it is firmly part of the NHS establishment.”

Trevor Nunn "The LGO appear anxious not to rock the boat with any significant criticism of Local Government. My sense of the LGO is that it is firmly part of the Local Government establishment." Based on the quote above by Dr Heather Wood.

Neither am I alone in thinking the LGO are firmly part of the Local Government establishment and, as so called watchdogs, not fit for purpose.

The jokes on the LGO

2011-05-07T19:59:00.004Z

Every year the LGO buries over 18,000 complaints about local councils. Some of these complaints are made by children. As a result the LGO have been attempting, through teachers, to spread their propaganda.

Accordingly a teacher asked her class how many of them thought the Local Government Ombudsman was fair and independent. Not really knowing what a Local Government Ombudsman was, but wanting to be liked by their teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for little Trevor. The teacher asked little Trevor why he had decided to be different. Little Trevor said, 'Because I don't think the Local Government Ombudsman is fair and independent.' The teacher asked, 'Why don't you think the Local Government Ombudsman is fair and independent?' Trevor said, 'Because I'm a Local Government Ombudsman Watcher.' The teacher asked him why he's a Local Government Ombudsman Watcher. Little Trevor answered, 'Well, my Mum's a Ombudsman Watcher and my Dad's a Ombudsman Watcher, so I'm a Ombudsman Watcher.' Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, 'If your Mum was a moron and your Dad was an idiot, what would that make you?' Little Trevor thought for a minute and then replied, 'someone who thinks the Local Government Ombudsman is fair and independent?'

The LGO: When words are not enough

2011-04-27T14:08:00.002Z

From an earlier post: Whilst the LGO should be sanitisers they are in reality nothing more than a cheap scent attempting to mask the stink from the unpleasant and offensive features of Local Government.

Sanitisers - to make more acceptable by removing unpleasant or offensive features from...Local Government.

The Local Government Ombudsman and their fourteen pillars of injustice

2011-04-24T12:12:00.006Z

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.

Public Service Ombudsman for Wales visits my blog

2011-04-14T16:50:00.003Z

I wonder if the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales, otherwise known as the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, found anything interesting on my blog?

Eric Pickles hasn't got a clue what powers the LGO has

2011-04-05T23:24:00.007Z

In an article about councils charging for using their local tip

"Communities Secretary Eric Pickles condemned the charges and warned that the result will be increased fly-tipping and high costs for clearing up the mess it causes.

‘I have grave concerns over the legality of this move, which runs contrary to the intentions of Parliament. I urge local residents in Somerset to report their councils to the District Auditor or the Local Government Ombudsman who have powers to block these charges.’"

My comment: Oh no they don't Eric, and if you, the man in charge of the DCLG, the government department which recruits Local Government Ombudsmen, doesn't know they have no powers to force a council to do anything, something is seriously wrong.

Read the full story from the source Mail On-Line

Manipulating a customer satisfaction survey in your favour

2011-04-05T17:36:00.008Z

Know who to survey

If you ask someone who is dissatisfied or unhappy your customer satisfaction score goes down the toilet. So try and ask only those who will give you a positive result.

Therefore you must segment your customers

In any customer base there will always be

Segment 1) those who will always give you a high score.

Segment 2) those who will always give you a low score.

Segment 3) those who will always tell the truth and score accurately. Normally the largest number of your customers will fall in this segment.

Segment 4) those who don't like to give low scores in surveys and always give higher marks than you deserve.

Therefore, if your organisation is expecting a high number of low scores from your customer satisfaction survey then you need to try and find out which of your customers are in segments 1 and 4 and only survey them whilst trying to exclude the others.

Unfortunately if your organisation is really bad at satisfying your customers, the Local Government Ombudsman is a good example, even segmenting, selecting and filtering the survey participants may still not be enough to prevent a really bad result.

The downside of survey participant segmenting, selecting and filtering is that you may be exposed for using such devious tactics which will, as it has done with the Local Government Ombudsman, flush the reputation of your organisation further down the toilet than it already is.

Wow! And we thought our Ombudsmen were bad

2011-04-04T23:50:00.003Z

Office of the Ombudsman a cannibal

By Ramon Tulfo
Philippine Daily Inquirer

THE Office of the Ombudsman refuses to fire one of its own, Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III, in defiance of President Noy’s order because it doesn’t want to abandon a partner in crime.

Gonzalez is being booted out for sitting on the case of former Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza who, in desperation, held hostage a bus full of tourists that resulted in a bloodbath on Aug. 23, 2010.

Mendoza, during the hostage negotiations, said Gonzalez was demanding a big sum of money from him so that his appeal for reinstatement would be decided in his favor.

The Office of the Ombudsman is a cannibal—it preys on its own kind. Its victims are government officials and employees accused of corruption.

It was a case of an extortionist being fleeced by another extortionist.

Extorting from government officials and employees facing corruption charges is common at the Office of the Ombudsman. Read the full story from the source Inquirer.net

The LGO: Are their customer satisfaction levels getting worse? I think so

2011-04-04T18:00:00.005Z

Anyone who has followed the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) for as long as I have will know that both their 1995 and 1999 customer satisfaction surveys were quantitative in nature involving 1000 complainants. However, following the extremely poor customer satisfaction levels highlighted in both the 1995 and 1999 surveys, the introduction of LGO Watch in 2003 and the 2005 select committee investigation into their role and effectiveness the LGO switched to a qualitative customer satisfaction survey involving just a handful of selected and filtered complainants. I will let readers to make up their own mind why they did this. For full details about the difference between qualitative and quantitative surveys click here.

They switched back to a quantitative survey in 2007 but were exposed for removing an even larger percentage of potential dissatisfied complaints from this survey than they had done in 1999 [1 below]. Unfortunately for them even after the removal of a significant proportion of potentially dissatisfied customers they still received an extremely poor customer satisfaction level. Essentially, if you strip away the obvious attempts at manipulating the outcome in their favour they had not improved the atrocious customer satisfaction levels highlighted in the 1995 and 1999 surveys. Although they promised to heed the results of the 1995 and 1999 customer satisfaction surveys and improve they had demonstrably failed to do so by 2007.

For their 2010 customer satisfaction survey (curiously at the same time they were again under the government spotlight) they once again decided to switch back to a qualitative survey involving just a handful of specially selected and filtered complainants. Again I will let readers to make up their own mind why they did this.

However, if you ignore the positive spin they put on the outcome you will observe that the picture is very bleak for the Local Government Ombudsman as far as customer satisfaction levels are concerned. I would even go as far as suggesting that if they were to conduct a quantitative customer satisfaction survey without specially selecting and filtering participants the level of customer satisfaction would be a lot lot worse than it was in the 90s.

You can download some of the survey results here.

[1] During the 1999 survey I was asked by the customer satisfaction survey team to take part. I agreed but also told them that I was a dissatisfied customer. I heard no more from the customer satisfaction survey team and concluded that I was just one of those filtered out by the LGO.

DCLG identify ideal place to recruit LGOs and their staff

2011-04-01T00:35:00.003Z

After months of research the Department of Communities and Local Government have found an ideal recruiting ground for Local Government Ombudsmen and their staff.

The DCLG also think that LGOs and their staff recruited via this new resource will considerably improve the skill set currently available in all LGO offices.

We should note this day for posterity, one on which we are promised better qualified Local Government Ombudsmen together with more highly qualified staff to support them :).

Extracts from more messages about the LGO received recently

2011-03-31T16:39:00.002Z

"I went to the L.G.O and they accepted my complaint but many weeks later the investigator said that it wasn't in their jurisdiction."

"I am not the slightest interested in the LGO looking at my complaint again. They have no idea how to investigate and quite honestly I don't value their opinion. In my eyes they are nothing, nobodies who twist logic and I would never recommend anyone approach them, pointless exercise. "

"I think he [LGO investigator] just wanted to put me off suing the Council."

"I got nothing off the ombudsman."

"I can see their methods/modus operandi. Give you loads of sympathy, build you up and drop you like a piece of dirt."

"I was pleased that I read your web pages before I contacted the LGO, the shock of their actions was easier to accept."

"the whole system stinks of the gentleman's club.

"I am hearing lots of complaints locally about the LGO."

"The LGO [actual name of LGO given] is a worthless excuse for justice and a total waste of space."

"I have experienced the corrupt local government ombudsman and his toady investigator."

"I am still reeling in shock at the bare-faced audacity of this organisation."

"The local government ombudsman has as much integrity as a racetrack shyster manipulating three egg cups and ball."

"The idiom about "moving goalposts" springs to mind. We have very serious misgivings."

"They [LGO] recommended utterly derisory compensation."

"I am still going through exactly the same thing that caused me to complain in the first place."

"The lgo agreed with us but did not believe the case was worth pursuing. The ombudsman's investigations was cursory and inaccurate and totally prejudiced against us and for the council."

"No wonder the local council urged us to complain to the LGO."

"The LGO report was characterised by the fact that the bulk complaints were completely ignored."

"LGO knighted for his disservices to the public, doesn't it stink.

"Had we known that the lgo was so ineffective, biased and incompetent we would not have bothered."

"Everything I said to the ombudsman required proof but everything the council said to them was taken on face value."

Calls for review of LGO recycling decision

2011-03-18T15:53:00.004Z

ANGRY Witley residents have called for a review of a local government ombudsman’s handling of a serious complaint concerning Surrey County Council.

They have also protested to their local MP culture secretary Jeremy Hunt that the decision demonstrates a ‘lack of fairness and openness’. If they fail to get a review, they have pledged to take their complaint to the European Parliament.

Members of Witley and Milford Environment Action Group(WAMEAG) asserted county planners had knowingly approved a fraudulent planning application and took their complaint to the local government ombudsman. In his decision the local government ombudsman found that the council was at fault but did not feel there were sufficient grounds to pursue the complaint.

My Comment: The LGO often find fault [1 below] but do nothing about it. That's why councils never learn from the maladministration they commit. Whilst Local Government Ombudsmen are willing to bury their wrongdoings just what have they got to fear.

Read the full story from the source getSurrey

[1] The LGO often call maladministration by other names because they don't like using the word maladministration. Hence the words above 'the council was at fault'. There is simply no difference between maladministration and the council was at fault, so why are the LGO so frightened of using the word maladministration? Answer because they don't like finding their friends and ex collogues in councils guilty of maladministration so play silly semantic games in an attempt to water down any problems for them.

Typical of the emails I receive about the LGO

2011-03-15T21:48:00.003Z

This recent email was about the York LGO Office.

Hi Trevor,

Prior to contacting the LGO I read a lot of your articles etc and thought that you must be biased or wrong somehow and that it was not possible that all that was wrote about the LGO was correct.

I am now in a position to be able to confirm that they are an awful bunch. I am so shocked about how the LGO operate, I am in total disbelief. I thought my complaint was bad, but it seems to be common place.

I feel more violated by the LGO than the rotten beggars that I complained to them about. In your experience are my feelings normal? I probably need to let go of this and just accept that I live in a truly rotten Country and that integrity and morals are lost forever, if there ever was any.

Council ‘transparency’

2011-03-09T14:27:00.008Z

A residents’ association has lodged a formal complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman over a “lack of transparency” in planning for hundreds of new homes.

The Priest Avenue Residents’ Association (PARA) says Wokingham Borough Council has ignored its fears relating to plans for 2,500 homes at land off London Road.

PARA says it would initiate a legal challenge, as a group of parish councils in the borough has done, however cannot afford to fund the costs.

Instead the group has contacted the Local Government Ombudsman to say it is unhappy with the council’s lack of transparency in the way it has adopted its housing plans.

My comment: Huge mistake because this is typically how most complaints against councils are forced down a side road, delayed and then quietly strangled by the LGO. People can't afford proper justice so they are forced to use the discredited Local Government Ombudsman. Not only are the LGO ex council so are most of their staff and will do everything in their power to derail a complaint against their friends and ex collegues. In addition if you think your council lacks transparency wait until you have had dealings with the LGO.

Read the full story from the source getwokingham.co.uk

The inconsistent Local Government Ombudsman

2011-02-26T15:30:00.006Z

In a recent report a Local Government Ombudsman found a council guilty of maladministration causing injustice even though the injustice affected a significant part of the community.

