Trevor Nunn to The Times, April 2005
Reference: The interview between Patrick Kidd and Tony Redmond, Local Government Ombudsman, printed in the Times on 26th April 2005 “I don’t want to moan but…”
Dear Sir
I was appalled when I read the interview in the Times. I hope, some time in the near future, you are going to print a service users viewpoint. Mr Redmond tries to suggest that we are becoming a nation of complainers. The truth is that the LGO has failed, and continues to fail, to reduce local authority maladministration. It is on the increase because local authorities know they can carry out appalling acts of maladministration with very little chance of being called to account by the LGO. The LGO’s own figures prove that the chance of a local authority being found guilty of maladministration is less that 2%, excellent odds for a local authority. How can only 1.6% of local authorities be found guilty of maladministration by the LGO when the true figure is nearer 30%? The LGO substantially under reports maladministration. They do this by using what they euphemistically call “local settlements”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that this means that the complainant is satisfied, far from it. What “local settlement” means is that the LGO has found maladministration but allows the local authority to “buy off” a finding of maladministration by the payment of a paltry sum to the complainant. The complainant has no say in the matter. The LGO then registers this as a local settlement rather than maladministration. However, this practice raises a serious question. How can a local authority spend taxpayer’s money when they have not been found guilty of maladministration? Furthermore, the Local Government Act 1974 empowers the LGO to investigate complaints by members of the public who claim to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration. Whilst the LGO has the discretion to terminate an investigation, they have no express statutory powers to enforce a local settlement. The only reason “local settlements” are used is because they are mutually beneficial to the LGO and local authorities.Rather curious that an organisation who is statutory empowered to investigate acts of maladministration manipulates events so they don’t have to investigating acts of maladministration.
Mr Redmond’s background was stated in the article. I hope you also appreciate that many of his staff are also ex local authority. Would you like to go to court and then find out the Judge and many of his staff used to work for the opposing side? What if the opposing side also had a hand in selecting the Judge paid his wages and also his pension when he retired. Would you still accept that the LGO was impartial?Mr Redmond also asks the question who guards the guards. Some Ombudsmen have external complaints procedures. However, the LGO, prefer to operate an perverse internal complaints system. Would you like to take a complaint about the way a Judge handled your case to the same Judge?
One final question for Mr Redmond in response to his ridiculous analogy with the “A” team. What role does he think he is playing, “Howling mad Murdoch”, the lunatic or “Face”, the scam artist?
You should also be aware that an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister select committee decided recently to look at the “Role and Effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman” Unfortunately the election curtailed their investigation but you can read the damming evidence at
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmodpm/458/458.pdf
A number of service users submitted evidence. Unlike Mr Redmond, not one had anything positive to say about the LGO.
If you want to present a more accurate view of the LGO then I suggest that you tell your readers to visit www.ombudsmanwatch.org.uk before using the “O” team.
Yours faithfully
Trevor Nunn