LGO GO (London 2012 Olympic style)
Message for the LGO, Go now don't wait until 2012.Thursday, June 07, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Sign the metric martyr petition
Mr Thorburn was entrapped by undercover Council officials. He sold goods in metric or imperial weights, as customers desired, and sold the Council official some bananas for 40p at 25p a pound. Arrested by two policeman (in a city where real crime is out of control) and then prosecuted, he suffered the indignity of a criminal conviction for pursuing an honest living and supporting his young family. This honest man was given a criminal record & then faced bankruptcy if he pursued his case to appeal as Sunderland Council threatened to pursue full costs. Before he completed his protest he died of a heart attack. Since then, Europe has decided that imperial measurements aren't so bad! But this decision came too late for Mr Thorburn.
The petition asks the Prime Minister to obtain a Royal Pardon for him and give his family peace of mind.
The petition asks the Prime Minister to obtain a Royal Pardon for him and give his family peace of mind.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Additional forum for other ombudsmen.
An additional forum has been started for people to discuss issues relating to other ombudsmen.
If you have had problems with an ombudsman but you didn't think the local government ombudsman forum was the right forum then here is a new forum just for you.
You can contact others with similar problems, discuss your problem, ask questions and give advice. Please click on the link above and register now.
Power to the people, exposing ombudsmen to public scrutiny!
Thomas
If you have had problems with an ombudsman but you didn't think the local government ombudsman forum was the right forum then here is a new forum just for you.
You can contact others with similar problems, discuss your problem, ask questions and give advice. Please click on the link above and register now.
Power to the people, exposing ombudsmen to public scrutiny!
Thomas
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
E Government Petition on line now!
The petition is now available to sign. Please take the time to click on the link below and add your name to the petition. It's only when people make a stand against ineffective organisations like the Local Government Ombudsman that the Government will begin to listen. Every name helps so please don't leave the battle for justice to others, add your name now!
Register your dissatisfaction with the Local Government Ombudsman now!
Click here to add your name to the petition
When you have please ask your friends, neighbours and relatives to sign.
Although all British citizens can add their name to the petition due to an anomaly in the e-gov website they only allow one vote per e-mail address. That means that each family member must use a unique e-mail address rather than a joint family one. Don't lose your right to vote when it's so easy to set up a free e-mail address.
When you have please ask your friends, neighbours and relatives to sign.
Although all British citizens can add their name to the petition due to an anomaly in the e-gov website they only allow one vote per e-mail address. That means that each family member must use a unique e-mail address rather than a joint family one. Don't lose your right to vote when it's so easy to set up a free e-mail address.
Friday, April 06, 2007
LGO Investigators Handbook
The LGO investigators handbook lists the following key principles:
•We should be customer focussed and mindful of the needs of both complainants and authorities.
•We should take into account complainants' preferences as to how we pursue their complaints and their desired outcomes.
•We should approach investigations flexibly and proportionately to the seriousness of the case, using opportunities for informal resolution where appropriate.
•We should maintain a clear record of each significant step in handling a complaint.
•We should be open in providing complainants and authorities with documents or information which we have considered (whilst respecting any proper limitations on disclosure).
•We should deal with complaints as quickly as possible, but without compromising fairness or quality.
•We should explain our reasons for decisions.
•We should be alert to identifying wider issues arising from our investigations which could lead to improvements in service delivery, decision making or complaint handling by authorities, and take these up with authorities on an individual case basis and through annual letters.
•We should follow up recommended procedural reviews or improvements to make sure they have happened and, where relevant, tell complainants the outcome.
The problem is that they don't explain the reasons behind their decisions and they are not open in providing complainants with documents or information which they have considered. Just ask any complainant .
•We should be customer focussed and mindful of the needs of both complainants and authorities.
•We should take into account complainants' preferences as to how we pursue their complaints and their desired outcomes.
•We should approach investigations flexibly and proportionately to the seriousness of the case, using opportunities for informal resolution where appropriate.
•We should maintain a clear record of each significant step in handling a complaint.
•We should be open in providing complainants and authorities with documents or information which we have considered (whilst respecting any proper limitations on disclosure).
•We should deal with complaints as quickly as possible, but without compromising fairness or quality.
•We should explain our reasons for decisions.
•We should be alert to identifying wider issues arising from our investigations which could lead to improvements in service delivery, decision making or complaint handling by authorities, and take these up with authorities on an individual case basis and through annual letters.
•We should follow up recommended procedural reviews or improvements to make sure they have happened and, where relevant, tell complainants the outcome.
The problem is that they don't explain the reasons behind their decisions and they are not open in providing complainants with documents or information which they have considered. Just ask any complainant .
More marketing hype no doubt!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Strange but true!
The latest Regulation Reform Order states
'Several members of the public, as well as some public bodies, were concerned that use of more informal methods for dealing with complaints was inappropriate and could be used as a tool for shutting down complaints without proper investigation. This concern was mostly expressed by members of the public in relation to the Local Government Ombudsman. A number of individuals believed that the Local Government Ombudsman already used alternative resolution methods, in the form of local settlements, to avoid proper investigation. These individuals argued that implementing this proposal would legitimise the avoidance of proper investigation of complaints. A majority of members of the public expressing a view opposed this reform. '
So the Ombudsman has not yet got the statutory authority to use more informal methods of dealing with complaints but has been using more informal methods of dealing with complaints for the last twenty years. They call them local settlements. Does that not prove the Local Government Ombudsman has been acting illegally (i.e. without the necessary statutory authority( for the last twenty years?