However, this is also the same reason why Local Government Ombudsmen have turned many complaints away in the past. Even though the number of residents affected were much less than in the case above.

1974 Local Government Act (amended) Part III Section 26.7c A Local Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation in respect of any action which in his opinion affects all or most of the inhabitants of the the area of the authority concerned.

The get out clause is in the Act 'which in his opinion', thus allowing different Local Government Ombudsmen to do whatever they want. That's why there will never be any consistency in the way Local Government Ombudsmen deal with similar complaints.

UPDATE: No wonder Councils are now laughing at the LGO

2011-02-23T18:14:00.005Z

Further to my previous post on the subject. 'No wonder Councils are now laughing at the LGO'.

The council in question now claim it does not have the money (the money they defrauded the taxi drivers out off) to pay them back. Read the full story from the source Echo

Whilst this is a silly excuse that no judge would accept the Local Government Ombudsman cannot force the council to do anything they don't want to do. Essentially the taxi drivers can only hope that the council, who defrauded them out of the money in the first place, will do the right thing and give them their money back.

Now you know why Councils can afford to laugh at the LGO

To fully understand the corrupt system of administrative justice operating in this country read the Local Government Ombudsman and their twelve pillars of injustice.

No wonder Councils are now laughing at the LGO

2011-02-15T19:50:00.022Z

The following case, reported by the Local Government Ombudsman, demonstrates why Councils must now be laughing at them.

"Castle Point Borough Council double charged licensed taxi drivers for Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex. In her report, issued today (15 February 2011) she says: “This complaint also raises the issue of injustice to every licensed taxi driver who has paid a CRB fee and a licence fee since 1 January 2004, who is likely to have been overcharged.”

‘Mr Hunter’ (not his real name for legal reasons) is a licensed taxi driver. He complained to the Ombudsman because he thought he had been overcharged for his licence since 2004, in particular that he had been charged twice for the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.

In June 2003 the Council decided to charge licensed taxi drivers a separate fee for the CRB check, which had previously been included in the taxi licence fee. In July 2003 the drivers were notified that they would have to pay one fee for their licence and a separate fee for the CRB check.

In December 2003 the Council’s Licensing Committee agreed a percentage increase for licence fares. But the figure on which the percentage increase was based included an amount for the CRB fee which, since July 2003, had been charged separately. And all percentage increases agreed since December 2003 have been based on this baseline figure which wrongly included a CRB fee. This means that since 1 January 2004, when the increase came into account, all licensed drivers who have paid for a CRB check and a licence have been overcharged.

The Ombudsman finds that the Council was at fault for agreeing a fare increase that included an element for a CRB check which the Council had already decided to make a separate charge for. The Council says this was an informed decision to cover the administrative costs of processing the CRB checks; but there is no evidence that this was considered by the Licensing Committee.

The Ombudsman concludes that Mr Hunter, and other taxi drivers who have paid a licence fee since 1 January 2004, have been overcharged.

She [Mrs Anne Seex] recommends that the Council:

reimburses Mr Hunter with the amount by which he has been overcharged, and

takes measures to remedy the injustice caused to other taxi drivers who have paid a licence fee and CRB fee since 1 January 2004.

Report ref no 09 012 990"

(The council can't even argue it was an oversight or unintentional because "The Council says this was an informed decision", therefore it's fraud.)

So we have a Council who defraud a number of taxi drivers for some 7 years and all they have to do is pay the money back?

Can you imagine if the courts did the same with other fraudsters, "if you are caught, which won't be very often, all you will have to do is pay the money back"!

No wonder Councils are now laughing at the LGO.

PS I have been for years!

Do the LGO meet their Public Value Vision statement?

2011-02-10T12:17:00.039Z

Their website states The Commission's Public Value Vision is:

"to provide a high quality and efficient service, accessible to all, that remedies injustice for indiviudals (sic) and maximises the value of investigations to make public services better."

Looking at these bold statements individually, there is no independent evidence to support their assertions that they

Provide a high quality service. (Their own surveys suggest 73% of users are dissatisfied. Despite the fact they fiddle the results by deviously excluding a large percentage of dissatisfied complaints.)

Provide an efficient service. (Their own stats suggests otherwise.)

Provide a service that is accessible to all. (See 2 below.)

Provide a service that remedies injustice for individuals. (See 1 below.)

Have made public services better. (Evidence suggests otherwise.)

If you exclude the self generated spin, most of the evidence available in the public domain suggests that they don't provide any of the above. Which means, like many other products and services on offer today, it's all just marketing hype propaganda. Here are a couple of examples. Contradictory statements from their own website.

(1) They can't provide a service which remedies injustice for individuals for the simple reason that they are legally restricted to recommendations only. Recommendations which can be ignored and indeed often are. "When we find that a council has done something wrong, we may recommend how it should put it right. Although we cannot make councils do what we recommend, ....."

(2) Their service is not accessible to all because they can arbitrarily refuse access to their service to anyone they choose."We do not have to investigate every complaint received, even if we have the power to do so."

Footnote:LGO pillar of injustice number 11, they are free to engage in propaganda (or as Justice Lightman calls it an evangelical agenda). Something a real system of justice, such as a court or tribunal, can't do.

The LGO hold no independent evidence that they are effective

My most popular posts to date

2011-02-03T13:32:00.008Z

The Local Government Ombudsman and their seven pillars of injustice
This post is a continuation of my previous post Can you imagine a judge helping a defendant avoid the charges or even being too incompetent...
Certified offences to the High Court
The 1974 Local Government Act Part III states Section 29 'For the purposes of an investigation under this Part of this Act a Local Commiss...
My Review of the Local Government Ombudsman
The Law Commission intend to carry out a review of all Public Service Ombudsmen including the Local Government Ombudsmen.

Full list of popular posts now added to the side bar on the right
Total posts now in excess of 650

The Local Government Ombudsman and their twelve pillars of injustice

2011-02-02T17:56:00.014Z

Further to my previous updates on the subject, the Local Government Ombudsman and their tenth pillar of injustice, the Local Government Ombudsman and their ninth pillar of injustice, the Local Government Ombudsman and their eighth pillar of injustice and the original post the Local Government Ombudsman and their seven pillars of injustice.

I have now added another two pillars of injustice to the list. (More coming soon)

(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.

Compare the LGO twelve pillars of injustice above to the Courts/Tribunal twelve 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.

Why do we have such a corrupt system of administrative justice in this country?

Because our elected representatives prefer it that way. Elected representatives are responsible for public bodies and the last thing they want, should a public body do anything wrong, is for the public bodies they control to be exposed let alone held responsible for their actions. For if that were to happen they may just get booted out come election time.

The only way to bury the wrongdoings of a public body, or at least minimise the repercussions of any wrongdoings, is to stop people using a proper system of justice in the first place. As a result our elected representatives introduced the Local Government Ombudsman, one of the most unjust systems of administrative justice ever invented. Once our elected representatives introduced a pseudo system of administrative justice all that was left for them to do was to staff it with as many ex public authority people as possible and hey presto.... a system that stuffs the citizen for the benefit of our elected representatives by burying the wrongdoings of the public bodies they control and as such are responsible for.

Why not ask your MP why we have such a corrupt system of administrative justice in this country. If they argue we haven't, explain the differences above and then ask them to justify such a corrupt and biased system of administrative justice. If they can't, vote for someone who will do something about the problem when they seek re-election.

The Local Government Ombudsman and their tenth pillar of injustice

2011-01-19T01:10:00.021Z

Further to my previous updates on the subject, the Local Government Ombudsman and their ninth pillar of injustice, the Local Government Ombudsman and their eighth pillar of injustice and the original post the Local Government Ombudsman and their seven pillars of injustice.

I now have a tenth pillar of injustice to add to the list. More to come!

The ten pillars of LGO injustice.

(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.

In a proper system of justice they first determine if a wrong has been committed. Once this has been established the degree of injustice you have suffered, as a result of the wrong, is used to determine the remedy / level of compensation. However, with the Local Government Ombudsman this is not the case. Whilst they are supposed to investigate complaints of maladministration which have caused injustice, they don't.

Just as Local Government Ombudsmen can arbitrarily define maladministration they can also arbitrarily decide the level of injustice you must have suffered before they investigate your complaint, no matter how serious the alleged maladministration [1 below]. To reduce the number of valid complaints they have to investigate they have continually raised the level of injustice you need to suffer before they even consider investigating your complaint.

What the Government intended when they set up the LGO in 1974.
An example of the level of injustice you had to suffer before they started to raise the bar.

Since the mid 90s, curiously when ex council officers started to be recruited as Local Government Ombudsmen (White 1995, Redmond, 2001, Seex 2005 and Martin 2010), the injustice you are expected to suffer before they will investigate your complaint has steadily increased.

Now Local Government Ombudsmen only investigate complaints of maladministration leading to significant injustice to the complainant. As with maladministration they are also free to arbitrarily define significant.

Footnote: If you think suffering significant injustice through council maladministration will lead to the Local Government Ombudsman finding in your favour you are wrong. They will just use another pillar of injustice to bury a finding of maladministration for their friends and ex colleagues. Here is an example of a complaint that should have been recorded as maladministration leading to injustice (and would have prior to the mid 90's) but was locally settled by a Local Government Ombudsman using their 7th pillar of injustice.

[1] A complaint was submitted to the Local Government Ombudsman about financial mistreatment of a number of elderly residents. Whilst the residents in question had suffered horrendous financial consequences as a result of Council maladministration the Local Government Ombudsman refused to investigate because the person who submitted the complainant wasn't one of the people who had suffered the injustice.

Yet all the complainant expected them to do was what the Government intended them to do when they set them up in 1974.

When Ombudsmen were introduced, Crossman, the leader of the house of commons, stated

"We intend that the outraged citizen ....shall have the right to an investigation, even where he has suffered no loss or damage in the legal sense of those terms, but is simply a good citizen who has nothing to lose and wishes to clear up a sense of outrage and indignation at what he believes to be maladministration."

However, the complainant failed to appreciate that since the mid 90s the service has been slowly corrupted by an ever increasing influx ex council officers

The Local Government Ombudsman and their ninth pillar of injustice

2011-01-17T18:00:00.002Z

Further to my previous posts on the subject the Local Government Ombudsman and their eighth pillar of injustice and the original the Local Government Ombudsman and their seven pillars of injustice.

I now have a ninth pillar of injustice to add to the list. Number 10 coming soon!

The ~~seven~~ ~~eight~~ nine pillars of LGO injustice.

(8) they don't have to follow previous decisions/precedents/case law,

(9) they are free to define maladministration as they see fit.

Whilst we have a statutory definition for most other wrongs, unlike some other countries we still have no statutory definition for maladministration. This anomaly allows Ombudsmen to arbitrarily [1] define maladministration.

[1] Based on individual discretion or judgement; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random.

Arise Sir Tony?

2011-01-05T16:24:00.004Z

I have just heard a rumour that Tony Redmond, Ex LGO and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England, has received a Knighthood in the New Year Honours for his services to Local Government.

By services to Local Government, do they mean for burying as much maladministration as he could over the last 9 years and running the most discredited system of administrative justice in the world?

I wonder if Jerry White, Ex LGO and Vice Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England, has received anything for the 15 years he buried Local Government maladministration and for helping Sir Tony turn the Commission for Local Administration into the most discredited system of administrative justice in the world.

The Local Government Ombudsman and their eighth pillar of injustice

2010-12-24T11:24:00.010Z

Further to my previous post regarding the Local Government Ombudsman and their seven pillars of injustice. Over the last few weeks I have identified another two pillars of injustice which should be added to the list. Here is the first one, the ninth will be added soon.

The ~~seven~~ eight pillars of LGO injustice.

(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.

Following previous decisions/precedents/ case law would bring certainty to the outcome of a complaint. However, the LGO don't follow this common sense pillar of justice they can ignore any previous decisions or recommendations.

If two people had similar complaints the LGO could, find for the complainant in one complaint, recommending compensation for the injustice through maladministration, whilst finding against the complainant in the second case, reporting no maladministration.

