Date:13-10-09
Michael Ancram MP, House of Commons
Dear Mr Ancram
I
enclose 2 items for your perusal and records concerning my complaint
raised with the Local Government Ombudsman that I have previously
corresponded with you about:
An updated timeline of events surrounding my complaint to the
LGO
-
A copy of a letter I will be sending Mr Purser, the latest “investigator” who has allegedly carried out a review of my complaint.
When
my complaint had been dismissed by the Ombudsman Mr White in June 09,
the only recourse was to ask for a review and resubmit any extra
facts or make clearer still the issues surrounding my case. This
would be reviewed by an investigator ( Mr Stephen Purser) not
previously concerned with my case supposedly in the interests of
impartiality. In conjunction with my consultant we redrafted the
ridiculously brief and inaccurate summary written by the previous
investigator that we obtained via an FOI request.
The
original investigators brief to Mr White
was hopelessly flawed and missed out key information which we
included in our own revised assessment that should have left no doubt
in anyone’s mind as to the conduct of Wiltshire/Kennet District
Council during this case. This was forwarded on to Mr Purser and he
was asked to contact us directly to discuss its details. Despite this
request, Mr Purser carried out his review in secret without
contacting either of us and we are still in ignorance of his
“findings” and recommendation to Mr White. I will be asking for a
FOI request for any documentation concerning this review.
Mr
White has again ignored the submissions we made and has simply fallen
back on his previous decision whilst making extra outrageous claims
to back up his arguments for my case to be dismissed. On showing my
consultant, (who is a very experienced and knowledgeable planning
advisor and has worked in and with the public sector) he was amazed
and disgusted with the excuses put forth to justify a case dismissal.
Its
quite obvious that the LGO are completely
biased in favour of local authorities as numerous website examples
and my own experience testifies. There are seemingly many lunatic
decisions made by local authorities and rubber stamped by the LGO
recorded on these websites that monitor the unaccountable activities
of the LGO. The LGO of course carry out its activities in such a
manner that nothing can be proved but the bias and corruption is
evident to anyone who has had such a disgraceful response from an
organisation which professes on its own website to be fair,
authoritative and unbiased in its dealings with the public. How
much proof do these people need before seeing that a local authority
has made a mistake and should put it right?
I
understand the Conservative Party is to implement a QUANGO review as
part of a cost cutting drive should they be returned to government
next year. It seems to me to be an excellent opportunity to dismiss
the LGO completely and replace it with an organisation staffed by
people who have NO background in local government and no reason to
take sides when assessing complaints from the public. Can you forward
this idea to whoever is to be responsible for implementing a QUANGO
review under a future Conservative administration and let me know the
response.
Regards
A. Sharp