Letter to us about the Local Government Ombudsman
I would like people to know of my experience of the way the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) seems to go out of its way to support the local authority and not give an impartial and just response to complaints.
My initial complaint was against Trading Standards Gloucestershire regarding a back garden fence I had erected in 2008. It was soundly constructed but did not match the neighbour's fences as originally verbally agreed with the trader. The timber boards were of widely differing colours, the rails of different sizes, and there were moulds on the wood. The trader agreed to replace the timber boards. However, full payment was requested before he did this and the trader's wife was very aggressive on the phone. (I learned later that there had been considerable arguments between the trader and his wife over the matter.)
I was informed by Consumer Direct that under the 1982 Sales of Goods and Services Act the trader was in breach on an expressed term of the contract, and the quality was not satisfactory. They advised me not to pay until the job was completed satisfactorily.
When the trader's wife continued to demand full, or near to full payment, Consumer Direct passed the file to Gloucestershire Trading Standards. The Trading Standards (TS) officer agreed to phone the trader, ostensibly to get an agreement on the level of an interim payment. It should have been straightforward as the trader had told me previously that all he wanted to do was a good job and for me to be satisfied.
Unfortunately, as it emerged later, the TS officer had had a very difficult conversation with a very aggressive partner of the trader (Council Report). He then telephoned me to convey the trader's (wife's) ultimatum ˜either they will remove the timber and I pay x amount for part of the fence, or they will come and remove the whole fence". I asked the officer if he had informed the trader of his obligations under the 1982 Act as advised by Consumer Direct, and he replied no because I had done that. However, he did inform me they could sue me for taking away materials. The officer also implied Consumer Direct were not much use as they don't deal with companies. (NB The trader had told me earlier that TS had informed him he had no obligation to replace the timber, in contrast to Consumer Directs advice.)
The ultimatum conveyed by the TS officer was highly threatening (we would be exposed to a public playing field at the back of the house, and we might be sued). I had had a heart operation the previous year, and under the distress of the situation I felt pressured to pay the full amount for the fence as it stood. This was a very unsatisfactory outcome and not in line with the support and advice I had received from Consumer Direct.
I complained to Trading Standards that their officer had not been fair or impartial, and that he had conveyed a threatening ultimatum to me. The complaint has been investigated by the Council and the Local Government Ombudsman. Their responses I believe have been distorted, fudged, and biased. The fact that I had been threatened by the ultimatum conveyed by the TS officer has just been dismissed.
Furthermore, I have been told that the TS officer had acted in line with ˜the Department's policy procedures" and he had no obligation to inform the trader of the legislation that he might be in breach of, or my legal rights. However the TS officer's manager writes in a letter of 31 July 2008: "All our advisers must remain impartial in order to give the most informed advice to both consumers and traders alike." The TS officer did not give the most informed advice to the trader, he did not inform him of the legislation he might be in breach of, and he did not inform him of my legal rights, but he did inform me of the trader's legal rights. He was not, therefore, acting impartially as stipulated by his manager.
I believe it is unfair and unjust for the LGO to have white-washed the TS officer's apparent bias, incompetence, and indifference to the effect of an ultimatum. I went to great pains to give clear and objective accounts of the basis of my complaint, and the poor responses from the LGO added to my distress. When you add to this the huge waste of time, resources, and tax payers money spent on this kind of facade, in my view it is nothing less than a national disgrace.
I have written to my MP about the matter. His representative has informed me what I knew already, that the LGO has the final say. However, he did say that he shared my view on the matter. He also referred to it as an isolated case. I have, therefore, informed him of the LGO Watch website.
NL