My response to the Law Commission review of Public Sector Ombudsmen
Having been corruptly handled by a HM RevenueVOA official in 2003, we
were shocked by the amount of protection given to the Revenue by the
ombudsman. The ombudsman created ‘porkies’ trying to get the Revenue miscreant ‘off the hook’. We suggested she resign – in retaliation we were subjected to ombudsman inspired evening phone calls – still fighting on I eventually faced Revenue lawyers within a Tribunal – the miscreant was absent – hidden away unable to be questioned?
The Revenue have been accurately describe over the years as having an ‘unacceptable high level of all-round fraud and error.’ We see the ombudsman protection of the seriously dysfunctional Revenue dept., as engineered corruption of justice.
This is why we eagerly read through the Law Commissioners: “Reforms to make it easier to complain if you suffer from poor public services.” My wife and I were looking for some much-needed complaint procedure reforms.
It is now recognised throughout the world that without true Anti-Corruption commitment corruption cannot be stopped.
We had high hopes for an honest assessment by the Commission re ombudsman deceit; this was shattered as we read Frances Patterson QC statement that: “The public service ombudsman have a vital role to play in providing redress for administrative injustice suffered by individuals. By improving access to the ombudsman we can reduce the burden that falls on the citizen.”
The Commission seems to be unaware, that untold thousands of complaints over the years against miscreant government or local government officials are often purposely neglected allowing the complaints to 'die a death'. See notorious Haringey council etc. The public has a right to know why these abusers of ‘good governance’ these incompetent, fraudulent or crooked public sector officials are seldom fully investigated, where some cases are dismissed out of hand with ‘slap on wrist’ deceits?
We ask the Law Commission “what purpose does it serve if it does not see that the ombudsman service is often unaccountable to the electorate”. The nation sees the ombudsman’s actions in neglecting complainant’s cases as subversive. Such allowed dysfunctional governmental complaint procedures purposely constrain complainant’s rights and liberties! Citizens are being forcibly disengaged from the democratic process.
Yet the Law Commission gives little indication to the nation that such ombudsman corruption of the governments complaint procedures will ever end.
In paragraph 8.10 Alternatives to investigation. The Law Commission states ‘We provisionally propose that the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Local Government Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman be given specific power to allow them to dispose of complaints in ways other than
Conducting an investigation. (paragraph 4.85).
One is annoyed by the Law Commissioners approbation in giving inept and fraudulent ombudsman even more power to dispose of complaints as they see fit.
The people see that it is not possible to build democracy while still using the same old corrupt machinery of government.
UK governments are no longer trusted, as people see public sectors entrenched bad practices, such as purposeful neglect, perversity, incompetence, bias and turpitude etc, that were so abhorrent to Crossman and colleagues, still flourish within the sewers of government. This corruption by officials is still a serious impediment to justice.
One could make a case that the Law Commission is trying to obscure the ineptitude and often purposeful ombudsman deceit against individual complainants.
Its as though Transparency Int. is describing the Law Commission and other restrictive quangos, as it claims that ‘Weak enforcement mechanisms and opaque regulations are obstacles to fight corruption.’
That ‘government rules, laws and legislation that are purposely not clearly defined, or drafted in a complex manner, are not interpretable to citizens bring uncertainty and confusion. This brings power to public officials who act on an ‘had hoc’ basis, these loose circumstances create room for corruption.’ (Not to mention growing world-wide public anger towards all corrupt officials and governments)
Such obstacles are well entrenched within the public sector, they allow self-serving public sector chicanery to ‘put down’ complaints and complainants as they see fit, seldom if ever taking justice into account! Ombudsman neglect allowed many a public sector miscreants off the hook, which means that over the years thousands of public sector misfits, fraudsters and crooks remained in office, creating even more corruption of ‘good governance’!
Members of the electorate complaining about fraudulent or crooked government or local government officials are often given short thrift – where a neglectful finalisation of their case is purposely hurried, this chicanery enables ombudsman meet their much vaunted targets with apparent success. Such hastened closures gives rise to purposely misleading figures, because complaints from the electorate in relation to public sector officials have been seriously neglected.
However, such ombudsman neglect of complaints was not seen in the high profile Equitable Life saga, where thousands of MPs, Treasury officials, civil servants, judges, lawyers, newspapermen, senior police officers, people of influence etc kicked up a fuss. A powerful 23,000 strong Equitable Members Action Group defeated the government and the ombudsman in the High Court and forced the ombudsman to reopen the Equitable case. The ombudsman has now spent an enormous amount of time and energy and taxpayer money in helping this powerful groups aims.
