Local Government Ombudsman

bettyhill wrote...

I came across this site by accident.

We are proposing to take Kirklees MC to the European Courts if the LGO does not do anything about a 3 year issue.

We have some big guns and one was the UK's judge to the European Courts for 13 years. Therefore, as it looks likely that we shall not receive satisfaction from the LGO we are going to smear the name as much as we can in the European Courts so that something is done for the people.

Considering the above therefore and if you have any bad experiences and grievances against the LGO that are factual and truthful, I wish to know so that a file can be logged with the European Courts that prove that the LGO is just a partner of Local government and no more.

My email is drhill@thewif.org.uk and I look forward to any information. In this respect we shall be putting forward to the European Courts that the LGO is in league with the government as a conspiracy against the direct interest of European citizens. Dr David Hill

Posted August 18, 2009

Jane63 wrote...

I wrote letter in support of the Cross House residents who had suffered injustice and a violation of their human rights (under article 8 the 1st Protocol the right to peaceful enjoyment of ones home).

I first sent my complaint to Copeland to be used as evidence in support of residents case. This was forwarded to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman threw out the complaint.

Just to add insult to injury the Acting Chief Executive, who had previously made no response in the full confidence of a favourable decision by the Ombudsman had the nerve to say that I was fortunate that the Officers and Councillors in question were not taking legal action against me for making an unfounded complaint. Fortunately I understand libel law sufficiently to know that Councils cannot take libel action and that public officials are deemed by the courts to put themselves up for criticims.

The system is corrupt. Fergus McMorrow (Acting Chief Exec) is attempting to intimidate complainants into silence

Posted March 15, 2009

Jane63 wrote...

Double Whammy

Imagine you are in a situation where you have complained against your Council, but they have refused to admit fault despite overwhelming evidence and you have suffered gross injustice resulting from maladministration. Then imagine how much worse it must be to suffer the double-whammy of having your complaint dismissed by the Local Government Ombudsman. You would empathise with Mrs Campbell (neighbour to the Crosshouse development in Cumbria) over the refusal to uphold her complaint against Copeland Planning Department.

Mrs Campbell's property is now subject to flooding due to the destruction of land drains on the development site. Amongst the endless list of 'errors' was the wilful withholding of a document, produced by the Environmental Health Department, from the planning panel, which referred to flooding. This is a material planning consideration. The planning file also contains the record of a telephone conversation between one prospective developer, and then Planning Officer Mr Sandelands, stating that according to the Copeland Local Plan, this would be deemed back-land development, it was in greenfield and would create problems of privacy because it would overlook neighbouring properties. In the next breath another builder is granted permission. This builder then failed to build according to the plans and the Planning Department refused to take enforcement action, despite being informed by the residents that the unauthorised development was in progress. The development was allowed to proceed in breach of the Local Plan, yet the Ombudsman refused to look at this issue saying it was out of time. The root cause of the chain of maladministration that led to the injustice began in 2004. The Council gave the Ombudsman the complaint, in 2008. In limiting the time frame of reference the origin of the whitewash was ignored. All other maladministration followed from this inconsistency so avoiding the root cause enabled the Ombudsman to exonerate Copeland Borough Council.

Sadly Mrs Campbell is not alone. According to 'Logo Watch', findings of maladministration are upheld in only 2% of cases. In 2005 the Ombudsman admitted to a Parliamentary Select Committee, that 21% of cases within jurisdiction faults found were maladministration. These were logged as 'Local Settlements. The findings do not need to be published and the Ombudsman and the Council decide the often woeful level of compensation that is payable (if any) without involving the complainant in the negotiation process. Investigators are recruited in the main from ex-Council staff to the supposedly impartial Local Government Ombudsman Office. In 2007 all three Ombudsman were former chief Executives, accustomed to defending councils. If the Ombudsman's Office was as stated, accountable to HM the Queen, you could at least have the confidence of being treated with moral integrity.

Local Councils do not baulk at the suggestion that dissatisfied citizens should take their complaint to the Ombudsman. The Cross House complaints were sent directly to the Ombudsman without a response from the Chief Executive. Mori Polls found that 73% of complainants were dissatisfied with the decision. In the light of such bad publicity this manner of gathering statistical evidence was discarded. Incompetent Councils can rest assured that faults will go unchecked. The cost of whitewash to the taxpayer is estimated at £11,000,000 per year.

The role of the Ombudsman is suppressio veri in other words the misrepresentation of the truth by concealing the facts that ought to be made known. It uses Machiavellian ethics to make 2 2 = 5, blocking the truth by setting the pre-requisites of the terms of reference to bring a case to a conclusion without hearing it properly. All this, with the end in sight to find in favour of the Council.

It is time to stop this injustice by abolishing the Local Government Ombudsman, replacing it with truly independent and accountable Complaints Commissioner. When investigators are seen to be impartial, Councils will have an incentive to avoid maladministration, resulting in the better delivery of services and restoration of faith in Local Government.

Posted March 15, 2009