'Several members of the public, as well as some public bodies, were concerned that use of more informal methods for dealing with complaints was inappropriate and could be used as a tool for shutting down complaints without proper investigation. This concern was mostly expressed by members of the public in relation to the Local Government Ombudsman. A number of individuals believed that the Local Government Ombudsman already used alternative resolution methods, in the form of local settlements, to avoid proper investigation. These individuals argued that implementing this proposal would legitimise the avoidance of proper investigation of complaints. A majority of members of the public expressing a view opposed this reform. '
So the Ombudsman has not yet got the statutory authority to use more informal methods of dealing with complaints but has been using more informal methods of dealing with complaints for the last twenty years. They call them local settlements. Does that not prove the Local Government Ombudsman has been acting illegally (i.e. without the necessary statutory authority( for the last twenty years?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
E Government Petition
I have started an E Gov Petition on the Local Government Ombudsman' Watcher' s wiki website.
You can read our petition about Local Government Ombudsman here
Having read the petition you can add your comments or even edit our petition. Only a few more days left before we put the petition on the E Gov website.
Please remember that it was an E Gov Petition that embarrassed the Government recently when over 1.6 million people signed it. I don't expect as many people are as concerned about corrupt Local Government Ombudsmen as we are but at least it will show Local Government Ombudsmen and the Government that we will not take their corrupt practices lying down.
You can read our petition about Local Government Ombudsman here
Having read the petition you can add your comments or even edit our petition. Only a few more days left before we put the petition on the E Gov website.
Please remember that it was an E Gov Petition that embarrassed the Government recently when over 1.6 million people signed it. I don't expect as many people are as concerned about corrupt Local Government Ombudsmen as we are but at least it will show Local Government Ombudsmen and the Government that we will not take their corrupt practices lying down.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
New LGO Wiki type website
A new Wiki type Local Government Ombudsman Watchers website has been started.
This allows anyone to contribute to a joint website. You can add information, edit information already on the site or just add a comment if you wish.
This allows anyone to contribute to a joint website. You can add information, edit information already on the site or just add a comment if you wish.
Click here to visit
A Wiki type website for people who have suffered injustice at the hands of the Local Government Ombudsman.
Wiki A website or similar online resource which allows users to add and edit content collectively.
Enjoy
Thomas
Wiki A website or similar online resource which allows users to add and edit content collectively.
Enjoy
Thomas
Thursday, February 01, 2007
New LGO Forum
Join the new LGO forum now!
Click here to visit the forum and then click register to join.
Be aware unlike the previous forums this one is open to the public.
Voice your concerns, ask questions offer advice and meet like minded people.
Click here to visit the forum and then click register to join.
Be aware unlike the previous forums this one is open to the public.
Voice your concerns, ask questions offer advice and meet like minded people.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Ombie Study/Conference
Prof Giddings, Reading University, and Prof Gavin, Drewry Royal Holloway University of London, are holding a study/conference re Ombudsman etc in May. They also plan to take the group on a visit to the Ombudsman's offices. That will be fun.
The contact (bookings?) is PAI 8 Southampton Place, London, WC1A 2EA (Ms Walters) Sorry no phone number available at this time.
Anyone fancy attending?????
Posted on behalf of Jim Tanner
Footnote by Thomas
Don't forget the Ombies have a 'tame and friendly' professor who is willing to write pro Ombie material on request. (For the record, not one of those metioned above.) If you read their papers you will find that they don't even understand local settlements let alone any of the less outrageous tactics that Ombie's use. So much for research.
The contact (bookings?) is PAI 8 Southampton Place, London, WC1A 2EA (Ms Walters) Sorry no phone number available at this time.
Anyone fancy attending?????
Posted on behalf of Jim Tanner
Footnote by Thomas
Don't forget the Ombies have a 'tame and friendly' professor who is willing to write pro Ombie material on request. (For the record, not one of those metioned above.) If you read their papers you will find that they don't even understand local settlements let alone any of the less outrageous tactics that Ombie's use. So much for research.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Stuff the turkey, let's stuff Jim instead!
Was that how the Valuation Office Agency and the Ombudsman decided to celebrate Christmas?
If the Valuation Office Agency and the Ombudsman are willing to stuff a war veteran like Jim then they are willing to stuff anyone.
And that includes you!
Read the full story on the Public Service Ombudsman Watchers website by clicking on Jim's picture.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
I am having a few days off over the xmas period. Back with a vengeance in 2007.Thomas (The Shadow Local Government Ombudsman)
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Tony Parrish 100 Liverpool Council 0
Tony Parrish inspired many others to write blogs about Liverpool. Here are just a few examples.
From small acorns!
From small acorns!
http://imtonyparrish.blogspot.com/
http://subculturegossip.blogspot.com/
http://liverpoolsubculture.blogspot.com/
http://subculturescityofthedead.blogspot.com/
http://henshawsevilcabal.blogspot.com/
http://letmeoffthecorporatebus.blogspot.com/
http://toriblareliverpool.blogspot.com/
http://www.whistleblower.nstemp.com/
Thursday, December 14, 2006
UK Rights
I have just identified an interesting website that may be of interest to readers.
UKRights
The difference with this site is that it is a Wiki type site and everyone can all contribute to the content.
Well worth considering.
UKRights
The difference with this site is that it is a Wiki type site and everyone can all contribute to the content.
Well worth considering.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Deconstructing Justice
The Magna Carta set out a number of limitations on the power of the state and the monarch over the individual, even though few of its provision remain in force in their original form it still has great symbolic significance. Unfortunately recent Governments have seen fit to erode many of those limitations.
Since they introduced Ombudsmen to this country some 40 years ago they have been
surreptitiously increasing the power of the state whilst decreasing the right of individuals. Most people think that
1984, (George Orwell), was supposed to be a work of fiction but recent Governments appear to be using it as blueprint.
Look at what's been happening with Local Government over the last few years. Local Government has been given more and more power enabling then to enforce their ideals within their administrative area with an iron fist.