Amidst all this feverish Equitable activity re justice, it appears that political skulduggery was still to the fore-front as some MPs and civil servants were given preferential treatment, and it is said that the FSA ‘with their prior knowledge of impending doom’ withdrew their pensions in good time? Another indication that the public sectors ‘old pals act is more powerful than the rule of law.’
It reminds one of Aesop who said “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office!
Our complaint about this enormous powerhouse effort from the ombudsman service in relation to the Equitable Life saga is, that such enormous effort and attention to detail re regulatory failure has been denied to thousands of isolated complainants over many years. Many having suffered from public sector abuse – then find their complaints have too often been neglected by ombudsman giving little or no proper scrutiny - fobbed off – denied justice.
With Equitable Life the ombudsman can be seen as favouring one group over another, often showing little regard for the lower orders as in our case, where she produced ‘porkies’ and issued ombudsman inspired hounding evening phone calls to frighten us off? Certainly my wife was scared at this Kafka-like behaviour.
It can be said “that nowhere is self-aggrandisement, complacency in office and unaccountability by officialdom, more evident than in the ombudsman office”
Whilst the Prime Minister talks of holding heavy-handed state apparatus to account, the Cabinet Office minister Frances Maude declares hopefully “it was still his ambition to make the British Government one of the most open and transparent in the world”. (We hope he will help cleanse the Commission and Ombudsman service)
Douglas Carswell MP asks “Why is the British State so incompetent?” he goes on to claim, as we have ourselves have done, that “the primary function of the state increasingly seems to serve the interest of those who work for it.”
While Sir Gus ODonnell Cabinet Office on the other hand, despite much evidence to the contrary, puts out false statements as to the integrity and honesty of civil servants and officials!
We point out to the Law Commission that the ombudsman selection process is flawed, because too many undesirable public sector officials become ombudsman or adjudicators; they being already indoctrinated in the art of public sector deception; and by definition confirmed supporters of the public sectors deceitful ‘old pals act’.
There is a need to break away from this present day squalid ombudsman selection process, and replace it with people untainted by public sector chicanery, people who are willing to protect citizens human rights and civil liberties from corrupt state machinery. Such cleansing would help us get away from the fact that ‘the old pals act’ is more powerful than the ‘rule of law’ Ombudsman hopefuls should serve a probationary period, and the whole process be overseen and scrutinised by the electorate. They should certainly not police themselves. Ombudsman hopefuls who show signs of a despotic nature will not be successful.
Nigel Farage UKIP states that NHS ombudsman “complaint procedures are ineffective and frequently corrupt” …”that here is a “plethora of advisory bodies employed to waste time….” …where in the final stage the ombudsman is biased”.
David Cameron has called for a much-needed ‘spirit of activism’ first encouraged by Lord Nolan until the murky establishment happily allowed Nolan’s call to fight
corruption ‘die a death’.
It’s not good enough for the Law Commission to by-pass the severe inadequacies of the ombudsman service that caused many deaths in the NHS. That in the public interest it should look at the gross injustice of the ombudsman’s protective deceit and intransigence that fails many genuine complainants in regard to fraudulent acts by officials.
Its quite preposterous that the Law Commission lends credence to the severe authoritarianism of ombudsman, giving them the power as to whether they will deal with the electorates complaints properly or not?
And then, how does the Law Commission calculate the irreparable damage done to government and the nation by these ombudsman maladministrative acts that allows numerous public sector miscreants to remain in office, desecrating ‘good governance’ even further?
Self-protective maladministration by the ombudsman service can be seen in many cases; and as one victim of complaints procedure wrote (Feb 09) to Ann Abraham ‘ I am writing concerning complaint No xxxxxxxx. It has become clear to me that two members of your staff lied to me in order to prevent my complaint being issued…… A month later he received an acknowledgement slip.
A further month later he had to send Ann Abraham a reminder; he received another acknowledgement slip. Yet another month later he reissued his original letter? Such is the contemptuous and unjust ‘hanging out to dry’ routine used throughout the often deceitful and purposeful time consuming ombudsman procedures.
One can see in the above paragraph, that the ombudsman shows a lack of urgency that was not evident when she had the powerful Equitable Life’s elitist group breathing down her neck! (The above complainant of ombudsman maladministration and worse has a good chance of being ‘put down’ by the ombudsman as a ‘persistent complainer’ – when of course he really is a heroic whistleblower)
Maybe it would benefit the nation if the Law Commission abandoned its approval of ombudsman deceit, and took up the cause of corruptly handled complainants?
AW & I Tanner
See our struggle on the web: AW Tanner Ombudsman Watchers Resource Centre
Enc.: 7 pages re corrupt acts by the North Devon District Council and the long drawn out ‘passing the buck routine from one despot to another’ all designed to break the spirit of the complainant’, all this is laden even further by ombudsman deceit.