Grants: Worcester City Council and the Local Government Ombudsman's Investigation
COMPLAINANT vs WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL and LGO INVESTIGATION
This proved to be a complex case. It involved 2 separate complaints and an enquiry concering grant awards for fire protection works on 2 properties, but escalated rapidly due to the Council’s handling of the case. It included involvement of the local elected Councillor, a meeting with council staff, a meeting with the Chief executive, letters with the local MP and a visit from a LGO investigator - and a miriad letters! All democratic chanels mobilised : All to no avail.
The case in brief:
WCC rejected 2 of 3 quotes submitted stating the contractors were unknown to the Council and the officer had appointed another contractor. This contractor did not visit the property and returned a quote 1/3 less than the average of the others. He would not reply to my communications or provide me with the quote. WCC awarded the grant on the basis of this quote and stated the works were to be carried out by this contractor. At the time the Council produced a list of 4 approved contractors -1 did not respond, 2 were deemed too expensive by the Council (for my application) leaving the 4th, the contractor in question. (This is the least of it!) I complained.
The correspondence then began and disintegrated rapidly as various "reasons" were given, questions were ignored and information was not provided or was contradictory. WCC first stated the quotes were not value for money, although I was able to prove that comparable quotes to my highest quote had been accepted for other applicants (All statements I make have actual documents as evidence) The next reason was the officer made his own calculation against a standard publication (Griffiths Book) These figures were eventually provided (some to me and all finally to the LGO) and I showed the calculations did not use the figures they said they used, were inaccurate anyway, incomplete and less than allowed for other applicants. Other quotes were provided as requested from another "approved" contractor and were even higher and were not even commented on.
This was obviously not the crux of the matter, however. The Councils own documents showed the officer had produced the original blank schedule of works in September with the contractors name already printed on it and instructed them to quote 2 weeks before receiving my quotes in December. He couldn’t explain this!! (I have also subsequently been told this officer had been caught out with grant "irregularities" previously and taken off such work. The LGO investigator stated, however, they dont investigate people or procedures).
In my meeting with the Chief Executive I raised 2 issues of note. (People of Worcester please note) I had had meetings with several people very concerned about of the competence of the assessments and schedules issued which left out aspects and risked public safety. These and other issues had been put these to the staff via the local Councillor with no response. An expert was willing to talk to the Council separately and the CE asked for the contact. His response was to pass this information to the officer who then contacted the expert and consequently there was no further information forthcoming! I also enquired about grants for using alternative means of fire protection that appeared to be in line with Council procedures on conservation of materials. I had had the relevant experts provide information to the Council. His response after talking to the officer was curt, implied I was lying and that the Fire Officer deemed them unacceptable fire measures. The officers own file note show the Fire Officer said they were acceptable and thus it was not me who lied. The failure of the CE to fully and impartialy investigate my complaint was part of my complaint to the LGO. (The LGO response to these points has to be read to be believed). I also raised issues of quality of workmanship and provided information as requested by the CE and there has been no further action on this.
And so it goes on. In short I showed staff lied, provided misleading and contradictory information, failed to follow procedures, etc,etc. I indicated 43 instances of what I considered maladministration according to the LGO published top 10, and that was before all the correspondenve was in!. In my final (and very angry) letter to LGO I listed all the axioms of good administration the Council breached. These were taken from the LGO’s own document Good Administrative Practice (the summary from this is given later) which states:
" This guidance note sets out some of the important conclusions which can be drawn from the Ombudsmen's investigation and observations. The note is intended to assist councils in the promotion of good administrative practice.."
I thought these would be the basis of the LGO decisions on maladministration. The LGO didn’t even mention these! I also similarly referenced the LGO guidance on Running a complaint system - no comment on this either. Neither the Council nor the LGO has so much as noted my constant reference to breaching their own published procedures and Council staff even rolled their eyes at each other when I referred to them!.
LGO Provisional Response:
Mr White states :
"The Council has acted in accordance with the law, Government guidance and its own policy and procedures "!!!!!!