If two people had suffered similar injustice the LGO could, find for both complainant but recommend one compensation of £1000 but the other just £5.

In essence complainants can't base the possible outcomes of their complaint on previous cases, which makes the system unjustly unpredictable and unreliable. A system which is open to abuse by the LGO and their staff because their decisions can be made arbitrarily.

A real system of justice has to follow previously decided cases or provide an explanation of how the case under consideration is different from previously decided cases. Accordingly a real system of justice provides a much greater degree of certainty to all the parties involved by putting limits on the judge's freedom to deviate from the norm.

Data Protection: LGO V ICO

2010-12-12T15:44:00.013Z

Contrast the discredited LGO with the ICO when both faced with complaints about a serious breach of the Data Protection Act.

In the first case the LGO recommended the paltry sum of £300 (per complainant) as compensation for a Data Protection breach, however, because councils can, and often do as this case proves, ignore the recommendations of the Local Government Ombudsman the complainants had to take further court action against the council to secure the paltry remedy suggested by the LGO. The LGO can't fine a council and even if they could it is doubtful they would.

In the second case the ICO fined Hertfordshire County Council £100,000 for just two breaches of the DPA.

Xmas quiz

Which council will be reluctant to breach the Data Protection Act in the future, Basildon or Hertfordshire?
Which watchdog would you complain to under these circumstances?
Which watchdog looks like they have no credibility?
Which watchdog should be scrapped to save taxpayers over £15million per year?

Answers: 1. Hertfordshire, 2. The ICO, 3. The LGO, 4. The LGO

Another Public Service Ombudsman bites the dust.

2010-12-09T20:31:00.014Z

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman announces plans to retire!

"Ann Abraham has announced today that she plans to retire as Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman towards the end of 2011.

She has advised the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee, Bernard Jenkin, and the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, of her plans and asked them to set in train the process for appointing her successor.

Ann Abraham said:

‘As Ombudsman, it is a great privilege to serve both Parliament and the public by helping to put things right when public bodies have not acted properly or fairly, or have provided a poor service. My Office has a clear and busy agenda over the next twelve months, with some important work in the pipeline. We stand well equipped to deliver this while the process of appointing my successor gets underway' "

I wonder what changed Ann Abraham's mind? Last year she told the Public Administration Select Committee that she looked forward to serving many more years as PHSO.

The Department of Communities and Local Government knew Tony Redmond was going to retire in November 2010 way back in 2001, yet decided not to replace him until long after he had gone. This also happened when Jerry White retired. Yet when Pat Thomas retired in 2005 they found her replacement well in advance of her retirement. Have they decided, having experienced the problems that Mrs Seex has caused, that it is better to get rid of the old before recruiting the new?

Jerry White, LGO and Vice Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England (CLAE), Tony Redmond, LGO and Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England and now Ann Abraham Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and a member of the Commission for Local Administration in England. 3 down, only two to more discredited Public Service Ombudsmen to go, Anne Seex and Jane Martin!

Integrity4Scotland: A new campaigning organisation

2010-11-22T17:55:00.002Z

Integrity4Scotland (I4S) is a new organisation campaigning for a fit for purpose public services complaints system that delivers justice to the complainant. We have identified the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) as the critical element.

Read the full press release here. Visit the new website here.

The LGO are normally biased in favour of a Council

2010-11-22T16:03:00.009Z

In a recent newspaper article Graham Newman, a Suffolk County Council Councillor stated

“It is natural in some cases that the ombudsman will seek to redress the balance and find in favour of the individual over a very large organisation like the county council."

If a Local Government Ombudsdman has to seek to redress the balance in some cases, as Graham Newton, Suffolk County Councillor suggests, then the LGO must, in all other cases, run an administrative justice system that is biased in favour of Councils.

The anomalies of the administrative justice system known as the LGO (Number 1)

2010-11-11T16:36:00.017Z

Most people use the Local Government Ombudsman LGO) to pursue a complaint with a public authority in order to protect themselves from the significant costs and risks associated with taking legal action through the courts.

However, what many fail to realise, when deciding to use the discredited Local Government Ombudsman, is that even after the Local Government Ombudsman's involvement, they may still end up being forced into legal action against a Council to secure the remedy for the injustice they have suffered through maladministration. With the only alternative being to abandon their fight for justice.

This anomaly comes about because a Local Government Ombudsman cannot enforce their recommendations. An anomaly which more and more Councils are now exploiting because they know this is normally the point at which most complainants give up their fight for justice because of the costs involved.

If a complainant can afford the cost and risks associated with court action, a recent case has proven that they may be able to secure compensation for the injustice you have suffered through Council maladministration.However, if they can afford legal action, why bother with the discredited Local Government Ombudsman in the first place?

Which brings me to the point of this post. The Local Government Ombudsman is merely a Government ploy to provide the illusion of justice to those who can't afford the real thing. This saves the Government a significant amount of money in the legal aid that would be necessary to provide a proper system of administrative justice for all.

Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

2010-10-22T12:44:00.026Z

"Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Greg Knight and Priti Patel, presented a Bill to extend the powers of the Local Government Ombudsman to provide redress against local authorities which unreasonably ban events on the grounds of health and safety.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2011, and to be printed (Bill 86)."

About the same time Tony Redmond's replacement starts. See the previous post.

One of many new changes regarding the LGO expected over the next few months. New Chair (Commission for Local Administration), new LGO, new powers..........new understanding of the risks, Law Commission Review of Public Service Ombudsmen filtering through?

Is March 2011 when they start to clean up the discredited LGO? Or is this another smoke and mirrors exercise by the Department of Communities and Local Government to give people the impression that things will change for the better when in reality they are going to stay the same. Or heaven forbid, change for the worse?

An effective system of administrative justice costs money, continuing to sweep the problems with Local Government under the carpet, by throwing a few million pounds at an ineffective system of administrative justice (the LGO), is a much cheaper alternative for Eric Pickles and the DCLG.

What a unique position Eric Pickles is in, as Secretary of State for Local Government, does he continue to protect Local Government by retaining an ineffective system of administrative justice or does he improve the system of administrative justice and expose the problems within Local Government?

We will get the answer to that question next March when the new Chair of the Commission for Local Administration and LGO is recruited by the same department responsible for Local Government. LGO independent of Local Government?

Advert for Tony Redmond's replacement

2010-10-21T09:59:00.016Z

An outstanding opportunity exists to lead the further development of the Local Government Ombudsman service in England. 'We are looking for a person of the highest calibre with a significant track record of achievement to fill the role of Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England and Local Government Ombudsman.

In the final candidate pack it states 'Tony Redmond leaves office on 11 November 2010, and his successor is now sought. It is aimed to appoint a new Ombudsman by the end of March 2011.' This is the second time they have not recruited a replacement Ombudsman until well after their predecessor left. Whilst during 2005 they recruited Anne Seex well before Pat Thomas left so she could learn the ropes this didn't happen when Jerry White left last year. Dr Jane Martin didn't start until well after he left. The same now appears to apply to Tony Redmond, his replacement not starting for nearly five months after he leaves.

The Local Government Ombudsmen: Bailing out?

2010-10-09T19:09:00.034Z

Since the summer of 2005 three Local Government Ombudsmen have bailed out, Pat Thomas 2005, Jerry White 2009 and Tony Redmond 2010. In addition Peter MacMahon the Deputy Ombudsman based in London also went in April 2010. Plus of course 10% of the Commission's total staff.

However, what is even more interesting is that Jerry White (LGO Coventry Office) was also Vice Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England (CLAE) and Tony Redmond (LGO London) is Chair of the CLAE yet both will have bailed out within months of each other. What do they know we and the other LGOs don't?

This means, God help all complainants, that the most experienced Local Government Ombudsman is going to be Anne Seex. For complainants who haven't any experience of Anne Seex, she is the LGO who currently reports the least maladministration yet has the most councils ignoring her recommendations. In addition she probably has the largest number of complainants dissatisfied with her office than any other Ombudsman in the world.

Thomas served 20 years, White 14 and Redmond 9 so it looks like the length of time they can stomach stuffing complainants has been reducing significantly. Particularly from 2003/4 when their antics started to be exposed by LGO Watch and additionally from 2006 by Public Service Ombudsman Watchers.

Records prove that every new Ombudsman has identified less and less maladministration. Anne Seex (2005) reports less maladministration than Redmond (2001) who both reported less maladministration than White (1995). This theory can be put to the test when Jane Martin, the newbie, has served a complete reporting year. If the theory is correct she will report even less maladministration than Anne Seex, which is going to be nigh on impossible task for Jane Martin to do because Anne Seex reports way less than 1% of submitted complaints as maladministration. During a period in 2008 it fell to an all time record low of 0.1%.

The number of complainants LGOs stuff also appears inversely proportional to the length of time they can stomach doing their job. A theory which can be put to the test when Anne Seex decides to bail out.

My conclusion is that Jerry White and Tony Redmond were smart enough to bail out before the CLAE/LGO crashes and burns leaving the inexperienced Mmes Seex and Martin and Tony Redmond's replacement to take the fall.

The Commission for Local Administration in England is not fit for purpose!

2010-10-06T17:07:00.016Z

FOI identifies that the Commission for Local Administration in England (CLAE) better known as the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) is not fit for purpose!

'FOI Act shines a torch on public services, says Information Commissioner.' “Freedom of Information has a key role to play in helping to deliver greater transparency and accountability. These are key priorities in public policy”, says Information Commissioner Christopher Graham in a message to mark International Right to Know Day".

From a number of FOI requests to Commission for Local Administration in England (The Local Government Ombudsmen) over the last couple of years one can see that their faults are not just limited to their inability to carry out fair, just and above board investigations.

I have already commented on what's wrong with the culture of the organisation and what's wrong with the system they operate so with this post I want to concentrates on what the FOI Act 'torch' has illuminated as far as corporate faults are concerned.

These are some of the failures that FOI requests have confirmed the CLAE/LGO are guilty of

Failure to keep adequate records
Failure to maintain adequate audit trails
Failure to scrutinise expense claims
Failure to scrutinise proposals
Failure to follow their code of conduct
Failure to provide information
Failure to discipline staff for mistakes or wrongdoing
Failure to protect personal data
Failure to meet statutory deadlines

FOI has also exposed the CLAE/LGO for

Fabricating records from memory years after the event
Playing silly semantic games to delay/avoid requests for copies of documents
Making up policy on the fly

As far as I am concerned if they can't keep their own house in order what chance have they of keeping other public authorities in order? They are not exactly setting an example of how to run public organisation as they should be be doing.

The system they operate is not fit for purpose,
the culture they have cultivated is not fit for purpose
and their corporate management is not fit for purpose.

Any one would have brought a private company to it's knees. Luckily for the CLAE/LGO it's business as usual because they are totally unaccountable and funded by the taxpayer. How fortunate for them.

My Review of the Local Government Ombudsman

2010-09-20T10:07:00.010Z

The Law Commission intend to carry out a review of all Public Service Ombudsmen including the Local Government Ombudsmen. As a result I thought I would review what I had learnt about the LGO over the last few years.

Over the last few years these are some of the things they have been caught out doing

lying to complainants
lying to government departments.
fabricating documents for themselves.
fabricating documents for councils.
fabricating minutes of meetings.
failing to keep records.
destroying records.
making up policy on the fly.
manipulating statistics.
breaking the law.
misuse of FOI exemptions.
wrongly marking documents as confidential.
calling upon ex colleagues to sign fabricated documents.
manipulating evidence.
failing to keep adequate minutes.

I will adding to the list as I recall other things I have seen them do over the last few years.

Add the above, how they operate (the culture) to their seven principles of injustice, what they operate (the system), together with who they are, all ex council staff and you have a recipe for potentially the most corrupt system of administrative justice in the world.

The Coalition Government are on record as saying they want to give Local Government Ombudsmen real teeth. I would prefer them to force the Local Government Ombudsmen to offer real justice first, followed by real independence and only then some real teeth. For what is the point of giving those in charge of an ineffective, biased, incompetent and corrupt system of administrative justice the teeth to do even more damage?