Many examples have been in the press over the last few months. A couple fined for feeding the birds because 'big brother' local government decided it was litter.
A senior citizen imprisoned because she dared to with hold her council tax because her local Council was failing to do their job. Just pick up a national newspaper and you will read numerous other similar accounts.
What all citizens now fear is that Local Government has been given the power to take punitive and draconian action for something that should and could have been resolved without recourse to the courts. It's absolutely ludicrous that an individual is given a criminal record because a letter addressed to him ended up in the wrong recycling bin. The idiot who found the letter in the wrong bin should have just put it in the right bin and made the individual aware of the situation. Obviously a future Ombudsman in the making.
Don't forget Local Government are supposed to do the bidding of local people and not the other way around. How incredulous that local government should see fit to use local taxes to employ people to punish the very people who pay their wages just because they put a letter in the wrong bin!.
Now consider the flip side, over the same period there has also been a large number of people have suffered significant injustice as a direct result of local government wrongdoing, Corruption, maladministration, intimidation and harassment is rampant in Local Government. Do those citizens have the power to take punitive and draconian action in order to stop local government behaving badly? No, they are forced by circumstances to use the unfair, unjust and biased Local Government Ombudsman.
A system that was introduced by the Government in 1974 that now ensures that the majority of complaints are buried at local level and are never exposed for what they are. A Local Government Ombudsman cannot even punish a Local Authority for doing wrong (Not that they want to). At best they will ask the Local Authority to remedy the injustice but even then Local Government is free to ignore them with impunity. The Ombudsman knows if they ask for a fair settlement the Authority is likely to ignore them. That's why they only ask for a few paltry pounds, it's cheaper for the Authority to settle than pay the few hundred pounds it would cost to publish an Ombudsman's report in a local newspaper!
Most people do not even realise that all Local Government Ombudsman are ex Local Authority Chief Executives. The very people who have used excessive and draconian powers to suppress dissent with their decisions in the past are now in a position to help their ex colleagues to bury Local Authority wronging.
Head they win and tails we lose. The kind of justice that George Orwell would have appreciated.
Look at the two example below and decide for yourself if the scales of justice are balanced!
Council V Citizen
The council have substantially more money than a member of the public to fund legal action. In addition, local residents help fund local councils so ironically a local resident would be helping to fund a council's legal action against themselves.
Unless you are very rich (or very poor) the average member of the public could not afford to defend a legal case brought by a council. Rich people can afford justice and the very poor can obtain justice through legal aid. That leaves the majority of people without access to real justice. The only real option they have is to pay the fine.
Here's an example of what to expect to expect if a Council's finds you guilty of carrying out the most trivial of wrongs.A man was fined £200 (and given a criminal record) because one of his letters ended up in the wrong recycling bin. Even though there was only circumstantial evidence.
Just what kind of message does this send out to citizens? They will be penalised for the most trivial of mistakes. Draconian and punitive action will be taken by anyone who steps out of line.
Citizen V Council
The council have substantially more money than a member of the public to defend a legal action. In addition, local residents help fund local councils so ironically a local resident would also be funding the council's defence costs.
Unless you are very rich (or very poor) an average member of the public cannot take legal action against a Council. Rich people can afford justice and the very poor can obtain justice through legal aid.
That leaves the majority of people without access to real justice. The only option they have is to submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Here's an example of what to expect if a Council's wrongdoings leads to the death of one of your relatives. Not exactly a trivial matter.The ombudsman awarded £500 and the cost of a memorial to the family of a person who lost their life because of council maladministration.
Just what kind of message does this send out to local authorities? They will not be penalised even if people die through their acts of maladministration.
Clearly an unfair and unjust system.
The Government should give citizens access to proper justice or ensure that Local Authorities have to us the same Mickey Mouse justice system that citizens are forced to use. Why have Public Service Ombudsmen never lobbied Government to balance the scales of justice for the citizen? Or were they too busy over the last 34 years lobbying Government for a unified Public Service Ombudsman. Ironically one of the slogans invented for the new unified Public Service Ombudsman is Redress in the Round. As can be seen from the above examples it would appear that, for the citizen at least, Redress is Never Around.
Why not introduce a proper tribunal system that both Local Authorities and citizens have to use and abide by?
Since they introduced Ombudsmen to this country some 40 years ago they have been
surreptitiously increasing the power of the state whilst decreasing the right of individuals. Most people think that
1984, (George Orwell), was supposed to be a work of fiction but recent Governments appear to be using it as blueprint.
Look at what's been happening with Local Government over the last few years. Local Government has been given more and more power enabling then to enforce their ideals within their administrative area with an iron fist.
Many examples have been in the press over the last few months. A couple fined for feeding the birds because 'big brother' local government decided it was litter.
A senior citizen imprisoned because she dared to with hold her council tax because her local Council was failing to do their job. Just pick up a national newspaper and you will read numerous other similar accounts.
What all citizens now fear is that Local Government has been given the power to take punitive and draconian action for something that should and could have been resolved without recourse to the courts. It's absolutely ludicrous that an individual is given a criminal record because a letter addressed to him ended up in the wrong recycling bin. The idiot who found the letter in the wrong bin should have just put it in the right bin and made the individual aware of the situation. Obviously a future Ombudsman in the making.
Don't forget Local Government are supposed to do the bidding of local people and not the other way around. How incredulous that local government should see fit to use local taxes to employ people to punish the very people who pay their wages just because they put a letter in the wrong bin!.
Now consider the flip side, over the same period there has also been a large number of people have suffered significant injustice as a direct result of local government wrongdoing, Corruption, maladministration, intimidation and harassment is rampant in Local Government. Do those citizens have the power to take punitive and draconian action in order to stop local government behaving badly? No, they are forced by circumstances to use the unfair, unjust and biased Local Government Ombudsman.
