Coventry Ombudsman’s office is unfit for purpose.
Jane
Martin had only just come into office when she dealt with my case. She
manipulated my complaint against Test Valley Borough Council by failing
to acknowledge the existence of important data that I had asked her to
investigate. She then proceeded to briefly examine this data once she
had closed the case. She made it very clear that she would not enter
into any discussion, thus preventing me from challenging her decision.
The four items which she refused to address were,
a) that the Council
deliberately included unverified, anonymously protected, libellous
statements in a Complaints Panel Meeting with the objective of
discrediting my character thus reducing my efficacy in the meeting,
b) she failed to investigate
why the Council had accepted a noise nuisance complaint from someone
living in an entirely differently County contrary to TVBCs policy
document,
c) she failed to investigate
why Alan Higgins, the person in charge of TVBCs Environmental Health
department did not ensure that a complaint against the Council was
handled according to his own instruction and
d) failed to find Test Valley
Borough Council guilty of anything when she knew that data which, by
law, should have been protected was actually given to me. She did not
accuse the Council of maladministration or of causing injustice.
This case was also overseen by Neville Jones (Deputy Ombudsman),
Stephen Purser (Assistant Ombudsman), Vereena Jones (Assistant
Ombudsman) and Rob Draper (Investigator). Not one of these officials
acknowledged the existence of nor carried out any analysis of the data
provided despite frequent requests to do so.
By any normal standards the above issues represent breaches of trust by
TVBC. Jane Martin was asked to reopen the case and discuss impartially
the above issues. I told her that if she failed to do this by 25 June
2010 I would make it public that the Coventry Ombudsman’s office is
unfit for purpose. Coinciding with this Roger Tetstall, Chief Executive
of TVBC issued a document threatening to deem me an “Unreasonable and
Unreasonably Persistent Complainant”. Jane Martin says that it is
"critical that we maintain trust and confidence in the service - from
members of the public, local authorities and other public bodies. So I
particularly want to focus on quality assurance, ensuring the service
is accessible, consistent and fair, and that we take all reasonable
steps to be a transparent and responsive organisation."
Background
As a result of having 3 complaints made about purported barking from my
dogs I made a complaint to Test Valley Borough Council. Two complaints
were made against me in April 2007 and one in April 2008. I complained
to the Council because I knew the complaints were malicious. I had
experienced serious conflict with three neighbours, two were upset
because of a conservatory which I had built and there had been an
ongoing problem with another family who persistently parked in the
turning bay.
I investigated and discovered that my Council was not following Defra
guidance which states:-
“Individual
local authorities will be guided by their own legal advice but both the
CIEH and Defra take the view that contacting the alleged noise-maker
before complaints have been corroborated risks them threatening legal
action where no statutory nuisance exists or is likely. Sometimes the
local authority may be used as a tool to harass alleged noise-makers in
neighbourhood disputes centred on other non-noise related issues.
Additionally, alerting alleged noise-makers to the investigation might
defeat the object in some cases. Consequently, many local authorities
have a policy of not contacting alleged noise-makers until the
existence of a noise problem has been established.” (Neighbourhood Noise Policies and Practice-
A Management Guide, September 2006, Defra/CIEH)
I also have a letter from Alan Higgins who was in charge of
environmental Health at the time of my complaint but not when the
complaints were made against me. He reiterated the Defra guidance:-
“What it asks
(the Council) is that the complainant substantiates their complaint
with details of the noise which disturbs them, when it occurs and over
what period of time. That information is then assessed by a qualified
Officer, for precisely the reason that complaints that are apparently
without foundation can be identified and disposed of without recourse
to the person complained of. This process ensures that malicious,
frivolous or vexatious complaints are not acted upon to the detriment
or inconvenience of the persons complained of. If the written
information points to there being a noise issue, an investigation
carried out by a qualified Officer will then take place.” (Letter from Alan Higgins, Head of
Environmental Health, to J Browne dated 23rd July 2008.)
In November 2008 I attended a Complaints Panel Meeting to try to find
out why my Council was not following National guidance. I objected to
being informed of complaints against me when no evidence of wrongdoing
on my part had been collected and all other information had been
withheld from me; particularly the identity of the complainants. I
provided a list which demonstrated the unnecessary anxiety generated by
this approach. Subsequently the three Councillors present all agreed
that the guidance should be followed but the legal department disagreed
therefore the status quo remained. At the end of the meeting I was
handed a bundle of papers which I subsequently realised contained the
identity of the three complainants and other information. The
complainants were precisely the people with whom I had had serious
issues. I was not satisfied with the conclusion of the meeting and I
carried my complaint forward to the Ombudsman.