The power of blogs

2010-09-15T13:07:00.008Z

- On the 14^th September 2010 I blogged about a number of roads on my estate still showing as unadopted in the council's official adopted road gazetteer. (Available on-line). This was contrary to what the LGO York Office had told me in the past.

- On the 14^th the LGO visited my blog. (I think they are worried about the Law Commission review because they have been visiting my blog and the Ombudsman Watchers website regularly since the review was announced)

- Today, Wednesday the 15^th the council amended their gazetteer to match the statements made by LGO staff some two years ago. Talk about you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours!

Whilst I am amused at their devious attempt at arse covering, what they fail to appreciate is that other evidence is still available that proves they lied to me in 2008 about the then status of the roads.

Why do the staff at the York LGO office have to lie?

2010-09-14T13:38:00.014Z

During and following the investigation into my second complaint 2002/8 the LGO stated that all the roads on the estate, save for a very small stretch in the vicinity of my property, were adopted.

However, the following is an extract from the Council's on-line road adoption gazetteer taken on the 13th September 2010. Which clearly shows that the opposite is still true. [A line drawn down the centre of the road on the plan marks their adopted roads.] Those without the coloured line down the middle are unadopted. 4 roads that, at a rough guess, add up to about a quarter of a mile of road and serve some 20 houses..

So the $64,000 question is, was the Ombudsman's report based on a false premiss? The answer is clearly yes, and it wasn't the only false premiss her report was based on and those false premisses still exist to this day.

So the only sensible response to my post title: Why do the staff at the York LGO office have to lie? is, because it's the only way they can support their perverse and irrational findings.

This is an aerial photo taken in the late 90s about the time the LGO investigated my first complaint.

Note the state of the roads when compared to the plan above. Both this photo and the adopted road plan above were obtained from the Council's own website and other than being cropped and resized for my blog have not been doctored in any way.

Public service ombudsmen set for shake up. Update 1

2010-09-03T01:09:00.035Z

I have just read all the Law Commission documentation regarding their consultation (refer to my earlier post for more details) on the reform of Public Service Ombudsmen only to find it's just like all the other pseudo consultations that many government departments and local authorities now conduct so they can tick the, we have consulted others about these proposals box, thus allowing them to say they have met the necessary rules prior to implementing their plans.

However, like all the other pseudo consultations carried out by public authorities and quangos it is obvious that they have already made up their mind and the so called consultation is nothing more than the usual public sector charade.

I will be submitting a response but don't hold out any hopes of influencing what I consider is a predetermined outcome. The last so called consultation and subsequent changes were only brought about to protect Public Service Ombudsmen not the citizen.

Example 1: Anyone remember the LGO's unlawful use of local settlements? A public sector pseudo consultation followed by a review and hey presto, rather than castigating the LGO for wrongly using local settlements without statutory authority, they just gave the LGO the statutory authority to carry on doing what they had been doing illegally for years.

Example 2: Anyone remember the cock up the LGO (Coventry Office) made of the Balchins case? The one that led to a number of judicial reviews against the Parliamentary Ombudsman until she could persuade the LGO to jointly get themselves out of their self created difficulties? A public sector pseudo consultation followed by a review and hey presto, rather than castigating the LGO for failing to validate the word of a Council Chief Executive Officer (something they still fail to do today) they just gave the LGO and the PHSO the statutory authority to work together. Now they can simply bury their cock ups rather than having them exposed to public scrutiny.

It is also interesting to note that the Balchins would have had no chance under the latest proposed regime. They were essentially stuffed by two Public Service Ombudsmen and only saved by the court. Now they want to force everyone who would prefer to go to court for real justice, to use the discredited Public Service Ombudsmen.

So the Public Sector and their lap dog Quangos think that by reducing the rights of this country's citizens (including their chances of obtaining proper justice), whilst strengthening what is after all nothing more than a modern version of a court of star chamber, is the way forward, God help us all, for we are on the road to anarchy.

The Law Commission of all people should realise that just as the star chambers became a hated symbol of oppression by the citizen their new system of administrative justice is destined to follow suit.

In fact many citizens, including myself, already think the current system of administrate justice is already perverted, so making it worse, by forcing more citizens to use the discredited Local Government Ombudsman will only hasten their downfall and those who helped keep them in power, such as the Law Commission and possibly the Government.

I find it ironic that whilst preparations are under way to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta (2015), the signing of which confirmed citizen's rights under common law, the Law Commission and the Government of this country are currently trying to destroy one of the fundamental rights that the Magna Carta gave every citizen of this country. The right to a proper system of Justice.

Look at clause (40) of the Magna Carta: "To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice." Well it looks like the Law Commission and this Government are hell bent on denying you your rights to justice whenever a public authority is involved. Please refer to my earlier post regarding the Local Government Ombudsmen and their 7 pillars of injustice and ask yourself is that the kind of justice the Magna Carta promised us and the kind of justice we deserve?

And we all thought this new Government was going to improve the system of administrative justice by getting rid of all these unfair, unjust and discredited quangos, how wrong we were!

Public service ombudsmen set for shake up

2010-09-02T11:19:00.007Z

The Law Commission are reviewing all Public Service Ombudsmen

Press release Summary Full Consultation Paper

A newpaper article about it is reproduced below. My comments will follow at a later date but it's not the good news the government or some people would lead you to believe. Essentially they are going to force you to use the Ombudsman and their seven principles of injustice instead of having the option of using the courts and their seven principles of justice. Although they will give the Ombudsmen the right to refer a point of law to the courts this is not the same as you having direct access to a just and fair system of redress.

"Plans to reform "outdated and inconsistent" public service ombudsmen will make it easier to complain about poor services, the Law Commission said today.

The shake-up aims to bring consistency to the way the main public services ombudsmen do business and make it easier for the public to seek redress.

It will also help keep cases out of court, the Law Commission, which reviews and recommends reform of the law in England and Wales, said.

Frances Patterson QC, the Law Commissioner leading on the project, said: "The public services ombudsmen have a vital role to play in providing remedies for administrative injustice suffered by individuals.

"By improving access to these ombudsmen, we can reduce the burden that falls on the citizen, public bodies and the courts, and realise savings for citizens and Government."

The commission's proposals include a strengthening of the role of Parliament, a general presumption in favour of a public services ombudsman being able to open a complaint, and a stay and transfer power allowing matters to be transferred from the courts to the ombudsmen.

It also recommended dispensing with the requirements that a complaint must be in writing and that complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman must go through an MP.

Its consultation, which closes on December 3, focuses on the work of the parliamentary commissioner, the local government ombudsman, health service commissioners, the independent housing ombudsman and the public services ombudsmen for Wales."

The Local Government Ombudsman and their seven pillars of injustice

2010-08-28T13:48:00.068Z

Now updated: Once you have read this post please read the twelve pillars of injustice!

This post is a continuation of my previous post

Can you imagine a judge helping a defendant avoid the charges or even being too incompetent to understand the issues? It could happen but very rarely does because of seven key elements.

The seven pillars of justice.

(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.

Therefore, if a court was run in the way an LGO's office is run it would be exposed very quickly as a ludicrously unfair, unjust and corrupt system of administrative justice.

Luckily for Councils the LGO use their own unjust and perverse system

The seven pillars of LGO injustice.

(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, (current examples 1 2 3 older example 4)
(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 [See A below],
(6) they can and often do talk to the council without the complainant being aware any discussion took place [See B below],
(7) they settle the complaint with the council. A complainant can't refuse such a settlement [See C below].

Making it much easier for them to bury their devious and underhand tactics or incompetence. Together with most of the maladministration their friends and ex colleagues in local government are guilty of.

In addition, as far as the culture of the organisation is concerned, their staff have been known to lie to complainants, fabricate documents, and illegally initiate complaints with apparent impunity.

As a result they have the means the motive and the power, should they wish to use it (and they often do as their own statistics prove), to help their ex colleagues in local government out of any complaint of maladministration leading to injustice they want.

Essentially they work in a similar fashion to the old court of star chamber but whilst that was set up to protect the Monarchy the modern day LGO were set up to protect local government.

For more about Court's of Star Chamber please read my earlier post.

[A] We now have such an unjust system of administrative justice that complaints have to rely on the Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to obtain documents and evidence on which the LGO base their decisions on, one example here.

[B] This has been proven time and time again. The LGO often ring up the council, without the knowledge of the complainant, and agree not to investigate the complaints based on the one sided and unverified assertions of the council. This happened in the Bachin's case some 20 years ago, mine some 8 years ago and is still happening today.

[C] Local settlements are nothing more than a con trick, a devious attempt to deceive the public, because they are not agreed locally and they don't settle a complaint. All they are is an agreement between the Local Government Ombudsman and a Council to stop investigating the complaint should the Council agree to apologise or pay the complainant a paltry sum of money. Basically they allow a Council to buy off a proper and full investigation for an average payment of £534.

The LGO don't usually to tell a complainant that, following their imposition of a local settlement, a complainant is still free to seek legal redress against the Council for any legal wrongdoing. All the LGO determine or locally settle is simple (none illegal [See an explanation of maladministration below]) maladministration and cannot determine any legal issues, Thus all complainants, who have had their complaint locally settled by the LGO, should seek legal advice to see if the Council also broke any laws or statutory obligations and if they did ask their solicitor to take legal action against the Council. All least they dispense proper justice.

Maladministration: The term maladministration can be deceptive because the term can be applied to everything a public authority does wrong, however, the LGO cannot determine any legal issues, only a court can do that. Thus Local Government Ombudsmen can't determine all maladministration, even if they would like you to believe the can.

Therefore, it is paramount that complainants differentiate between legal maladministration and illegal maladministration. Whilst all illegal acts by a public authority are maladministration, not all acts of maladministration are illegal.

LGO: Devious and underhand tactics or just plain incompetence?

2010-08-28T03:25:00.056Z

Like to know some of the underhand and devious tactics Local Government Ombudsmen use to help their ex colleagues and friends in Local Authorities escape the consequences of maladministration. Here are three I have personally experienced.

The first was used by Mrs Pat Thomas, the Local Government Ombudsman who, at the time of my first complaint (1997), was in charge of the York office. They just ignored one of my complaints altogether, the second of three which was about the Council bodging the road to extracted themselves from their self created difficulties.

A devious little tactic that's often effective, as many complainants will testify.

[Rather than ignoring a complaint altogether, a more common and subtle variation is for the LGO to rewrite or interpret the complaint in a way which makes it easier for a council to defend.]

However, in my case her efforts backfired spectacularly, even though she thought she had provided them with an escape route, bodge the road, they couldn't do so because they didn't have the legal authority. The Council were in a catch 22 situation (a logical paradox), which they and Pat Thomas had clearly failed to appreciate at the time.

Although as highway authority they could technically bodge a highway, the road in question, at the material time, was not a highway. It would only become a highway when a Stage 2 certificate of completion had been issued. And the written condition stated that this would only happen when the road had been completed to the planned and bonded standards. In essence they couldn't use Pat Thomas' escape route until the road was completed to standard, and if it was, there would be no need to bodge the road.

That's why they didn't attempt to do so for some 9 years. Until of course the York office now under the control of Anne Seex, wrongly found in 2008 that the Council, as highway authority, did have the legal right to bodge a road, (which at the material time of my complaint was not a highway), in order to turn it into a highway.

Essentially by putting the cart before the horse, in order to overcome the catch 22 situation, Mrs Seex' office had found a devious way for the Council to extricate themselves from their self created difficulties. However, in doing so, they just provided further evidence of the lengths they will go to in order to extricate a council from their self created difficulties. Which was one of my objectives in forcing them to investigate my second complaint.

[Other variations on this destroy the basis of the complaint theme include, written policy being interpreted as a mere guidance note, facts and law in favour of the complainant ignored altogether or dismissed as irrelevant, irrelevant facts or law in favour of the council introduced as relevant and the introduction of delay until the Council have had the time to move the goal posts. (This devious delay tactic was also used with my second complaint, the LGO refusing to investigate my 2002 for 4 years until the council had managed to move the goal posts.)]