A system that was introduced by the Government in 1974 that now ensures that the majority of complaints are buried at local level and are never exposed for what they are. A Local Government Ombudsman cannot even punish a Local Authority for doing wrong (Not that they want to). At best they will ask the Local Authority to remedy the injustice but even then Local Government is free to ignore them with impunity. The Ombudsman knows if they ask for a fair settlement the Authority is likely to ignore them. That's why they only ask for a few paltry pounds, it's cheaper for the Authority to settle than pay the few hundred pounds it would cost to publish an Ombudsman's report in a local newspaper!
Most people do not even realise that all Local Government Ombudsman are ex Local Authority Chief Executives. The very people who have used excessive and draconian powers to suppress dissent with their decisions in the past are now in a position to help their ex colleagues to bury Local Authority wronging.
Head they win and tails we lose. The kind of justice that George Orwell would have appreciated.
Look at the two example below and decide for yourself if the scales of justice are balanced!
Council V Citizen
The council have substantially more money than a member of the public to fund legal action. In addition, local residents help fund local councils so ironically a local resident would be helping to fund a council's legal action against themselves.
Unless you are very rich (or very poor) the average member of the public could not afford to defend a legal case brought by a council. Rich people can afford justice and the very poor can obtain justice through legal aid. That leaves the majority of people without access to real justice. The only real option they have is to pay the fine.
Here's an example of what to expect to expect if a Council's finds you guilty of carrying out the most trivial of wrongs.A man was fined £200 (and given a criminal record) because one of his letters ended up in the wrong recycling bin. Even though there was only circumstantial evidence.
Just what kind of message does this send out to citizens? They will be penalised for the most trivial of mistakes. Draconian and punitive action will be taken by anyone who steps out of line.
Citizen V Council
The council have substantially more money than a member of the public to defend a legal action. In addition, local residents help fund local councils so ironically a local resident would also be funding the council's defence costs.
Unless you are very rich (or very poor) an average member of the public cannot take legal action against a Council. Rich people can afford justice and the very poor can obtain justice through legal aid.
That leaves the majority of people without access to real justice. The only option they have is to submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Here's an example of what to expect if a Council's wrongdoings leads to the death of one of your relatives. Not exactly a trivial matter.The ombudsman awarded £500 and the cost of a memorial to the family of a person who lost their life because of council maladministration.
Just what kind of message does this send out to local authorities? They will not be penalised even if people die through their acts of maladministration.
Clearly an unfair and unjust system.
The Government should give citizens access to proper justice or ensure that Local Authorities have to us the same Mickey Mouse justice system that citizens are forced to use. Why have Public Service Ombudsmen never lobbied Government to balance the scales of justice for the citizen? Or were they too busy over the last 34 years lobbying Government for a unified Public Service Ombudsman. Ironically one of the slogans invented for the new unified Public Service Ombudsman is Redress in the Round. As can be seen from the above examples it would appear that, for the citizen at least, Redress is Never Around.
Why not introduce a proper tribunal system that both Local Authorities and citizens have to use and abide by?
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Do as I say not as I do!
In a case reported in the Lancashire Evening News (Preston Today) an Ombudsman criticises a Council for doing something that they (Ombudsmen) do all the time!
'When Ribble Valley Council's planning committee refused to sell land in Kirkmoor Road for a mosque and business use, they reached a decision not supported or justified by the information, Local Government ombudsman Anne Seex reported.' (my emphasis)
Reaching a decision not supported or justified by the facts.
'When Ribble Valley Council's planning committee refused to sell land in Kirkmoor Road for a mosque and business use, they reached a decision not supported or justified by the information, Local Government ombudsman Anne Seex reported.' (my emphasis)
A bit like a drunk running an AA meeting.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Another anti LGO blog identified!
Another anti LGO blog started by David Sneath.
Success requires first expending ten units of effort to produce one unit of results.
Your momentum will then produce ten units of results with each unit of effort.
Charles J. Givens
Success requires first expending ten units of effort to produce one unit of results.
Your momentum will then produce ten units of results with each unit of effort.
Charles J. Givens
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Re last post
It would appear that someone is looking hard at the LGO. During the 2005 select committee investigation into the Role and Effectiveness there was a spurt of cases in which the LGO had found maladministration. This disappeared following the termination of the select committee investigation. Obviously the LGO was trying to improve the perception of the work they do whilst someone was watching.
Well it's started to happen again, another spurt in LGO findings of maladministration can only mean one thing, someone is looking at what they do. The LGO are up to their old tricks again and trying to pull a few rabbits out of the hat to prove they are doing a good job.
Just a pity they only do their job when someone is watching and revert back to normal when attention subsides.
Well it's started to happen again, another spurt in LGO findings of maladministration can only mean one thing, someone is looking at what they do. The LGO are up to their old tricks again and trying to pull a few rabbits out of the hat to prove they are doing a good job.
Just a pity they only do their job when someone is watching and revert back to normal when attention subsides.
Friday, November 03, 2006
What are the Government planning?
................plans to improve the responsiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman and clarify the Ombudsman’s role.
...........plus a new code of conduct for local authority employees.
Click here to read the article.
...........plus a new code of conduct for local authority employees.
Click here to read the article.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
New website
We have been busy over the last week or so with our new website so our blog postings have been less frequent. We hope to be back to normal in a week or so. If you haven't visited the new website psow.co.uk please take the time to have a look.
If you have any material you would like to put in the public domain about the Ombudsmen please send it in. We will host articles, stories, open letters and even jokes. The only thing we ask is that one or more of the Public Service Ombudsmen are involved and it doesn't contain bad language.
You can even have your own page. Here is an example of a page that is being set up for Jim Tanner. It's not finished yet but it will give you an idea of what we are trying to do.