He writes lots of waffle; makes statements that are not true; in supporting the officer contradicts himself within his own letter; accepts without question statements made by the officer, some despite evidence to their falsehood; provides meaningless comparisons; raises irrelevant points that were resolved prior to my complaint to him; states it is ok to quote on a schedule that was incomplete, not to scale and doesn't even give room sizes; misses the point big time to the point of being childlike in my view; concentrates on minor aspects; supports officer despite evidence to the contrary; in my opinion is facetious - he cannot criticise for consulting a professional and acting on their advice; infers its my fault the CE passed on information to the officer as my letter does not request it’s not discussed with him!; makes irrelevant points showing he doesn't understand the case and the seriousness of some of the concerns; states that I could have employed a contractor who he knew would not provide me with a quote or talk to me!. (What world do these people live in?) He also states he looks at the way decisions are taken but cannot criticise them unless there was administrative fault in the process leading to them (obviously using false figures, inconsistency, and failing to add up doesnt count)
I, therefore write a no holes barred response listing all these points and refering to evidence all over again and relating it to his comments about what he does look at. (The investigating officer who visited, the 3rd LGO person to handle the case before Mr White, similarly didn't have a clue about the overview of the case and stated they don't investigate individuals or look at procedures..??). Please read this letter- it shows what the Council was up to as well as the LGO.
LGO Final Response:
A Jerry White'wash' Just read it -it doesn't take long.- it's so brief as to be rude.
I laughed, then got angry, then wrote to my MP again and got angrier still (He’ll keep an eye on standards in public office in future - having just been hauled over the coals himself on such matters of course as I heard on Radio 4 !).
And here are the letters: (my views and comments in brackets), (non LGO names have been replaced with titles)
|
My response to the Local Government Ombudsman's provisional view
August 2007
Thank you for your letter of 16/07/07. My comments are given below and
make reference to the LGO Good Administrative Practice guidance Axioms
and running a complaints system.
7: a) The PSO (the officer) states he
considered the quotes to be excessive based on knowledge of over 100
other grants. The Council has only recently published information (it
is now late 2007) stating they have dealt with c.100 HMO
properties and my application was in the first tranche in 2005. His
statement cannot be true and is another example of a misleading
statement being made. This was part of my complaint and has not been
addressed in your letter. Ref Axiom 31
I trust
my comments provided, and the information referred to, will enable you
to reconsider and address my complaint in full. In addition to your
own published top 10 causes of maladministration given previously, I
consider the LGO Good Administrative Practice and the Axioms given in
that applicable in this case. I consider Axioms 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 21,
22, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37 have all been breached at various
points and request your views on these. |
The LGO's final decision letter(My comments in black) September 2007 Dear Me, Complaint against Worcester City Council Thank you for your letter of 18 August 2007. I have enclosed copies of the complaint forms and letters you have sent. You say that you would like to see a copy of the report from Mrs Johnson. I have not referred to a report from Mrs Johnson in my letter of 16 July 2007 and there is no such report on file, so I am not able to send you a copy. (Mrs Johnson said she would be producing one, so, if not, why did she visit and what did he use to write his letters! I consider this withholding information) Before I consider the issues you have raised in response to my provisional view of 16 July 2007, I need to explain that it is not my role to carry out a substitute housing grant assessment. My role is not to substitute my judgement for that of the Council’s professional officers.(The figures and information were provided to show the officer's failures in the process of generating the assessment of my 2nd grant as Mr White wrote he investigated the way decisions were taken. What does he do?) Your response to numbered paragraphs in my provisional view Points 7a, 9, 10a, 14, 15a to e, 19 a and b, 23 a and b and 28 a, b and c of your letter of 18 August 2007 relate to the officer’s professional judgement on the level of the grant. (They do not!) I accept that you disagree with the level of grant you have been awarded. But, I have found no evidence of administrative error in the way in which the officer reached his professional judgement about the level of the grant payable, based on the estimates from the contractor. So I do not intend to pursue these points further. (These points do not all relate to judgement on the level of grant -he is either wrong or ignores the issues raised in these points completely. They include giving misleading information, inconsistencies, not considering relevant information, contradictions, inaccuracies, adequacy of decisions - all related to the relevant Axioms from the LGO guidance on Good Administrative Practice. The lack of understanding or perhaps dismissal of evidence is unbelievable.) (Nowhere does he mention the failure of the officer's addition, contradictory and inaccurate calculations) I understand from points 7a, 17 and 27 that you disagree with the reasons given by the officer at interview for obtaining the fourth quote. I accept that this is frustrating for you and that the discrepancies cannot be explained. The property standards officer’s letter of 9 February 2006 to your agent says that ‘the authority wishes to obtain an independent estimate if the Council is unaware of the contractors