Background

The objectives of this blog

To expose the devious methods used by Local Government Ombudsmen to

1) block, divert or bury valid complaints so they can hide significant amounts of maladministration for their friends and ex colleagues in local government.

2) divert attention away from their own failings and wrongdoings.

My experience

My experience of the Local Government Ombudsman dates back to 1997 when I first submitted a complaint about my local council. The council's failure to follow the recommendations of the Local Government Ombudsman led to a second complaint during 2002, however, by this time I was already aware how biased, incompetent, toothless and unaccountable they really were, therefore my objective at that time was to collect further evidence against them.

The LGO initially refused to investigate my second (2002) complaint after an assistant ombudsman rang up the council officer involved in my complaint and accepted their lies without any sort of validation.

During 2005 following a number of failed comeback requests, trying to get the Ombudsman to investigate my complaint, the assistant ombudsman became so desperate to divert attention away from his mishandling of my 2002 complaint and they way he had accepted council lies without validation that  he initiated an brand new complaint in my name without authority. This resulted in an internal complaint because the Ombudsmen, let alone their staff, are statutorily prohibited from initiating a complaint. What he had done was simply illegal. As I had now come to expect my complaint was whitewashed by the deputy ombudsman,

During 2006 following further attempts to get the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate my 2002 complaint it had become so obvious that the council officer had lied to the assistant ombudsman that the Local Government Ombudsman had no alternative but to investigate my complaint.

They started to investigate my second complaint in 2006. However, it soon became obvious they were not investigating my complaint for my benefit they were just trying to bury the problem for both themselves, in particularly the assistant ombudsman, and the council.

By then I had evidence that the council had ignored the Ombudsman's recommendations to my first complaint together with the Ombudsman's failure to issue a second report. I had evidence of their assistant ombudsman's willingness to believe any old rubbish a council officer told them and evidence of the fallacious arguments they use in order to support their dodgy decisions not to investigate or bury valid complaints, both internal and external.

As I predicted the investigation into my second complaint was a complete farce from beginning to end. Evidence was 'manipulated' or 'misinterpreted' to support the council's position. Let's face it, it had to be otherwise the Ombudsman would have had to accept that the original investigation was flawed and that her assistant ombudsman was a complete idiot who had broken the law. At one point, following a Freedom of Information request to the council, the Local Government Ombudsman's office even 'fabricated' a letter for them.

As expected the Local Government Ombudsman buried most of my second complaint but she did find the council guilty of maladministration for delay. Although at one time during the investigation they even tried to blame me for the delay so they could bury that as well.

I have obtained quite a lot of additional evidence through Freedom of Information requests using the What Do They Know website. One particular FOI request even caught out the LGO misleading the Department of Communities and Local Government over their compliance rates.

They also state that they had 100% compliance the year after my initial complaint but the council have still not complied with the recommendations of the Local Government Ombudsman to this day (6th March 2009). If you want to know how to manipulate statistics ask a Local Government Ombudsman.

My message

After 16 years experience of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) [York office] my advice is to avoid them at all costs. If you use them you'll regret it, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life because you're putting your faith in a system of justice that doesn't exist.

It's all just an illusion, stage managed (since 1995) by ex public authority chief executive officers to give citizens the impression that a system of administrative justice still exists in England. The unaccountable and impotent Local Government Ombudsmen do nothing more than peddle false hope until the majority of complainants, exhausted by the long drawn out and inherently biased system, are forced to accept a measly settlement, move on, give up or die.

Footnote

This blog would not exist except for the incompetence, bias and perverse logic of the York based Local Government Ombudsman & staff and the corrupt system of administrative justice they operate.

Qui Tacet Consentit- He who remains silent, consents




Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - No one injures me with impunity.

Legal Matters

In my view the information contained in this blog is provided honestly, reasonably, in good faith and in the public interest.

Article 10, Freedom of Expression of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a qualified right, states everyone has the right of freedom of expression.

This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

This guarantees the right to pass information to other people and to receive information that other people want to give to you. It also guarantees the right to hold and express opinions and ideas.

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a "Convention Right".

A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 may, if he or she is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act either:

* bring proceedings in any appropriate court or tribunal against the authority under the Human Rights Act 1998; or

* rely on the Convention right concerned in any legal proceedings.

Should an individual have a valid objection to anything I have published and be willing to provide me with the necessary evidence to support their claim, I will gladly correct the post objected to.