If you have any material you would like to put in the public domain about the Ombudsmen please send it in. We will host articles, stories, open letters and even jokes. The only thing we ask is that one or more of the Public Service Ombudsmen are involved and it doesn't contain bad language.
You can even have your own page. Here is an example of a page that is being set up for Jim Tanner. It's not finished yet but it will give you an idea of what we are trying to do.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Message to the BIOA
When are the British and Irish Ombudsman's Association (BIOA) going to do something about the LGO. Other associations kick out members that bring their profession into disrepute so why not the BIOA? The LGO may be founder members of the BIOA but that's no excuse. Unless of course other BIOA members also want to join the 'being watched' club. Any volunteers to start a BIOA watchers group! ;)
Another watchdog that doesn't bark?
Looks like the LGO are not the only watchdog that doesn't bark. Last year the NAO gave a glowing report on a very expensive new computer system for the NHS. Actually experts were aware of problems at the time and consulting firm Accenture has now pulled out of it's £2 billion pound contract with the NHS. Apparently there is mounting evidence that the NAO report was nobbled in advance of publication.
Has the NAO suffered the same fate as the Local Government Ombudsman? If so who is behind the destruction of public bodies that are supposed to guarantee public integrity.
Has the NAO suffered the same fate as the Local Government Ombudsman? If so who is behind the destruction of public bodies that are supposed to guarantee public integrity.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
New website
All the members of the blog ring have decided to start a website called Public Service Ombudsman Watchers
We thought that by concentrating our efforts on one site rather than separate blogs we could concentrate our efforts and provide a one stop shop for hosting other peoples articles, stories, evidence and information that they would like in the public domain.
Please note that this new website has been set up to compliment Ombudsmanwatch not to compete with it. The only aim of our new site is to expose the perverse decisions of the Ombudsmen to public scrutiny.
Thomas, AKA the Shadow
We thought that by concentrating our efforts on one site rather than separate blogs we could concentrate our efforts and provide a one stop shop for hosting other peoples articles, stories, evidence and information that they would like in the public domain.
Please note that this new website has been set up to compliment Ombudsmanwatch not to compete with it. The only aim of our new site is to expose the perverse decisions of the Ombudsmen to public scrutiny.
Thomas, AKA the Shadow
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
LGO on the lookout for quick closure!
The Local Government Ombudsman's investigator handbook states;
'section 26(10) gives the Ombudsman discretion to decide whether to start, continue or discontinue an investigation. So, during the early stages of considering a complaint it is important to consider if there are grounds (other than the jurisdictional bars) not to begin an investigation.'
'section 26(10) gives the Ombudsman discretion to decide whether to start, continue or discontinue an investigation. So, during the early stages of considering a complaint it is important to consider if there are grounds (other than the jurisdictional bars) not to begin an investigation.'
Proof that they are always on the look out for a reason not to begin an investigation!
Are LGO Targets to blame for the problem?
Are targets the reason why investigators jump to hasty conclusions?
'The Commission expects complaints to be dealt with as swiftly as possible subject to the requirements of fairness and achieving the right outcome. The present overall time targets are
50.0% of complaints decided within 13 weeks 80.0% within 26 weeks 95.5% within 52 weeks' Source LGO investigators handbook.
No wonder they are so keen to turn down valid complaints using underhand tactics like 'you haven't suffered enough injustice'.
'The Commission expects complaints to be dealt with as swiftly as possible subject to the requirements of fairness and achieving the right outcome. The present overall time targets are
50.0% of complaints decided within 13 weeks 80.0% within 26 weeks 95.5% within 52 weeks' Source LGO investigators handbook.
No wonder they are so keen to turn down valid complaints using underhand tactics like 'you haven't suffered enough injustice'.
Investigators earn more money turning down complaints quickly!
Note the following extract from the LGO investigator handbook 'The Commission is particularly concerned to keep to a minimum the number of cases which take more than a year to determine. Such cases should be exceptional, where there are good investigative or resourcing reasons for the time taken rather than avoidable delay. It is, therefore, very important to manage the progress of any case actively throughout its life. And if a case reaches 39 weeks the investigator and AO will plan how to secure completion -if at all possible - within 52 weeks. Each office will decide how to monitor the management and completion of old cases.'
LGO and Public Trust
The Local Government Ombudsman state that one of their aims is to;
'increase public confidence and trust in local government and in the complaints system as a whole.'
With blogs like mine and websites like LGOwatch springing up all the time they are clearly not achieving their aim!
'increase public confidence and trust in local government and in the complaints system as a whole.'
With blogs like mine and websites like LGOwatch springing up all the time they are clearly not achieving their aim!
More porkies!
The Local Government Ombudsman's investigator handbook starts with these words;
'Investigating complaints is our main job and is at the heart of everything we do.'
If that is the case then why did they only complete 129 investigations out of the 18,321 submitted complaints during 2005/6? As far as I am concerned investigating complaints must have been the last thing on their minds.
What did they do with the other 18192, just jump to a conclusion before investigating properly?
Why don't tell the truth and admit that the main part of their job is jumping to hasty conclusions to save them the bother of investigating complaints properly!
'Investigating complaints is our main job and is at the heart of everything we do.'
If that is the case then why did they only complete 129 investigations out of the 18,321 submitted complaints during 2005/6? As far as I am concerned investigating complaints must have been the last thing on their minds.
What did they do with the other 18192, just jump to a conclusion before investigating properly?
Why don't tell the truth and admit that the main part of their job is jumping to hasty conclusions to save them the bother of investigating complaints properly!
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
LGO over paid and under qualified?
The Local Government Ombudsman's 2005/6 annual report states the following
'The salary of the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Commission was linked to that of a High Court Judge, and those of the other Local Government Ombudsmen were linked to the salaries of circuit judges; the salaries of staff are based on local government scales.'