estimating’. However, I do not believe that this is totally at odds with the officer’s explanation at interview that he requested another quote due to the level of the three quotes you obtained. I can understand that the officer had more than one reason for requesting another quote and that receiving (in his opinion) high quotes from companies he had not heard of would be valid reasons for him to seek a fourth. (He again misses the points raised big time and completely whitewashes the serious implications that the officers actions at least showed a predetermination to use this contractor. In previous correspondence, with all the justifying evidence, I had written , "This again raises the issue of a preferred contractor and construal of information issued to bring about use of this contractor only.." To dismiss such evidence as frustrating and that discrepancies cant be explained shows a total failure to competently investigate the case in a full and unbiased way. This is obviously the crux of the case and all the subsequent gumpf has arisen as obfuscation, misinformation, ducking and diving by all concerned to cover this up and avoid addressing the central issue.) I would also point out that in his letter of 17 July 2006 the officer advised you to consider obtaining further estimates. (He ignores the fact I had done, these were higher still and that unknown contractors were rejected)Clearly, that was an opportunity to reduce the costs closer to the contractor's estimate; and of course, accepting the contractor's estimate remained open to you. (He ignores my inability to obtain this estimate or have any correspondence with the contractor, suspicious in its own right). I note your comments on paragraph 22 about the level of liability covered offered by the contractor. However, as you did not use the contractor to carry out the work I do not believe that the level of insurance cover it provided has caused you an injustice. So, I do not intend to pursue this point. (He again ignores and conveniently misconstrues the point - or perhaps he cant see it? - that this is about different acceptance criteria being applied to different contractors to the advantage of this particular contractor, of course) I have also noted your comments on paragraph 24. However for the reasons given in my provisional view I find no maladministration on this matter and do not intend to pursue it further.( Yet again the point had been misconstrued and trivialised to an absurd degree in his provisional response. My concerns about the Chief Executive mishandling information on matters of public safety was degenerated to it being reasonable for the him to to talk to the officer concerned, even though this resulted in the gagging of a source of expert information.) Outstanding points I note the comments you have made in points a, b and c, and that you believe several untrue statements have been made. But I do not consider that you have been caused any outstanding injustice from these matters to warrant pursuing them. (Does anyone have any idea of what a pursuable injustice is?)I note your dissatisfaction surrounding the approved list of contractors. It is clear that there has been some confusion surrounding the status of the list but the Council has now stated clearly that the list is advisory and I accept this is the case. I do not agree that it was only effectively possible to use one contractor as you have provided examples of quotes in respect of properties from several different contractors that have also been accepted. This is completely untrue. All the accepted quotes provided were from 1 contractor who was rejected for my application. Nowhere does he address the issue that directly comparable quotes from my contractor were accepted and grants awarded to other applicants. His comprehension of the information provided is pitiful, or deliberately misconstrued ?) I note that there was confusion between you, your agent the contractor and the Council over access for the contractor to your property and that you disagree that access was never made available. But, I do not conclude that this can, in itself, have caused injustice to you, given the subsequent events. (All the evidence and points raised have again been fudged as a confusion and dismissed as not causing an injustice. The information obviously showed this could not be a realistic quote but was regardless used to determine the level of grant awarded). (And what about the 2nd property??? The one where the officer did his own "calculations" - not even a mention. I don' t consider from this reply that he is even aware that there were 2 separate complaints, even though they were submitted separately and this had been pointed out previously. Yet again the level of comprehension and understanding appears despicable - even when it has been laid out point by point and all the relevant letters/documents/ information etc has been referred to to make it as easy and clear as possible). I understand that you were dissatisfied with the Council’s investigation of your complaint. This was the reason you referred your complaint to me. (How simple can you get? -perhaps the reasons for complaining should be looked at, I even pointed out the failures to follow the LGO document on running a complaint system with no comment! What is it for?)I have now investigated the administrative errors you claim caused you an injustice. I have found no evidence of administrative error that has caused you injustice which the Council has not already remedied. (Just what are administrative errors then? If not following the LGO's own guidance to councils on Good Administrative Practice with a the list of all the Axioms breached , what are? and why doesn't it even merit a mention anywhere in his letters? And what is injustice? Causing financial loss obviously doesn't count, never mind ?) There were delays by the Council in approving the grant but its proposal to increase the grant payable to you to that which you would have received if the delay had not occurred is a satisfactory remedy to that delay. He again raise a minor point that was resolved prior to my complaint to him). Accordingly, for the reasons given here and in my letter of 16 July 2007 I will now discontinue my investigation. The law requires me to inform the Council of the decision on your complaint, and so I am sending a copy of this letter to the Council’s Chief Executive. (I think he should have a copy of my letter/s too as I doubt he is aware of most of what was going on and can look - or not- at the evidence himself. Mr White's letter gives no hint of the misinformation I and the Chief Executive himself was supplied at times) Yours sincerely J R White Local Government Ombudsman ( I could go on listing the inadequacies of this reply, but you have the gist..!!!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Your Perusal Summary from the LGO's Good Administrative Practice guidance on good practice