My complaint was described thus:-
“……….the
Council failed properly to handle complaints of noise disturbance from
dog barking made against you in that it disclosed the existence of the
complaints to you before it had any credible evidence that the
complaints were made in good faith with the result that you and your
dogs were caused avoidable distress………..” Rob Draper,
Investigator, Ombudsman Service.
In the bundle of papers I had discovered:-
1) that one complaint was
accepted from a person not living in the Borough at the time of her
complaint. 5.2 of the relevant TVBC policy document says:- “In general,
nuisance action cannot be taken without supporting evidence from a
complainant living or working within the borough to demonstrate the
impact of the situation.” This young girl was at University in West
Sussex and complained without the knowledge or consent of her parents
who say that they were furious when they found out about her complaint.
I wanted the Ombudsman to find out why this complaint was seen as the
exception to the rule. I have made a F of I request to establish how
many noise complaints are accepted from people who live miles away from
the purported noise source.
2) that a libellous statement
was distributed about me without my knowledge therefore giving me no
chance to refute it. “Please can this matter be dealt with discretely
and for the neighbour concerned not to be made aware of the identity of
the complainant. This particular neighbour is aggressive and often
abusive towards our family and this could make the situation worse if
the address or identity is revealed.” The ICO has no remit for dealing
with what Councils distribute. People will say all kinds of things if
they think they are protected by anonymity. I believe that the public
would expect the Council to meticulously ensure that no unproven,
character damaging material provided under the veil of anonymity is
ever used against them.
3) I expected my complaint to
be dealt with according to the edict of the person in charge at the
time. (See Mr Higgins statement above.) Alan Higgins was President of
CIEH from January 2005- 2008 He would have presided over the 2006
Defra/CIEH recommendation but was not President when he was interim
head of TVBC or when he dealt with the complaints against me. He
clearly still agreed with the substance of the 2006 recommendation, but
completely failed to implement any of its principles when he dealt with
my complaint. The letter was written to me personally and a copy was
submitted to Jane Martin by TVBC. I wanted to know why he had failed to
deal with my complaint in line with his own assessment of how his
department worked.
4) and I also thought that the
Council would be rebuked for failing to protect data. I informed all
three complainants and the ICO that the data had not been protected.
Also during the progression of my Ombudsman’s complaint I collected
letters of support from the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, Battersea
Dogs Home and three other lesser known charities. I also had the
written support of Sandra Gidley, my MP at the time. Ultimately TVBC
was advised by Jane Martin that they should follow national guidance. I
think she thought that by upholding my complaint in that respect that
would mollify me. On the strength of that I have written to over 150
Councils in England informing them of the Ombudsman’s advice to TVBC.
Not one of the following even acknowledged the existence of the data
that I had provided, Jane Martin (Ombudsman), Neville Jones (Deputy
Ombudsman), Stephen Purser (Assistant Ombudsman), Vereena Jones
(Assistant Ombudsman) and Rob Draper (Investigator).
I repeatedly asked Jane Martin to address the 3 issues mentioned above
but she failed to even allude to any of them or to the fact that I had
support for my contention until after she had closed my case, (see her
letter of 6th June 2010). I then told her that if she had not reopened
my case by Friday 25th June 2010 I would publicise the fact that in my
opinion the Coventry Office is unfit for purpose. On the next working
day, Monday 28th June Roger Tetstall wrote to inform me that if I
continued he would have me officially deemed an “Unreasonable and
Unreasonably Persistent Complainant”. I have no evidence but I suspect
that the initiative for this came from Jane Martin as there had been no
hint of this from TVBC prior to my warning to Jane Martin. I will
continue to make requests of the Council until the remaining questions
are answered. If I am banished to the “sin bin” then so be it.
Both TVBC and the Jane Martin have abused their power. I had a right to
have my concerns addressed impartially while my case was open thus
giving me an opportunity to challenge the outcome. Despite being in
possession of protected data Jane Martin did not even find TVBC guilty
of maladministration when in fact in that respect the Council had acted
illegally. I informed the complainants and the ICO that this data had
been given to me.
Jackie Browne