Neil Hobbs Assistant Ombudsman, York LGO office, fallacious reasoning
Evidence donated by Trevor Nunn
Following the submission of a comeback request Neil Hobbs, Assistant Ombudsman, York LGO office, stated that I did not meet the criteria for comeback. However, he thought I had a good case for a new investigation because the council had misled the Ombudsman.
Ironically one of the criteria that allows the Ombudsman to comeback on a complaint is if the council has misled the Ombudsman. (Please refer to the Comeback Procedure below for more details. Criteria 3) The council has not been telling the true story and evidence of this is provided.)
This is a typical example of the irrationality of the Ombudsman’s office.
The rules state that you
can have comeback on your original complaint if the council misled the
Ombudsman. Whilst Mr Hobbs stated that I would have
to submit a new complaint because the council misled the Ombudsman. Enough
to make your brain hurt? The Ombudsman' staff regularly expose the irrationality
of their decisions when trying to rationalise their decisions.
The Local Government Ombudsman's comeback procedure states
The
term comeback is used when a complaint has been determined without a
formal report and the complainant alleges that one or more of the
following apply:
1) The complaint, or a material part of it, has not been understood by the commission’s staff;
2) Evidence submitted before termination has not been taken into account;
3) The council has not been telling the true story and evidence of this is provided; or
4) New information has been supplied about the original complaint.
If
the complainant meets any one of the stated criteria, the initial
decision not to investigate their complaint should be properly reviewed
by a senior officer.
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.