The Law 1. Understand what the law requires the council to do and fulfil those requirements. 2. Ensure that all staff working in any particular area of activity understand and fulfil the legal requirements relevant to that area of activity. Policy 3. Formulate policies which set out the general approach for each area Policy of activity and the criteria which are used in decision making. 4. Ensure that criteria are clear and relevant and can be applied objectively so that decisions are not made on an inconsistent ad hoc or subjective basis. 5. Communicate relevant policies and rules to customers. 6. Ensure that all staff understand council policies relevant to their area of work. Decisions 7. Ensure that the council does what its own policy or established practice requires. 8. Consider any special circumstances of each case as well as the council's policy so as to determine whether there are exceptional reasons which justify a decision more favourable to the individual customer than what the policy would normally provide. 9. Ensure that decisions are not taken which are inconsistent with established policies of the council or other relevant plans or guidelines unless there are adequate and relevant grounds for doing so. 10. Have regard to relevant codes of practice and government circulars; and follow the advice contained in them unless there are justifiable reasons not to do so. 11. Ensure that irrelevant considerations are not taken into account in making a decision.
12. Ensure that adequate
consideration is given to all relevant and material factors
in making a decision.. 14. Use the powers of the council only for their proper purpose and not in order to achieve some other purpose. 15. Ensure that decisions are not made or action taken prematurely. 16. Give reasons for an adverse decision and record them in writing for the customer concerned. 17. Ensure that any necessary decisions or actions are taken as circumstances require and within a reasonable time. 18. If a decision is being taken under delegated powers, ensure that there is proper and sufficient authority for this to be done and that use of delegated powers is appropriate in the circumstances. Action prior to decision taking
19. Carry out a sufficient
investigation so as to establish all the relevant and material facts.. 21. Consult any individuals or organisations who might reasonably consider that they would be adversely and significantly affected by a proposed action. 22. Detect major errors which materially affect an issue under consideration. 23. Give adequate consideration to the reasonable courses of action which are open to the council in any particular circumstances. 24. Ensure that a committee is provided with a report when circumstances require and that the report is materially accurate and covers all the relevant points. Administrative processes 25. Ensure that the correct action is taken both to implement decisions when they are made and generally in the conduct of the council's business. 26. Have adequate systems and written procedures for staff to follow in dealing with particular areas of activity. 27. Have a system for ensuring proper liaison and co-operation between different departments, different sections of a department, or different areas in the authority. 28. Compile and maintain adequate records. 29. Monitor progress and carry out regular appraisals of how an issue or problem is being dealt with. 30. Seek to resolve difficulties or disagreements by negotiations in the first instance but take formal action when it is clear that informal attempts at resolution are not working. Customer relations 31 .Avoid making misleading or inaccurate statements to customers. 32. Formulate undertakings with care and discharge any responsibilities towards customers which arise from them.. 33. Reply to letters and other enquiries and do so courteously and within a reasonable period; and have a system for ensuring that appropriate action is taken on every occasion. 34. Keep customers regularly informed about the progress of matters which are of concern to them. 35. Provide adequate and accurate information, explanation and advice to customers on issues of concern to them. Impartiality and fairness 36. Ensure that the body taking a decision on a formal appeal from a Impartiality and fairness dissatisfied customer does not include any person previously concerned with the case or who has a personal or otherwise significant interest in the outcome. 37. Avoid unfair discrimination against particular individuals, groups or sections of society. 38. Maintain a proper balance between any adverse effects which a decision may have on the rights or interests of individuals and the purpose which the council is pursuing. 39. Where an individual is adversely affected by a decision, or the decision is otherwise one which the individual potentially might wish to challenge, inform him or her of any rights of appeal or avenues for pursuing a complaint. 40. Ensure that members and officers are fully aware of the requirements for declaring an interest where appropriate and the reasons for doing so. Complaints 41. Have a simple, well-publicised complaints system and operate it effectively. 42. Take remedial action when faults are identified, both to provide redress for the individuals concerned and to prevent recurrence of the problem in the future. |