The Local Government Ombudsman is an ... enigma. If it has a function that is worthwhile and cost effective then I'm baffled because they hide it well! Going a little further I'd suggest their interpretation of "independent" is out of the same dictionary the Liberal Democrats pull there definition of "pledge" from!
This blog has already referenced the LGO inasmuch as it has played a walk-on silent part in theatre of this production but here goes a rounder interpretation of their role here and how the critics, this blog, are panning it.
In a telephone conversation with their organisation prior to a full submission to them citing misdeeds at South Holland District and Lincolnshire County Councils there was little to inspire confidence as they had no statutory sanctions that they could apply to miscreant authorities - merely recommendations and reports they could publish against councils added to which a council could choose to ignore the findings of the LGO if it wished! Further perusal of their website provided interesting reading particularly on the subject of "training", that is, training council staff - direct face to face training with personnel that they may have to investigate at a future date which raises questions of conflict of interest with the introduction of a "chumminess" factor. One's entitled to pose the question, "shouldn't a professional, arm's length process be the order of the day?" Looking too at the structure of the LGO findings process one wonders whether a relationship with authorities is weighted against full reports towards councils through suggesting Local Settlements and the clear opportunity this provides councils to 'coerce' complainants into a less than fair settlement? At the end of the day the number of full reports against councils is pitifully low compared to the number of complaints and, I would suggest, there must be a predisposition in the LGO to 'actively look' for the easiest option - not to proceed - even if this means overlooking key information!
The West Drove South complaint against SHDC & LCC was referred to the LGO in an 18 page submission together with copies of all relevant correspondence. Some weeks later the organisation telephoned and made it clear from the outset that they were not going to pursue the complaint. The essence of the call was that there had been no injustice and no maladministration however the key issue here was that the DVD I had supplied with the relevant recordings had not been viewed because "there was nothing on it" which I find hard to believe BUT I had supplied Internet locations in the document where the same recordings could be viewed [as LCC had managed successfully to do which can be seen in their document reproduced in the Appendices post!!!]
The conversation became heated after apparently dismissing the evidence on the DVD and the links in the document that both councils lied about. It was suggested that perhaps there was a 'chummy' relationship with SHDC which was denied. Further it was observed that there hadn't been any reports against SHDC which was immediately countered with "there have been many reports against SHDC". I knew then that this process was doomed for I had previously determined from the Freedom of Information website Whatdotheyknow in 2 posts that there had been 'no reports' against SHDC in the last 10 years!
There was a determination, or so it seems, not to proceed with my complaint come what may. If the document had been scrupulously examined then the crucial Internet links to evidence (as used by LCC) could have been brought into play if indeed the DVD was 'faulty'. The LGO were provided with all the dots, connected 1 to 3 and gave up for reasons only they can provide.
As I wrote in that submission to them I had a concern that they may not proceed and also wrote in that event alternative avenues to pursue the councils would be found. I approached a supposedly independent ombudsman and was failed by them. What followed was interesting in itself. Both councils were confronted with a recording of the phone conversation with an LCC official in which he stated that 'speed limit signs were to be moved in West Drove South' together with film of paint marks on the road (the position of which was HIGHLY significant). Remember that both councils had categorically disputed any plans ever to move the speed limit signs in complaint responses! Now check appendix C in the Appendices post for responses to this evidence. Very, very significant.
No comments:
Post a Comment