Three simple examples of how a Local Government Ombudsman office will do their level best to extricate local authorities (and themselves) from the consequences of maladministration. The LGO's only defence would be to argue that the staff in the York office are not devious and underhand they are merely incompetent. And having had dealings with a number of them in the York office, I certainly think there is more than a little merit in that defence. :)

Although based on personal experience, it is my humble opinion that all three can, in different degrees and at various times, be used to describe the York Office. Now if you think that's bad there is much worse to come, see my next post.

Spending Challenge: Another update on getting rid of the LGO

2010-08-22T20:02:00.014Z

Further to my earlier update regarding the Government's spending challenge and my original post on the subject I can report that the site is now live once again allowing the public to rate suggestions.

The following are a few examples regarding the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). Please rate them now, the more people who vote the more chance we have of the Government taking a suggestion seriously. Please note, I know of a couple that appear to have been merged some that have been edited and at least one that has not been published, I hope they don't tinker with this website as they did with their now discredited petition website.

Unfortunately it already looks like they are up to their old tricks. Having been off-line for so long they are now giving people only a few days, until the end of August, in which to rate/vote for an idea. In addition the last couple of weeks in August are traditionally the most popular weeks to go on holiday or prepare for the new school term. Plus we have the Bank Holiday Weekend! Is anyone else suspicious of the timing? It looks like they don't really want people rating suggestions.

Local Government Ombudsman office is a sham and irrational waste of very limited funds

The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) office is a very costly financial burden which we cannot afford or justify the existence of. After more than ten years of dealing with the LGO office , I have reached the conclusion that it is everything that it is not supposed to be ( ie ineffectual, unaccountable, unjust, unhelpful, secretive, out-dated and biased against complainants).....more....

Close down the LGO

The Government could close down the LGO, give every single complainant, not just the lucky 23.6%, £1000 and still save the taxpayer over £7.1 million pounds.....more....

Revolutionise or preferably abolish the LGO

Revolutionise - or preferably abolish - the LGO, Local Government Ombudsman. It is currently a waste of money, time and effort....more....

Get rid of the LGO

Get rid of the Local Gov Ombudsman. They are simply Local Gov Defence Counsel....more....

Get rid of the LGO (2)

Get rid of the Local Government Ombudsman. It cost a fortune. Does very little (as records prove) for complainants as it comprises of ex high ranking Council staff....more....

Get rid of the Local Government Ombudsman

Get rid of the Local Government Ombudsman. It is a toothless tiger and costs far more to run than it gets back for electors. They are poor at investigation....more....

Abolish the Local Government Ombudsman

Abolish the Local Government Ombudsman (costing over 16m pa) and replace with an organisation which is truly impartial, not full of ex local council employees with a strong bias to bury council maladministration.....more....
Scrap the discredited Local Government Ombudsman

Scrap the discredited Local Government Ombudsman and replace them with an independent tribunal. The Government is wasting vast sums of money on a system of administrative justice that does not work....more.....

The Office of the Local Government Ombudsman should be closed

The Offiice of the Local Government Ombudsman should be closed as the number of complaints that are actually investigated and brought to a satisfactory conclusion is so few that the operation is not worth the money to run it....more....

Abolish or reform the ombudsmen systems

They were set up, with the best intentions of politicians, by civil servants and local government bureaucrats. They set them up to be powerless, and, staffed and manned, on the whole by Insiders.....more....

Local Government Ombudsman

The York Local Government Ombudsman is like a holiday home for civil servants. The live in total luxury along with their own gardens and tennis court.....more....

Local Government Ombudsman (2)

The local government ombudsman service costs around £20m per year but in the main its retired LG officers.......more...

What's good for the Audit Commission is good for the Commission for Local Administration in England. Get rid of them now!

2010-08-13T19:29:00.003Z

Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles: 'The corporate centre of the Audit Commission has lost its way. Rather than being a watchdog that champions taxpayers' interests, it has become the creature of the Whitehall state.'

Whilst, for the present, appearing to ignore the fact that the Commission for Local Administration in England (The Local Government Ombudsmen) is in exactly the same position regarding local taxpayer's interests.

They lost their way in 1995 when they started to recruit Ombudsmen and staff from Local Government. So much so that they have become a creature of Local Government and no longer act as an effective watchdog that champions local taxpayer's interests.

More information about Local? Settlements

2010-08-12T14:05:00.007Z

In a recent FOI request to Torbay Council I asked

"In your recent Local Government annual review it states that the Local Government Ombudsman locally settled 4 complaints with Torbay Council.

As you are aware a local settlement is agreed between the Local Government Ombudsman's office and the Council. The complainant cannot refuse any settlement agreed between the two said public authorities.

In all 4 cases I would like any and all information you hold about the negotiations behind the settlements of these cases together with the job title of the LGO staff and Council staff involved in the negotiations."

In their response they state

"Torbay Council did not negotiate with the Local Government Ombudsman with regards to the settlements on these cases. All settlements suggested by the LGO were accepted by the Council." [my emphasis]

So the question remains. If the LGO set the level of compensation (in this case from an office in Coventry), the council (in this case Torbay in Devon) agree, how the hell does the LGO get away with calling it a local settlement? Especially since the complainant cannot refuse the settlement.

Has another document fabricated by the LGO come to light?

2010-07-27T20:09:00.013Z

A few years ago I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Council for a copy of a letter they should have received from the Local Government Ombudsman.

I had already been sent a copy of the letter the LGO had purportedly sent to the council but wanted to prove if the council had in fact been sent a letter at all.

Now all the council had to say in response to my FOI request was that they didn't have the letter I requested. However, they didn't, they went out of their way to contact the LGO's office, who at the Council's request, fabricated another letter so the Council could give me the impression they had actually received the original. When I received the information and compared the two letters I was gob-smacked.

Not only was the content of the two letters different the original letter I received was printed on their old letter head and signed by Pat Thomas, the then LGO whilst the Council's copy sent in response to my FOI request was printed on the LGO's new letter head and signed by Anne Seex, an LGO who wasn't even in post when the letter was supposedly written and sent to them.

Naturally I complained but as usual with the Local Government Ombudsman's office they don't appear to see anything wrong with fabricating documents to help a Council....or themselves as this later evidence would suggest....whilst recently reading the LGO's responses to various FOI requests on the What Do They Know website I came across another document apparently fabricated by the LGO.

This time an official CLAE document signed by Pat Thomas 5 years after she retired as LGO and Vice Chair of the Commission for Local Administration (CLAE). Is the signature genuine? If it is why is Pat Thomas signing CLAE documents 5 years after she retired and does she indeed have the authority to do so? Or are the CLAE just trying to clean up the audit trail regarding Redmond's trip to Australia because of an embarrassing FOI request?

Authoritarians have an extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of the man who can fabricate it (Hannah Arendt: Origins of Totalitarianism). And the LGO certainly have the power!

Why don't the LGO and their staff fully understand the law?

2010-07-27T18:02:00.034Z

LGO legal assistants don't appear to fully understand the law, more specifically in this case Section 32(2) of the 1974 Local Government Act. Therefore, is it any wonder that Ms Pook and Nigel Karney have also got it wrong in the past. In addition can complainants have any faith in their complaints being handled correctly if the LGO and their staff don't even understand the Statute that governs them?

The following is an extract from a response to a freedom of information request made via the What Do They Know website.

Section 32(2) Local Government Act 1974:

As Ms Pook has explained, everything we do is governed by the Local Government Act 1974.

That Act contains a statutory prohibition on the disclosure of information (s32(2) LGA 1974). This statutory bar maintains that the Local Government Ombudsmen shall not disclose information except in the furtherance of an investigation (or for a number of other limited reasons which do not apply to your request).

Accordingly, we are unable to release information outside the context of an investigation: s44 FOIA 2000 applies and, in respect of information the disclosure of which would breach s32(2) LGA 1974 an ‘absolute’ exemption bites against the right to be given information under FOIA 2000.

In your circumstances you therefore have no rights to the information under the FOIA 2000.

Whilst I appreciate that you have only requested final letters setting out the findings of local settlements (and not the entire contents of complaint files) s32(2) LGA 1974 makes no such distinction.

For these reasons I can see no basis on which to question Ms Pook’s handling of your request.

That concludes the Commission’s handling of this matter. If you consider that I have not dealt with your request properly you can raise the matter with the Information Commissioner (www.ico.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely, Mark Lant, Legal Assistant

However, Section 32(2) states no such thing. This is what the act actually states.

32 (2) Information obtained [my emphasis] by a Local Commissioner, or any officer of either Commission, in the course of or for the purposes of an investigation under this Part of this Act shall not be disclosed [my emphasis] except—

(a) for the purposes of the investigation and of any report to be made under section 30 or section 31 above; or

(b) for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1939 alleged to have been committed in respect of information obtained, by virtue of this Part of this Act, by a Local Commissioner or by an officer of either Commission or for an offence of perjury alleged to have been committed in the course of an investigation under this Part of this Act or for the purposes of an inquiry with a view to the taking of such proceedings, or

(c)for the purpose of any proceedings under section 29(9) above,

and a Local Commissioner and the officers of his Commission shall not be called upon to give evidence in any proceedings (other than proceedings within paragraph (b) or (c) above) of matters coming to his or their knowledge in the course of an investigation under this Part of this Act.

Therefore there is NO statutory bar on information as such being disclosed, only information obtained by them from others.

In a previous decision notice the information Commissioner states

"It is the Commissioner’s [Information Commissioner] opinion that section 32(2) LGA does not act as a blanket exemption to all of the information it holds in its complaint file. [my emphasis] Having said this, the Commissioner recognises that information which is not exempt constitutes only a fraction of the information held by the public authority [LGO]."

In addition the information Commissioner goes on to clearly explains the true purpose of Section 32(2).

The Commissioner considers that the purpose of section 32(2) LGA was to ensure that information pertaining to an investigation carried out by the public authority is kept confidential. Were information obtained in the course of or for the purposes of an investigation released, it could serve to undermine the public authority’s ability to conduct further investigations and that this would not be in the public interest. If the various parties involved in the investigation of a complaint thought that information they supply to the public authority in the course of, or for the purposes of, an investigation could be disclosed then they may be less willing to co-operate with any investigation. [My Emphasis]

In this case the LGO did not obtain all of the information requested they created most of it. Unless they are suggesting that the public authority under investigation actually supplied their own outcomes, findings and recommendations? Therefore, the information in the documents should be supplied with, if necessary, any confidential third party provided information redacted.

Torbay: A Local? Settlement is just maldministration by another name!

2010-07-24T13:50:00.037Z

The most recent annual reviews (previous called annual letters) sent to all councils about their performance in dealing with complaints made about them to the Local Government Ombudsman have recently been published.

When some councils publicise their annual review they place great emphasis on the fact that the Local Government Ombudsman has not found any maladministration. However, this totally ignores the fact that they and the Local Government Ombudsman settled numerous cases of maladministration.

What councils don't appear to understand is that a local settlement means only one thing, they have paid compensation for an act of maladministration.

The fact that Councils and the Local Government Ombudsman have a duplicitous arrangement to avoid Council wrongdoings being recorded as maladministration does not detract from the fact that if they had not been guilty of any wrongdoing they would not have had to pay compensation to settle cases.

When are the Local Government Ombudsmen and Councils going to stop manipulating the true levels of council maladministration?

Here is an example of serious maladministration that was NOT recorded as maladministration by the Local Government Ombudsman. Jerry White Local Government Ombudsman, Coventry office, should be ashamed of himself for not recording this as a serious act of maladministration leading to injustice.

[Jerry White the then Ombudsman has now retired and has been replaced with Dr Jane Martin]

"A council apologised today and admitted paying £12,000 in compensation to two girls who were sexually abused by two children in care. Torbay Council in Devon paid £6,000 to each abused girl after their parents complained and agreed to review its risk management policies and procedures.

The case emerged in the Local Government Ombudsman's annual report for the financial year 2009/10. It revealed the council failed to adequately assess the risk posed by placing the children next door to the girls.

It also failed to offer appropriate support to the complainants and their daughters following the abuse. Torbay Council chief executive Elizabeth Raikes said: "We completely accept the Ombudsman's decision to award these four local settlements and apologise for any distress caused to the complainants."