Who decided to pay them more than they are worth?
Just a pity that they don't also have the integrity, impartiality, skill and qualifications of a Judge. Looks like an ex Council CEO pre-retirement perk to me. An easy way to bolster your pension and pick up a gong just before you're put out to grass.
'The salary of the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Commission was linked to that of a High Court Judge, and those of the other Local Government Ombudsmen were linked to the salaries of circuit judges; the salaries of staff are based on local government scales.'
Who decided to pay them more than they are worth?
Just a pity that they don't also have the integrity, impartiality, skill and qualifications of a Judge. Looks like an ex Council CEO pre-retirement perk to me. An easy way to bolster your pension and pick up a gong just before you're put out to grass.
LGO =
'Lack-lustre Government Official'?
'Lack-lustre Government Official'?
They work for you web-site.
A new question about the LGO has been posted on 'They work for you' web-site'.
My question would be,
why have a 12 month time limit in the first place?
If you would like to read other questions about the LGO on the 'They work for you' web-site many of them are available by clicking here.
If you are interested in what other questions are being asked by MPs just search 'They work for your web-site' with the key words of your choice. You can also leave a comment and vote on the answer supplied by the government.
Well worth a visit.
My question would be,
why have a 12 month time limit in the first place?
If you would like to read other questions about the LGO on the 'They work for you' web-site many of them are available by clicking here.
If you are interested in what other questions are being asked by MPs just search 'They work for your web-site' with the key words of your choice. You can also leave a comment and vote on the answer supplied by the government.
Well worth a visit.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
LGO annual report and accounts published
The Local Government Ombudsman's 2005/6 report and accounts have been published at last.
My comments on the report will start in a few days time.
I was originally thinking of writing an article about the report but there is so little difference between the review and the report I have decided to post a few comment about the additions.
If you would like to read the LGO 2005/6 report and accounts you can download a PDF copy from their website or by clicking here.
My article about the review can be read by clicking the link in the side bar.
If you would like to read the LGO 2005/6 report and accounts you can download a PDF copy from their website or by clicking here.
My article about the review can be read by clicking the link in the side bar.
My comments on the report will start in a few days time.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The BP way?
BP have recently appointed a Judge as a company ombudsman. They will be responsible for handling complaints from staff.
If a private company can hire a Judge as an ombudsman why do we have to put up with third rate ex council chief executive officers with no legal training whatsoever.
Did our government want the LGO organisation to fail by staffing it with people who haven't the first idea about justice? It would appear so!
If a private company can hire a Judge as an ombudsman why do we have to put up with third rate ex council chief executive officers with no legal training whatsoever.
Did our government want the LGO organisation to fail by staffing it with people who haven't the first idea about justice? It would appear so!
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
3.5 million potential customers
A Mori survey identified that nearly one in every nine adults have wanted to make a complaint about a local council but did not do so.
Using the 2001 Census figures for adults in England that means that close to three and a half million people wanted to complaint about a local council but didn't.
The question is why do some 3.5 million people think complaining is a waste of time. Could the dismal track record of the Local Government Ombudsman provide the answer.
Using the 2001 Census figures for adults in England that means that close to three and a half million people wanted to complaint about a local council but didn't.
The question is why do some 3.5 million people think complaining is a waste of time. Could the dismal track record of the Local Government Ombudsman provide the answer.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
32 years to see the light!
During the BMG survey a senior member of the LGO staff stated
'The overall direction that the Service is going in with regard to improving the investigation process and making better use of the intelligence gathered is considered by respondents to be good. We are on the way but it takes time. We all know that transformation and major change does not happen by someone flicking a switch. It has to have ownership and people who really believe in what they are doing.'
They LGO have been in business for over 32 years not just the time it takes to flick a switch. I have calculated that if I switched a light on every second I could have switched on over 1000 million lights by now.
One can only conclude from the final sentence that the organisation can't be staffed by people who believe in what they are doing. No wonder investigations take so long, they still haven't finalised the process after 32 years.
'The overall direction that the Service is going in with regard to improving the investigation process and making better use of the intelligence gathered is considered by respondents to be good. We are on the way but it takes time. We all know that transformation and major change does not happen by someone flicking a switch. It has to have ownership and people who really believe in what they are doing.'
They LGO have been in business for over 32 years not just the time it takes to flick a switch. I have calculated that if I switched a light on every second I could have switched on over 1000 million lights by now.
One can only conclude from the final sentence that the organisation can't be staffed by people who believe in what they are doing. No wonder investigations take so long, they still haven't finalised the process after 32 years.
Analysis of an LGO's annual review
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Holiday is over
I have just returned from my annual holiday and expect to resume normal service in a couple of days.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Postcard to the LGO
The reason I have not posted over the last few days is because I am on holiday, as a result this posting comes from sunny Cyprus. Although I am on holiday for a few weeks I did bring a copy of the Local Government Ombudsman's 2006 review with me, I thought I would write the Shadow's review of the review on the beach. I hope to be in a position to publish my findings when I return home. I note that Trevor has beaten me to it with his article on the annual letters.
PS Having a wonderful time glad there's no LGO's here.
PS Having a wonderful time glad there's no LGO's here.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Local Settlement
Terminology
If a person colluded with a council to stuff an innocent third party the law would call it ‘collusion’.
However, when a Local Government Ombudsman colludes with a council to stuff an innocent third party, they call it a ‘local settlement’.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Another typical case!
My attention was brought to a new blog recently. It typifies everything that is wrong with Local Government and the current Local Government Ombudsmen.
It usually starts when a member of staff makes what, on first impressions, looks like a simple administrative error. I accept this happens in many cases but on occasions the error is made quite deliberately because the member of staff (or the Council) has an ulterior motive.
