| Local Government Ombudsman Watch Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| LGOWatch is a United Kingdom campaign website and associated campaign consumer group set up in May 2003, with hundreds of supporters nationwide. Our purpose is to reduce bad practice in English local government by exposing the systemic and widespread bias and maladministration in the operations of the Local Government Ombudsman's office, as well as the complicity of those politicians and civil servants who from self-interest protect a status quo that needs to be challenged. LGOWatch focuses on the English LGO, though our campaign also has Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish supporters who have concerns about maladministration in their own public sector ombudsman service. The current, Labour Government, continues to be very keen to protect the LGO against complaints of bias and systemic injustice, despite the strength of the evidence that has been presented to it. |
| Local Government Ombudsman Watch |
| www.ombudsmanwatch.org |
| Left: Local Government Ombudsmen, with their typical response to complaints against councils. All three current LGOs are former council CEOs, running an outfit with a 73% customer dissatisfaction rate (MORI, 1999). The dissatisfaction figures would have been even higher if the LGO had not been allowed to exclude 12% from the MORI sample on for the most part spurious grounds, without any objective check on the validity of the exclusions, (see MORI POLL link on navigation bar). According to MORI, Even half the tiny number (2%) of complainants who achieved a finding of maladministration were dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint. |
| Contact the webmaster (technical problems regarding website only) Please put 'LGOWatch website' in the subject line to avoid your message being deleted unread as spam. |
| Media enquiries (only) Please put 'LGOWatch media' in the subject line to avoid your message being deleted unread as spam. |
| Other queries/contact LGOWatch supporters (leads to page with Forum link) LGOWatch regrettably cannot advise or comment on individual cases, but questions can be posted on the above independent forum. |
Please sign the 10 Downing Street e-petition calling on
the Government to make all Local Government
Ombudsmen's recommendations legally enforceable. On
those occasions when the LGO ask a council to pay compensation to a complainant,
the council can simply refuse, and there is no mechanism for forcing compliance.
Trafford Council have just refused to pay a £100,000 settlement under exactly
these circumstances, (read more). The LGO have never wanted mandatory
powers, and indeed having them would cause the LGO to lose their exemption
under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, making their decisions subject to proper
legal appeal for the first time. So although the LGO are a biased and worthless
institution that needs to be abolished in its present form, making their decisions
legally enforceable would serve to make them more accountable as a step on that
journey. It would also ensure that, on the very limited number of occasions where
the complainant is offered a just outcome by the LGO, councils would no longer be
able simply to ignore the request for compensation with impunity.
1. To receive occasional LGOWatch e-bulletins about campaigns, petitions and developments, please send an e-
mail to this address, (important: please put 'LGOWatch e-bulletins' in the subject line).
2. To join the LGO complainants' discussion forum, please click here.
In 2007, over 420 people signed a petition hosted on the Downing Street Website, calling on the Government
to abolish the Local Government Ombudsman's office because of its bias and dishonesty. The petition closed on
10 October 2007. VIEW IT HERE.
WHY IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE A NATIONAL DISGRACE?
As a result of its pro-council bias, the tax-funded Local Government Ombudsman is responsible for
encouraging bad practice in local councils, rather than reducing it.
Generally, people can try to take their complaint about bad administrative practice to the LGO if they have
exhausted the council's own complaints procedure and have nowhere else to turn to.
What most people don't know when they complain to the LGO is that
All three current (2007) Local Government Ombudsmen were themselves previously Chief Executive
Officers of local authorities.
The Local Government Ombudsman only declares maladministration in less than 2% of the complaints
within jurisdiction that are submitted to him.
The LGO chooses to misleadingly report a further 21% of complaints of maladministration as 'local
settlements', which leads to gross under-reporting of council maladministration on a national basis.
Complainants regularly discover that the LGO finds in favour of their council despite overwhelming and
watertight evidence of maladministration. The LGO can claim at his utter discretion that the complainant
has suffered 'insufficient injustice'.
73% of complainants to the LGO were dissatisfied with the outcome. according to the LGO's own MORI
Customer Satisfaction survey, which also revealed that around 50% of those whose complaints were
upheld with a finding of maladministration were also dissatisfied.