Why are such serious acts of maladministration leading to injustice not recorded or reported as such by the Local Government Ombudsman? Notice the complete absence of the word maladministration in the article and the LGO's failure to record it a such in their annual review of Torbay Council.

In 2009/10 the Local Government Ombudsman took decisions on 26 complaints against Torbay Council. In 11 cases they found no or insufficient evidence of maladministration. 7 complaints were outside their jurisdiction (How an earth a Local Government Ombudsman can take a decision on a complaint that is outside their jurisdiction to take a decision on is beyond me.) and in 4 cases Torbay Council agreed to settle the complaint. The LGO exercised discretion not to investigate a further 4 cases. Typically these are cases where, even though there may have been some fault by the council, there is no significant injustice to the complainant.

26 complaints, £18,800 compensation paid by Torbay Council for the injustice they caused through their maladministration to 4 complainants yet not 1 case of maladministration leading to injustice recorded or reported as such by the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Local Government Ombudsman who tried to bury this serious act of maladministration as a local settlement may consider it settled but the complainants certainly don't.

And the LGO wonder why complainants think they are duplicitous!

Why not download your councils annual review and see how economical with the truth the Local Government Ombudsman has been when recording and reporting their true levels of maladministration.

Footnote: The Local Government Ombudsmen invented local settlements years ago as a way of avoiding having to find a public authority guilty of maladministration for a number of reasons. (a) It saved them the time and effort of having to conduct a proper investigation and produce a formal report. (b) It gave them a carrot with which to dangle before the public authority, 'settle the case locally before we complete the investigation and you can bury a finding of maladministration' on the cheap. Local Government Ombudsmen prefer not to issue a maladministration report and recommend compensation because councils can ignore their recommendations with impunity. (c) It allowed the public authority concerned to boast that the Local Government Ombudsman had not upheld a complaint of maladministration against them. The only loser is the complainant who has the settlement forced upon them.

It is important to realise that Local Settlements are agreed between one of the three Local Government Ombudsman's offices in the country and the public authority concerned. The complainant has NO say in the matter. The word local was deviously introduced by the LGO to give the impression that settlements are made locally between the Council and the Complainant when they are not. There is nothing local about a local settlement.

Spending Challenge: An update on getting rid of the LGO

2010-07-18T06:58:00.005Z

For some reason the Government Spending Challenge website has stopped people adding comments to spending challenge suggestions so I thought I would use a work around and advise others to do the same. Whilst you are no longer allowed to vote or comment on suggestions already made you can still submit one of your own. Therefore, I have submitted my own suggestion about the Local Government Ombudsman and suggest others now do the same. Click here to submit your suggestion

My suggestion is copied below but you can word your own suggestion in any way you want.

Scrap the discredited Local Government Ombudsman and replace them with an independent tribunal. The Government is wasting vast sums of money on a system of administrative justice that does not work. Spending taxpayers money on a system designed to bury local authority maladministration is expensive and counter productive, you need a system which improves local administration by exposing, not burying, local authority wrongdoings.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who's guarding the guards?

2010-07-15T21:10:00.019Z

An interesting article by Martin Hannan published by the Edinburgh News starts by asking an interesting question, Who's guarding public's guards?

Although his article is about standards in public life and the standards commission in Scotland, the same question could be asked about the Commission for Local Administration in England, more commonly known as the Local Government Ombudsman.

Who ensures they are doing their job properly? The answer, surprisingly, is the same people who they are supposed to be protecting the public from, the public sector.

Can you imagine if the inmates of a prison were also in charge of ensuring that prison guards did their job properly. Would they really be interested in an effective and efficient system or would they ensure the system is run for their benefit and not that of the general public.

The Local Government Ombudsman is a con! Set up by the public sector to protect the public sector. Why else would all Ombudsmen and the majority of their staff be ex Local Authority or ex Government Department? Because the Public Sector is looking after itself, they don't want an effective Watchdog looking at their wrongdoings.

Public Sector protecting the Public Sector via puppets known as the Local Government Ombudsmen to give the public the impression that they have a Watchdog. Whilst in reality Local Government Ombudsmen are not Watchdogs at all they are more like neutered poodles kept in line (i.e. fed, watered, pulled into line and put down if they don't obey) by the Public Sector.

York, Fluffy? Coventry, Fifi? London, Fido?

New Government Spending Challenge: Get rid of the LGO

2010-07-14T00:27:00.002Z

A recent suggestion to the New Governments Spending Challenge suggests getting rid of the discredited Local Government Ombudsmen and replacing them with an independent, fair, honest, accountable, efficient and helpful alternative. Please consider voting for this suggestion and leaving a comment.

You can vote for this suggestion or add a comments here.

More about LGO spin here.

Scottish Public Service Ombudsman Petition

2010-06-30T23:07:00.002Z

I and many others no longer support petitions sent to the discredited Number 10 petition website because they have been known to remove names from petitions without keeping a record of who was removed or for what reason. However, they have a different system in Scotland which at the moment has not been discredited so I still support Scottish petitions.

Public audit of annual expenditure by the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman

Read the background to the petition Sign the petition Add your comments

Please note: The petition closes on the 25th August 2010

LGO spin: What lies beneath

2010-06-28T21:58:00.014Z

On the about us page of the Local Government Ombudsman's website they give a few key 'facts' about the Ombudsmen. However, you need to take everything they say with a pinch of salt. Below is their list of 'facts' in black together with further information in blue. Information they would prefer remained unpublished.

About us: Key facts about the Ombudsmen

There are three Local Government Ombudsmen in England.

There are three ex council officers acting as 'faux' Local Government Ombudsmen in England. See my earlier posts.

We make our decisions independently of all government departments, councils and politicians.

All three Local Government Ombudsmen and the majority of their staff are ex council. The majority of the rest are ex government departments. In addition there is evidence that they are told what their decisions should be. Here is an example. There is also further evidence which proves that Local Government Ombudsmen will also change their decision over a recommended remedy should the council decide differently. Here is an example.

We examine complaints without taking sides. We are not consumer champions.

A 'citizen's champion' was the original definition of an Ombudsman and was the reason why they were introduced in the first place. They used to level the playing field between an individual citizen and a large public authority. By remaining neutral the Local Government Ombudsmen are ignoring the inherent bias against the individual which the original Ombudsman was introduced to overcome.

["If, like Local Government Ombudsmen, you remain impartial in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are impartial, the mouse will not appreciate your impartiality."]

We are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen.

True but only done to give the impression of independence from Local and National Government. In reality a Government Department, also responsible for Local Government, select the Ombudsman and tell the Queen to rubber stamp the appointment. Why do you think every new Local Government Ombudsman recruited since 1995 is ex council. The last thing the Government Department responsible for Local Government want is an effective Ombudsman.

We have the same powers as the High Court to obtain information and documents.

This is true but a power they rarely if ever use to obtain evidence a council don't want to give them.

Our decisions are final and cannot be appealed. However, you can challenge them in the High Court if you think our reasoning has a legal flaw.

True but that doesn't worry a council because they can ignore anything the Local Government Ombudsman recommends. Although you can challenge them in the high court by way of a judicial review this is restricted to legal flaws. If, as often happens, the Local Government Ombudsman wants to stuff you they just manipulate the facts rather than the law. You could appeal a finding of fact but as the Local Government Ombudsmen rightly state you cannot appeal one of their decisions. Neat or what!

We do not have to investigate every complaint received, even if we have the power to do so. For example, we may decide not to investigate if we think the problem you mention would have affected you only slightly.

True and one of the most devious ways a Local Government Ombudsman has for burying a complaint for a council. They have the statutory discretion over their decision whether to investigate a complaint or not. Making it very difficult if not impossible to overturn by way of a judicial review.

We are committed to providing a fair service and spending public money effectively.

This is just nonsense. Last year it cost them some £1,353 of tax payers money to determine every single complaint (within their remit to determine). Whilst the average compensation recommended for the small number of those complainants lucky enough to obtain a positive outcome was £750. In addition as I have previously stated councils often refuse to provide the recommended remedy so the figure of £750 will in reality be much less. How is that fair and an effective use of public money? Furthermore, I note from reading Freedom of Information request submitted to the Local Government Ombudsman that there are questions being asked about tax payer funded trips to Australia and Canada at public expense. Finally is it fair is councils can change Ombudsmen if they don't like the outcome but complainants can't or that councils can ignore the Ombudsman with impunity?

We do not charge for using our service.

True but there is a reason, nobody would use them. Especially when you realise that you only have about a 20% chance of getting an average of about £750 compensation but the cost would be £1,353 whether you are one of the lucky ones or not. Not exactly good odds or value for money by any stretch of the imagination. Most solicitors can obtain an average of about £5,000 compensation, some 7 times more than the LGO. In this world you get what you pay for, Local Government Ombudsmen are free for one reason and one reason only, they are what could colloquially best be described as crap.

When we find that a council has done something wrong, we may recommend how it should put it right. Although we cannot make councils do what we recommend, they are almost always willing to act on what we say.

True that a council can ignore them with impunity but not true that councils are almost willing to act on what they say. A significant number of councils have ignored Local Government Ombudsmen over the years and the situation is getting worse. So bad they recently resorted to manipulating their compliances statistics.

Faux Ombudsmen V Real Ombudsmen: Reason 4 Final Arbiter?

2010-06-27T13:09:00.006Z

Public Sector Ombudsmen often make a big deal about being the final arbiter regarding complaints.

Taking the Local Government Ombudsman as an example, they state

'Our decisions are final and cannot be appealed.'

However, that is far from the whole truth. In reality the local authority not the Local Government Ombudsman is the final arbiter because they can and do ignore Local Government Ombudsman with impunity.

In addition many acts of maladministration are also illegal, so whilst the Local Government Ombudsman may have dealt with the none illegal aspects of a complaint, because they have no authority to determine legal rights, the complainant has recourse to the courts.

Public Service Ombudsmen: The final arbiters?

Pull the other one!

Faux Ombudsmen V Real Ombudsmen: Reason 3 Fairness

2010-06-27T12:02:00.005Z

Public Sector Ombudsmen often make a big deal about offering a fair service but is the system they operate really that fair?

Take the Local Government Ombudsman for example, they state

'We are committed to providing a fair service'.

'When we find that a council has done something wrong, we may recommend how it should put it right. Although we cannot make councils do what we recommend'

Hang on a moment, how can they argue their service is fair when a local authority can ignore their recommendations with impunity?

Take Wilma Wright's case as an example, she submitted a complaint about Trafford Council, the Local Government Ombudsman found Trafford Council guilty of maladministration and recommended they pay Wilma Wright £100,000 for the injustice her daughter had suffered through Trafford Council's maladministration, Trafford Council ignored the Local Government Ombudsman's recommendations with impunity. How an earth is that fair?

If Local Government Ombudsmen were committed to providing a fair service surely they would have asked the government to remove this patently unfair one sided loophole long ago.

Local Government Ombudsman: 'We are committed to providing a fair service'.

Pull the other one!

Faux Ombudsmen V Real Ombudsmen: Reason 2 Independence

2010-06-27T11:22:00.004Z

Public Sector Ombudsmen often make a big deal about declaring their independence but are they as independent as a real Ombudsman should be?

Take the Local Government Ombudsman as an example,

They are sponsored by the same government department that also has a responsibility for local government.

The majority of their staff are ex local government (the majority of the remainder being ex government departments)

All three Ombudsmen ex local government.

Local Government Ombudsmen: Independent from local government?

Pull the other one!

Faux Ombudsmen V Real Ombudsmen: Reason 1 Impartiality

2010-06-26T21:08:00.011Z

[Wikiepedia: The origin of the word Ombudsman is found in Old Norse umbuðsmann and the word umbuds man, meaning representative (with the word umbud/ombud meaning proxy, that is someone who is authorized to act for someone else, a meaning it still has in the Scandinavian languages).]

A real Ombudsman by acting as a citizens champion, representative or proxy could overcome the inherent imbalance between the citizen and a public authority.

Instead of a David V Goliath scenario the citizen could count on the help of the Ombudsman to level the 'playing field' between themselves and the public authority and would not be disadvantaged by Public authorities throwing massive financial, legal and human resources into intimidating the citizen into submission.