If a local resident complained to their Council, one would assume, if it was a just a simple mistake, the problem would be immediately resolved. Let’s face a simple apology would normally resolve the problem and allow people to move on. Unfortunately, when there is an ulterior motive behind the error Council’s often make matters a lot worse by compounding the problem.
Essentially the person who made the ‘error’ must hold their ground because they would probably be dismissed if their bosses knew it was a deliberate act. As a result they use their knowledge of the Council’s internal workings together with their network of colleagues and friends to bury the truth.
When this happens the odds are heavily stacked against the complainant. The perpetrator has access to all the documentation and all the support they need to strengthen their position. Files are tampered with, colleagues are brought in to support the wrongdoer and evidence goes missing.
The complainant is then faced with the Council’s internal complaints procedure. The complaints department is run by friends and colleagues of the perpetrator so obviously they are not going to try very hard to find evidence of duplicitous behaviour.
After the complainant has been through this procedure, a procedure designed to give the perpetrator sufficient time to amend records bury the evidence and rally support, (As a famous judge once stated, justice delayed is justice denied.) the complainant is faced with no alternative but to take their complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
By this time the trail is cold, stories have been concocted, documents have been doctored and support has been rallied by the perpetrator and their colleagues making investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman very difficult indeed.
However, it wouldn’t be impossible to get to the truth if we had an impartial Local Government Ombudsman who conducted a thorough investigation and validated all the evidence. Unfortunately, we don’t have that; we have a Local Government Ombudsman who openly operates a policy of believing everything a Council tells them without question. The Local Government Ombudsman then supports the Council and ditches the complainant with any old dubious tactic that comes to hand.
Their favourite procedure is to ring the Council and ask them if there is any truth in the complaint, the Council say no, the Local Government Ombudsman accepts it without any sort of validation and terminates the complaint on the grounds that there was no evidence of maladministration. What they fail to tell anyone is that they don’t bother looking in the first place. This is what they did to the Balchins in 1991 to Trevor Nunn in 2002 and what they are still doing today. It took the Balchins an extra 14 years to get the justice the deserved because of this bizarre policy and poor old Trevor is still waiting.
Government and MPs should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such a rotten and corrupt Local Government Complaints system to exist in this country, one that many third world dictatorships would not even contemplate trying to introduce.
What's even worse in this case is that the person involved was trying to help the local community by becoming a foster carer. If the Council can ruin the lives of a person who was trying to help just what are they capable of when faced with someone who isn't!
I have an open question to the Local Government Ombudsman concerned; will this potential foster carer ever get the justice they deserve? And if so, how long are they expected to wait? You can e-mail me your answer and I will add it to this introduction. Obviously I won’t be holding my breath.
I also have a question for MPs. When are you going to pull your fingers out and do something about the problem?
You can read the potential foster carer's story by clicking here or the link in the side bar.
It usually starts when a member of staff makes what, on first impressions, looks like a simple administrative error. I accept this happens in many cases but on occasions the error is made quite deliberately because the member of staff (or the Council) has an ulterior motive.
If a local resident complained to their Council, one would assume, if it was a just a simple mistake, the problem would be immediately resolved. Let’s face a simple apology would normally resolve the problem and allow people to move on. Unfortunately, when there is an ulterior motive behind the error Council’s often make matters a lot worse by compounding the problem.
Essentially the person who made the ‘error’ must hold their ground because they would probably be dismissed if their bosses knew it was a deliberate act. As a result they use their knowledge of the Council’s internal workings together with their network of colleagues and friends to bury the truth.
When this happens the odds are heavily stacked against the complainant. The perpetrator has access to all the documentation and all the support they need to strengthen their position. Files are tampered with, colleagues are brought in to support the wrongdoer and evidence goes missing.
The complainant is then faced with the Council’s internal complaints procedure. The complaints department is run by friends and colleagues of the perpetrator so obviously they are not going to try very hard to find evidence of duplicitous behaviour.
After the complainant has been through this procedure, a procedure designed to give the perpetrator sufficient time to amend records bury the evidence and rally support, (As a famous judge once stated, justice delayed is justice denied.) the complainant is faced with no alternative but to take their complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
By this time the trail is cold, stories have been concocted, documents have been doctored and support has been rallied by the perpetrator and their colleagues making investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman very difficult indeed.
However, it wouldn’t be impossible to get to the truth if we had an impartial Local Government Ombudsman who conducted a thorough investigation and validated all the evidence. Unfortunately, we don’t have that; we have a Local Government Ombudsman who openly operates a policy of believing everything a Council tells them without question. The Local Government Ombudsman then supports the Council and ditches the complainant with any old dubious tactic that comes to hand.
Their favourite procedure is to ring the Council and ask them if there is any truth in the complaint, the Council say no, the Local Government Ombudsman accepts it without any sort of validation and terminates the complaint on the grounds that there was no evidence of maladministration. What they fail to tell anyone is that they don’t bother looking in the first place. This is what they did to the Balchins in 1991 to Trevor Nunn in 2002 and what they are still doing today. It took the Balchins an extra 14 years to get the justice the deserved because of this bizarre policy and poor old Trevor is still waiting.
Government and MPs should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such a rotten and corrupt Local Government Complaints system to exist in this country, one that many third world dictatorships would not even contemplate trying to introduce.
What's even worse in this case is that the person involved was trying to help the local community by becoming a foster carer. If the Council can ruin the lives of a person who was trying to help just what are they capable of when faced with someone who isn't!
I have an open question to the Local Government Ombudsman concerned; will this potential foster carer ever get the justice they deserve? And if so, how long are they expected to wait? You can e-mail me your answer and I will add it to this introduction. Obviously I won’t be holding my breath.
I also have a question for MPs. When are you going to pull your fingers out and do something about the problem?
