Local Government Ombudsman what lies
beneath their spin
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prefer remained unpublished.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 (08/09) 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.
Submitted by Trevor R Nunn
If you can provide evidence against the Local Government Ombudsman
please send it to
Ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk and they will add it to these
evidence archives.