Unfortunately when the British Government sought to introduce Ombudsmen into this country they decided not to introduce the Real Ombudsman model, preferring instead to introduce a variation, the so called impartial or Faux Ombudsman. Thus maintaining the inherent imbalance between the citizen and public authorities whilst at the same time, by calling them Ombudsmen, maintaining the false pretence that they had actually introduced a Real Ombudsman.

So whilst Ombudsmen in many other countries, those that haven't adopted the British model, still act as a citizen's champion, representative or proxy we now have Ombudsmen who proudly boasts they are impartial and don't take sides. Thus providing little if any help to the citizen when faced with a system inherently and significantly biased in favour of the public authority.

A slightly modified quote from Desmond Tutu summarises the problem regarding impartiality.

"If, like Local Government Ombudsmen, you remain impartial in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are impartial, the mouse will not appreciate your impartiality."

More to follow.

Government considers ombudsman merger

2010-06-25T17:46:00.025Z

The government is considering merging the Housing Ombudsman Service with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Read the full story here

I have just checked out the latest Housing Ombudsman statistics and their website and find they are as misleading as the LGO's when it comes to interpreting statistics and telling the full story on their website. It would appear that they both use spin, mirrors and smoke to hide the truth about their real purpose and effectiveness. Which will at least make merging these Ombudsmen much easier, two deceitful peas in one pod.

They both need to stop pretending that they are real Ombudsmen at all, let alone effective?

They are nothing but 'faux' or pretend Ombudsmen' (similar to plastic Police). Ones who do not embrace the values of a true Ombudsmen whilst overcoming this shortcoming by manipulating statistics, publications and information, Thus making themselves appear to be as effective as a real Ombudsman to their website visitors, complainants and tenants.

LGO email retention policy

2010-06-23T17:45:00.003Z

Has your Local Government Ombudsman's office told you that they don't keep your emails? Don't believe anything they say. Here is an example of the truth

The following blue text is a copy of a certified email tracking record regarding an email I sent to Anne Seex, Local Government Ombudsman, York office, on the 25th April 2008.

As you will see from the record below my email was first opened on the 25 April 2008. (For those unaware the LGO now use the services of efax.com in America. In addition they often use them as a proxy when visiting blogs and websites that criticise the LGO.) However, what is more interesting is the latest date my email was opened, the 15th June 2010 [Record number 7 in bold], over 2 years 2 months after sending it and first being read by Mrs Seex [Record number 3 in bold]. (Again for those unaware, the tracking record is typical of those emails opened by Mrs Seex on her personal Blackberry PDA.]

To       a.seex@lgo.org.uk
From       trevornunn

Subject    Re: Letter from Cheshire County Council, we are still waiting.
Sent on    25-Apr-08 at 18:00:39pm 'GB' time
1st Open    25-Apr-08 at 18:31:02pm   +01:00 Massachusetts, United States

Tracking Details

1: Opened
Opened    25-Apr-08 at 18:31:02pm (UTC +01:00)   -   30mins 23secs after sending
Location    Massachusetts, United States
Opened on    208.51.227.178.efax.com (208.51.227.178:24896)
Language    of recipient's PC: en-gb (English/United Kingdom)
Browser    used by recipient: Moz/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; WinNT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Last log    No more activity after 25-Apr-08 at 18:32:13pm (UTC +01:00)

2: Re-Opened
Opened    25-Apr-08 at 19:03:34pm (UTC +01:00)   -   1hour 2mins 55secs after sending
Location    Massachusetts, United States
Opened on    208.51.227.178.efax.com (208.51.227.178:25420)
Language    of recipient's PC: en-gb (English/United Kingdom)
Browser    used by recipient: Moz/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; WinNT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Last log    No more activity after 25-Apr-08 at 19:13:02pm (UTC +01:00)

3: Forwarded
Opened    26-Apr-08 at 10:26:52am (UTC +01:00)   -   16hours 26mins 13secs after sending
Location    Milton Keynes, England, United Kingdom (86% likelihood)
Opened on    88-109-223-61.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (88.109.223.61:1106)
Language    of recipient's PC: en-gb (English/United Kingdom)
Browser    used by recipient: Moz/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; WinNT 5.1; SV1; FunWebProducts; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

4: Re-opened (by earlier reader #1)
Opened    12-May-08 at 17:41:20pm (UTC +01:00)   -   16days23hours40mins41secs after sending
Location    Massachusetts, United States (86% likelihood)
Opened on    208.51.227.178.efax.com (208.51.227.178:43581)
Language    of recipient's PC: en-gb (English/United Kingdom)
Browser    used by recipient: Moz/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; WinNT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

5: Re-Opened (by earlier reader #1)
Opened    4-Aug-08 at 13:36:26pm (UTC +01:00)   -   100days19hours35mins47secs after sending
Location    Massachusetts, United States
Opened on    208.51.227.178.efax.com (208.51.227.178:64004)
Language    of recipient's PC: en-gb (English/United Kingdom)
Browser    used by recipient: Moz/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; WinNT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

6: Forwarded
Opened    3-Dec-09 at 19:04:02pm (UTC +01:00)   -   587 days 1hour 3mins 23secs after sending
Location    Massachusetts, United States
Opened on    208.51.227.178.efax.com (208.51.227.178:21527)
Browser    used by recipient: Moz/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; WinNT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; MSOffice 12)

7: Re-Opened (by earlier reader #3)
Opened    15-Jun-10 at 20:45:12pm (UTC +01:00)   -   781days 2hours 44mins 33secs after sending
Location    Massachusetts, United States
Opened on    208.51.227.178.efax.com (208.51.227.178:26968)
Browser    used by recipient: Moz/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; WinNT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; MSOffice 12)

Summary   -   as at 23-Jun-10 at 17:45:21pm (UTC +01:00)   -   788days 23hours 44mins 42secs after sending
Total    Opened 7 times by 3 readers

What are all these Commissions good for?

2010-06-23T13:05:00.002Z

It is well known that all Local Government Ombudsman offices (Collectively known as the Commission for Local Administration) are a waste of taxpayers money, fiddle their statistics and surveys to make themselves look more effective than they actually are, lie to government departments, the law commission, complainants, and others, bury complaints for local government and do nothing to improve standards in local government.

But are the other Commissions any better? For example, why haven't the Audit Commission or the Law Commission done anything about it?

Just as the LGO let local authorities get away with serious acts of maladministration it would appear, through their failure to act, that the Audit Commission, the Law Commission and other Commissions do exactly the same for the LGO.

So if the coalition want to save money I suggest that they close all these expensive, unproductive and self protecting Commissions.

The Audit Commission are still interested

2010-06-23T12:32:00.004Z

At least 9 visits in less than two months???? The latest shown below.

The power of blogs!

2010-06-14T11:44:00.010Z

Who forgot to use a proxy?

Watching me watching them, ah ah. What is more interesting, however, is that the Audit Commission have visited on 8 separate occasions since the middle of May. I can only assume that they are interested in finding out how public authorities and quangos, such as the LGO, fiddle their statistics to make themselves appear better value for taxpayers money than they actually are.

What is needed is a full independent audit of the Local Government Ombudsman's statistics and performance. Not the manipulated statistics and self promoting spin we normally get in their annual reports.

The ways in which the LGO fiddle their statistics [Example 1]

2010-06-12T13:59:00.018Z

How the LGO fiddle their compliance statistics.

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.

The objective of this post is to highlight the fact that the LGO have been manipulating their statistics over the last 15 years or so in an attempt to hide the truth about their effectiveness.

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.

Brent, Freedom of Information, Copyright and What Do They Know

2010-06-09T15:08:00.016Z

A must read (PDF Decision notice against the House of Commons) for those wanting Brent Council to respond to their FOI requests via the What Do They Know website.

Summary of the decision notice

The complainant made a request for information to the House of Commons via his account on the www.whatdotheyknow.com website. He requested a copy of a document, to be provided in electronic form. The public authority expressed its willingness to provide the information to the complainant by way of an alternative email address, however claimed that it would not be reasonably practicable for it to provide the information to the email address generated by the website, as to do so would raise copyright implications as the information provided to that address would be automatically published on the website. The Commissioner has investigated and considers that the public authority should provide the requested information to the complainant to the Whatdotheyknow.com email address that was used to make the request.

My request was to ascertain how many Local Government Act Part III Section 32(3) notices had Brent council served on a Local Government Ombudsman and how many times has the Ombudsman concerned found the council guilty of maladministration for misusing a Section 32(3) notice. As in the recent decision notice Brent replied by stating

'Your request has been validated and will be responded to. However, whilst we may send the formal notification of the decision to the email address you have provided we will not send the information requested to that address. This is because we are aware that doing so will automatically result in the information being published on the whatdotheyknow website. Publication of information in this way may constitute an unauthorised re-use (under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005) and may infringe copyright. I would therefore be grateful if you will provide me with an alternative disclosure address. This can be a postal address, fax number or an email address, as long as it does not result in automatic publication and re-use.'

Later confirming

'Further to our earlier correspondence I am writing to advise that the Council is in a position to provide information in response to your request on being provided with the alternative address for correspondence requested.'

So the latest ruling against the House of Commons makes Brent's position, as far as their refusal to respond via the What Do They Know website, untenable.

Happenstance, brain washing or common gene pool? Update 1: The cost.

2010-05-25T09:30:00.003Z

Further to my earler post on the subject what is even more worrying is the cost of what Brent is doing. Not only to me but many others. What a complete waste of Brent council taxpayer's money. Thousands of pounds being wasted because they argue that information they supply in response to a Freedom of Information request is copyright and should not be published without their permission. Information which every person on the planet could request and information which Brent would be obliged to send them.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if Brent published the information in the first place or at the very least published every response to every Freedom of Information request like many other councils do it would save them a vast amount of money on repeat requests by different people.

In my case Brent have not only wasted their own time they have also wasted the Information Commissioner's time and as such put both council and other taxpayers to unnecessary expense.

Now if that doesn't prove that Brent is not fit for the purpose when you find out what the information is that they have spent so much time,money and effort trying to stop being published on the What Do They Know website you will be even more disillusioned with the ability of Brent to spend council taxpayers money wisely.

All I asked for in my Freedom of Information request was two numbers. However, Brent argued they were copyright and they would not send them to the What Do They Know website because they would automatically be published. The two number Brent don't want to see published on the What Do They Know website are 0, 0. Yes that's right zero, zero.

Further highlighting the absurd and preposterous position that Brent FOI officers have taken at great cost to their council taxpayers.

When you are dealing with public authorities the old adage, you just couldn't make this sort of stuff up, is the best description one could use.

My message to the Government, if you want to stop waste in local government start here!

Happenstance, brain washing or common gene pool?

2010-05-23T16:17:00.015Z

Do staff in Quangos set up by Government to scrutinise public authorities, such as the Local Government Ombudsman, the Information Commissioner, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Audit Commission, get the same basic training and brain washing, are the similarities in the way they work caused by the fact they are themselves mostly ex public authority or is all down to happenstance?

I pondered this question recently when the Information Commissioner's office deployed a tactic which is more often used by the Local Government Ombudsman. It's a very simple tactic often used by the LGO to derail a complaint and works like this.

A council does something which causes a member of the public to complain.

The council defend their position and refuse to admit they are wrong.

The complainant considers the councils defence to their complaint has no merit so they complain to the LGO a 'so called independent' watchdog.

The LGO starts to investigate the complaint.

After many many months of delay the LGO reports back to the complainant arguing that because the council has, at the 11th hour, substituted a completely different defence, one up to that point unknown to the complainant, but curiously acceptable to the LGO, they are considering terminating their investigation into the complaint.

If the 11th hour change of defence was not enough to wrong foot the complainant the LGO adds even more pressure to the complainant by requesting a response to this unknown and new defence within days.

The final straw comes when the complainant realises that the LGO has not only accepted a 'new' defence it's a defence to a completely different complaint to the one they submitted many months earlier.

This is the point at which complaints must choose to

Accept the bullshit and either agree to withdraw their complaint or accept the LGO's decision to terminate the investigation.