You can read the potential foster carer's story by clicking here or the link in the side bar.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
David V Goliath
Ombudsman Watchers will not be intimidated by the Local Government Ombudsman. Citizens of this country deserve an impartial, open, transparent, fair and honest complaints system. The current system is a disgrace and needs reforming. Until the current system is substantially improved we will continue snapping at the heels of the Ombudsman. We want maladministration brought to the publics attention not buried for the convenience of their friends, collegues and paymasters in Local and National Government.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
New LGO Blog
Another Ombudsman watcher has decided to set up a blog. This one is focused on the funny side of the Ombudsmen. No shortage of material there then. As a result I have decided to post all my humerous posting to the new blog by The Joker
You will find a submit button on the Joker's blog but this e-mails me rather than them in order to protect their anonymity. I will ensure all submissions reach the Joker but it's their decision what gets published.
You will find a submit button on the Joker's blog but this e-mails me rather than them in order to protect their anonymity. I will ensure all submissions reach the Joker but it's their decision what gets published.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
LGO annual report published
Over the last few years the LGO like Local and national Government have spent more time and public money producing glossy ‘marketing’ reports than improving the basic service they are responsible for providing.
When are they going to realise that people are utterly sick of spin and simply want them to do the job they are paid to do.
I have decided to write a shadow report that tells the truth. I will let the reader reach their own conclusion of which one is closer to the truth. Watch this blog for further details.
When are they going to realise that people are utterly sick of spin and simply want them to do the job they are paid to do.
I have decided to write a shadow report that tells the truth. I will let the reader reach their own conclusion of which one is closer to the truth. Watch this blog for further details.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
LGO Skeletons?
If you have any information that you think may be of interest please e-mail me now.
The Shadow can use all the help he can get.
The Shadow can use all the help he can get.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
The greatest LGO trick ever!
See how the
Local Government Ombudsman
'Magical Tony Baloney'
deals with local authority maladministration
The shadow thinks the Local Government Ombudsman should stop using this trick. We need Ombudsmen not magicians. Stop hiding the truth and start reporting it!
Local Government Ombudsman
'Magical Tony Baloney'
deals with local authority maladministration
The shadow thinks the Local Government Ombudsman should stop using this trick. We need Ombudsmen not magicians. Stop hiding the truth and start reporting it!
Saturday, July 15, 2006
LGO unfair policy
The Local Government Ombudsmen have a policy of believing whatever a Local Authority tells them. They don't even go to the time and trouble of confirming what a Local Authority tells them, they just accept it.
Evidence that could prove a Local Authority has not been telling the truth is ignored and the complaint is often terminated without further investigation. This is exactly what happened to Mr and Mrs Balchin during 1990. The then Ombudsman just rang up the Local Authority and believed every word they said. It took some 15 years to correct that Ombudsman's stupidity.
The problem is that this policy is still in force, which just goes to prove how biased, unaccountable and out of touch the current three Local Government Ombudsmen really are.
The Shadow thinks this policy is unfair and should be scrapped immediately. In fact it's such a stupid, unfair and biased policy it should never have been implemented in the first place.
What do the readers think?
Evidence that could prove a Local Authority has not been telling the truth is ignored and the complaint is often terminated without further investigation. This is exactly what happened to Mr and Mrs Balchin during 1990. The then Ombudsman just rang up the Local Authority and believed every word they said. It took some 15 years to correct that Ombudsman's stupidity.
The problem is that this policy is still in force, which just goes to prove how biased, unaccountable and out of touch the current three Local Government Ombudsmen really are.
The Shadow thinks this policy is unfair and should be scrapped immediately. In fact it's such a stupid, unfair and biased policy it should never have been implemented in the first place.
What do the readers think?
Friday, July 14, 2006
LGO and maladministration
The word maladministration should not be used by Ombudsmen.
When an Ombudsman finds a Local Authority guilty of maladministration (which is very rare) it makes it appear that Local Authorities are only guilty of a minor act of faulty administration. That is simply not the case.
The so called 'maladministration' or 'faulty administration' as the Local Government Ombudsman prefer to call it often consist of quite horrendous and heinous acts perpetrated by the Local Authority on innocent members of the community.
These acts include, fraud, lying, harassment, intimidation, libel, slander, collusion, threatening behaviour to name but a few. Do you think the word 'maladministration' adequately covers these wrongs? The Ombudsman does!
The Shadow Ombudsman doesn't, he wants the Local Government Ombudsman to tell the truth and stop helping Local Authorities hide from the reality of their wrongdoings.
When an Ombudsman finds a Local Authority guilty of maladministration (which is very rare) it makes it appear that Local Authorities are only guilty of a minor act of faulty administration. That is simply not the case.
The so called 'maladministration' or 'faulty administration' as the Local Government Ombudsman prefer to call it often consist of quite horrendous and heinous acts perpetrated by the Local Authority on innocent members of the community.
These acts include, fraud, lying, harassment, intimidation, libel, slander, collusion, threatening behaviour to name but a few. Do you think the word 'maladministration' adequately covers these wrongs? The Ombudsman does!
The Shadow Ombudsman doesn't, he wants the Local Government Ombudsman to tell the truth and stop helping Local Authorities hide from the reality of their wrongdoings.
What's wrong with the LGO
This blog is being written to expose the faults within the Commission for Local Administration, better known to everyone as the Local Government Ombudsmen. What follows will be a long series of postings giving an alternative (shadow) view of their decisions and policies.
I would like to thank Ombudsmanwatch and Trevor R Nunn LGO Watcher for inspiring me to publish my thoughts in a blog.
I would like to thank Ombudsmanwatch and Trevor R Nunn LGO Watcher for inspiring me to publish my thoughts in a blog.
The Shadow