See through the charade and at least put up a fight.

Expose this practice for what it is. [Partly what this blog was started for.]

Whilst I have experienced this tactic many times with the Local Government Ombudsman, I have until recently never experienced it with any of the other 'so called' independent watchdogs. However, now I have, it gives me an ideal example to demonstrate that other 'so called' independent watchdogs also use this tactic. Here is my story,

On the 9th October 2009, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Brent Borough Council.

On the 12th October I received the following response to my FOI request.

'Further to our earlier correspondence I am writing to advise that the Council is in a position to provide information in response to your request on being provided with the alternative address for correspondence requested.'

On the 13th October I responded with the following

You have a return address for your response please comply with the FOI act and deliver the response to the address given.

And also submitted a request for an internal review.

On the 2nd February 2010 I received the outcome of the internal review.

Which in part states

Having reviewed your request and our request for you to supply us with an alternative address to send your information, I have concluded that your internal review has not been upheld.

The council has not and is not refusing to respond to your request which it accepts is valid and is ready to supply the information requested.

The first thing to note is that they took an excessive amount of time in which to carry out the internal review which in itself is a breach of the FOI Act. However, the key points at this time are

Brent accept my FOI request was valid and that it had the information I requested and was ready to send it.

It is quite clear at this point in time that the only reason Brent would not supply the information was because I had used the What Do They Know website to submit my request and they were concerned that their response would be published for all to read. Something many councils detest.

As a result on the 2nd February I submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner base on the fact that Brent would not send me the information unless I gave them a different email address to the one in which I used to submit my request.

On the 12th February 2010 I received acknowledgement that my complaint had been allocated to a case resolution team.

I received an update from the case resolution team on the 28th April 2010.

However, what shocked me to the core was the email I received from the case resolution team on the 21st May 2010 and it brought memories flooding back of what the LGO had done to me on numerous occasions over the last 13 years.

[Many others have also contacted me over the years and told me that they have also experienced this devious tactic used by the LGO.]

Yet again at the 11th hour, 7 months after Brent stated that the only reason for not sending the information was because it would be published on the What Do They Know website, over 3 months since the ICO started their investigation into my complaint, Brent introduced a different reason for not giving me the information. A reason they had never used before and one on which my complaint to the ICO was not, and could not have been based.

Brent now suggested that it would be too expensive to gather the information I requested and asked to be exempted on costs grounds.

However, Brent did give the case resolution team the information informally which the case resolution team included in their email to me. In which they also suggested that now had the information I should consider withdrawing my complaint.

Accordingly I was in the curious position of the case resolution team appearing to ignore my original complaint altogether, whist allowing Brent to introduce an altogether different defence to something I didn't even complain about.

On top of that we appear to have the case resolution team being used by Brent as a post boy to informally pass on the information to a different email address than that I had given Brent in an attempt to circumvent my actual complaint.

I refused to withdraw my complaint which was about Brent's refusal to send the information to the address given in the request. The fact that the case resolution team has now given me the information I wanted by the back door does not resolve my complaint against Brent. All it does it prove that they are not the 'so called' independent watchdog many people think they are. Which is a shame because up until now I wouldn't have put them in the same class as the LGO.

Read more on the What Do They Know website.

This article will be updated

LGO and Councils: Independent or incestuous?

2010-05-07T21:11:00.004Z

Following on from the story about an LGO determining complaints against a council she used to work for (Lancaster City Council) I have been sent some information regarding another LGO office / Council relationship (London Borough of Lewisham)

Independent or incestuous? You decide.

Open Letter to the Chair of the Commision for Local Administration in England: Update

2010-04-29T19:14:00.028Z

Further to my earlier posts [1] [2] [3] [4] about a Local Government Ombudsman who previously worked for the council you may be complaining about.

This is a copy of the letter I received in response to my complaint.

20th April 2010 Our ref: York/TR/dfg

Dear Mr Nunn

Thank you for your letter dated the 1st April received in this office on the 7th April 2010.

With regard to your enquiry about Anne Seex determining complaints against Lancaster I would draw your attention to the following extract from the Local Government At (SIC) 1974 Schedule 4 (1)(2) which states:

2) A Commissioner shall not at any time conduct a case arising in an area if it is wholly or partly within an area for which one of those authorities is responsible and, within the five years ending at that time ("the disqualification period")

a) Has been a member of that authority,

b) Has taken action on behalf of that authority in the exercise of any of their functions,

c) Has taken action which, by virtue of an enactment, is treated as having been taken by that authority in the exercise of any of their functions.

However, the Commissioner's Register of interests attached to the Code of Conduct asks Local Commissioners to declare any bodies of which they have been a paid employee within 10 years.

Given that the ten year period is twice that contained in the LGA 1947 the Commission considers that the transfer was reasonable.

Your sincerely

Tony Redmond

Having read Mr Redmond's response with interest I have the following comments to make.

Firstly, I did not write, as Mr Redmond wrongly suggests, to enquire about Anne Seex determining complaints against Lancaster. I clearly submitted a formal complaint about the issue 'I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the Commission's decision to allow Anne Seex to determine complaints against Lancaster City Council.' Read my complaint here.

Secondly, I made it quite clear I knew about the ten year rule 'I understand the 10 year rule no longer applies but can't understand how anyone, under any circumstance, would find it acceptable that Anne Seex, as a Local Government Ombudsman, is given the authority to determine complaints against Lancaster City Council.' Read my complaint here.

Therefore, if you extract all the unnecessary padding and nonsense from his response you end up with Dear Mr Nunn The Commission considered the transfer was reasonable. Yours Sincerely Tony Redmond

Taking into consideration that Mr Redmond is the longest serving Local Government Ombudsman and Chair or the Commission for Local Administration in England (CLAE), the formal name for the Local Government Ombudsman, his response raises a number of very serious concerns. He is clearly prepared to dismiss an internal complaint as an enquiry even when you start your letter I want to make a formal complaint. He is also clearly prepared to include irrelevant information and padding to hide the fact that he has ignored your complaint and the rationale behind it.

(The rationale behind my complaint was) ..some 37% of staff and 43% of members who worked with Anne Seex still work in the authority concerned. In addition, Pat Thomas, the Local Government Ombudsman she took over from in 2005, still lives and works in the Lancaster area. This cannot be fair under any circumstances and I cannot understand how the Commission members could even begin to think this is acceptable.

So we now have evidence that the most senior Local Government Ombudsman / Chair of the CLAE is quite wiling to ignoring an internal complaint and the substance of it. Essentially just like Local Government Ombudsmen often do when faced with a complaint about themselves or a council which they would prefer to bury.

What many people may not be aware of is that Local Government Ombudsmen delegate their function to others who may have recently worked at the council you are complaining about. Read more about this issue.

Do ex members or officers of your council work for the LGO?

2010-04-29T13:28:00.006Z

The Commission for Local Administration in England (The formal name for the Local Government Ombudsman, LGO) do not see anything wrong with an ex officer or member, of the council you are complaining about, working for the Ombudsman's office you are complaining to.

The only criteria they have is that a minimum of 5 years must have elapsed between starting work for them and being involved in a complaint about the council they used to work for. This is despite the fact that the majority of the people they worked with may still work for the council you are complaining about. In many instance they may still be friends with many of the people they worked with.

This is an affront to Justice, can you imagine the uproar if a Judge was found to have worked for the defendant.

If you are interested in identifying whether an ex member or officer of the council you are complaining about works for the Local Government Ombudsman's office you are complaining to then why not submit a Freedom of Information request in order to put your mind at rest.

Whilst I have asked for information I am interested in you may prefer to identify if anyone who worked for the council you complained about worked for the LGO during the specific period of your complaint.

'I would like to know how many people worked for the Commission for Local Administration in England between [insert dates when your complaint started with the council and was eventually determined by the Ombudsman] also worked for [insert the name of the council you complained about] prior to taking up employment with the Commission and are based at the [insert the Ombudsman's office who dealt with your complaint].

When you have drafted your request submit it here

Complaints about Lancaster City Council

2010-04-21T23:28:00.005Z

I would like anyone who has recently submitted, or is going to submit, a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman about Lancaster City Council to contact me.

The reason being that the Commission for Local Administration (The Local Government Ombudsman) has recently decided to allow an ex employee of Lancaster City Council to determine complaints made against the Council even though a Freedom of Information request proves that 37% of the staff and 43% of the members who the Ombudsman worked with are still working at the council.

Under normal circumstances an ex employee returning in a more senior position wouldn't cause any concern. However we are not talking about a normal working relationship here we are talking about JUSTICE.

JUSTICE is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity. Can anyone in their right mind consider it morally right, fair or rational that an ex colleague and possibly friend of the person you are complaining about will determine your complaint.

If you live in the Lancaster area and like me you are outraged at the decision of the Commission for Local Administration to allow an ex employee of Lancaster City Council to determine your complaint please get in touch.

It may take some time but I am determined to expose this stupid decision to the public scrutiny it deserves and your case study may help.

Open Letter to the Chair of the Commision for Local Administration in England: Update 1

2010-04-21T23:00:00.001Z

Further to my open letter to Tony Redmond Chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England (The Local Government Ombudsman) I have today been told that I have received a response.

Safe to say that the summary I was given over the phone suggests that the Commission fail to see anything wrong with appointing Anne Seex to determine complaints about Lancaster. A decision I am almost certain they will come to regret at some time in the future.

Full text of Mr Redmond's letter will be uploaded as soon as possible as update 2.

York Local Government Ombudsman's office incompetence exposed again.

2010-04-17T23:12:00.006Z

The Case of Mr and Mrs Wain verses Stoke-on-Trent City Council exposes the incompetence of the York Based Local Government Ombudsman once again.

The LGO did not find Stoke-on Trent Council guilty of maladministration because she asserted that the Government Office West Midland was at fault. However, the Parliamentary Ombudsman Investigated the Government Office West Midland and totally refuted the claim put forward by The Local Government Ombudsman.

Unfortunately by the time the Parliamentary Ombudsman reported back it was too late for Mr & Mrs Wain to seek a Judicial Review of the York Local Government Ombudsman's perverse findings.

One would have thought that when she realised that her office had ruined Mr & Mrs Wain's chances of receiving any compensation for the injustice caused through the maladministration of Stoke-on-Trent City Council she would have wanted to do something about it. Not so, as anyone who knows anything about Local Government Ombudsmen will tell you they never like to admit they are wrong and will do everything in their power to hide their mistakes.

This case has strong parallels to the Balchins which also involved the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman but unfortunately for the Wains there is no way the Local Government Ombudsman could hide their mistakes in their case as they did with the Balchins because it had been published in a report for all to see. In the Balchins case they hid their mistake by not including it in the report.

Read Mr & Mrs Malcolm Wain's comprehensive case study here and you will understand why I think Local Government Ombudsmen are a complete waste of time and can't wait until they are replaced with a fair and just system of administrative justice..

Open Letter to the Chair of the Commision for Local Administration in England

2010-04-01T14:49:00.003Z

Letter sent to Mr Redmond on the 1st April 2010

REF: OPEN LETTER, transfer of Lancaster City Council from Coventry to the York office.

Dear Mr Redmond

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the Commission's decision to allow Anne Seex to determine complaints against Lancaster City Council.

I understand the 10 year rule no longer applies but can't understand how anyone, under any circumstance, would find it acceptable that Anne Seex, as a Local Government Ombudsman, is given the authority to determine complaints against Lancaster City Council.

Particularly since some 37% of staff and 43% of members who worked with Anne Seex still work in the authority concerned. In addition, Pat Thomas, the Local Government Ombudsman she took over from in 2005, still lives and works in the Lancaster area.

I am a Lancastrian, with many family and friends still living in the Lancaster area. Therefore, I'm very concerned that Anne Seex will be responsible for determining complaints against her ex colleagues and friends. The very people who may be responsible for the maladministration being complained about.

This cannot be fair under any circumstances and I cannot understand how the Commission members could even begin to think this is acceptable.

Until this ludicrous decision is reversed, should anyone in the Lancaster area feel their complaint was potentially compromised, I will make it my business to pursue the matter further.

Your sincerely, Trevor Nunn