Local Government Ombudsman Watch exposed the above on its website, and campaigned for the
reintroduction of the MORI Customer Satisfaction survey after the LGO replaced it with a bland Customer
Awareness Survey. An Ipsos MORI Customer Satisfaction Survey was eventually carried out in 2007, and
has now been published, (February 2007).
Despite the fact that the LGO was again allowed to remove 12% of the original survey sample on spurious
grounds, and this yet again it seems with no independent verification of the validity for this removal from
Ipsos MORI, the 2007 Survey report is nonetheless a damning indictment of the LGO. It is pretty well
hidden on the LGO website, and no doubt now the LGO knows itself to be under scrutiny, it was published
without the fanfare and disingenuous, selective, spin-doctoring press release that had followed the similarly
damning 1999 Survey report. The new report is currently being analysed, but there will no doubt be more
information about it on the LGOWatch website in due course; in the meantime, it can be read here.
Many of the LGO's Investigators previously worked in local government. If you were taking a complaint
against, say, the Police to a publicly-funded outfit that claimed to be independent, would you expect the
investigator appointed to be a former police officer, and the final adjudicator to be a former police chief
constable?
There is much more evidence of the LGO's pro-council bias on this website, on at www.psow.co.uk and on http:
//lgowatcher.blogspot.com/ . Local Government Ombudsman Watch has been campaigning since 2003 for
better local government accountability, and more truthful reporting of maladministration.
The abolition of the LGO, and its replacement with a truly independent local government complaints
commission, where no commissioner previously worked as a council CEO, will be a very positive change for
the better.
For the first time, councils will have something to fear when
citizens threaten to complain to the local government watchdog.
Gary Powell
Local Government Ombudsman Watch
www.ombudsmanwatch.org
Read more on the LGOWatch Factsheet at
www.ombudsmanwatch.org/factsheet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOIN THE LGO DISCUSSION FORUM. (N.B. This forum is independent from Local Government Ombudsman
Watch, though many victims of LGO pro-council bias are members. Register via button on top right of the
Forum site.)
BELOW ARE THE MAIN U.K. CAMPAIGN WEBSITES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR OMBUDSMAN AND LOCAL
AUTHORITY JUSTICE:
LGOWatch accepts no responsibility for the content of the websites below, which are completely separate,
independent websites from LGOWatch. Any views expressed in these blogs/ on these websites represent the
views and accounts of the individuals who have written them, and are linked to from this website in the
service of public information and research.
Local Government Ombudsman Watcher
Public Service Ombudsman Watchers
Scottish Ombudsman Watch
Rotten Borough
Logiclaw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INJUSTICE EXPOSED
Read the ODPM Select Committee's Report on the LGO, with damning evidence of ombudsman bias, injustice
and cover-up provided by consumers of the Local Government Ombudsman service, (pages EV16 onwards)
From an LGOWatch website visitor: "I really admire the effort you are putting in and especially the promotion
on the internet. I found the site by keying in LGO..... I was actually looking for the address of the Coventry
office to complain at a senior level about the investigator in charge of my complaint. Fortunately this was the
day that I found your website instead. The whole website encapsulated everything I had experienced. At times
I felt that I was dealing with criminals rather than people who were supposed to have my best interests at
heart. I would love to be able to help in some small way if I can." (M.B., December 2005)
An analysis of an LGO annual letter to a local authority.
An analysis of an LGO's Annual Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LGOWatch supporter Brenda Prentice has written a book to chronicle the harrowing experiences of her son,
who was living with a debilitating medical condition, at the hands of uncaring, bureaucratic authorities,
including the Local Government Ombudsman. The book is called 'Andrew's story,' and can be purchased via
this link.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Like many people, Brenda Prentice does not like to see injustice. When her adopted son, who was chronically
ill with 20 years of Pancreatitis, became homeless, he was told he could ‘live on the streets as homeless like
any other homeless person’. There was no help from Social Services, the Housing Authority or some Medics.
She took up the issues with the Healthcare Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsman and the
Parliamentary Ombudsman to no avail and after five years all denied any wrongdoing. The way he was treated
brought further mental health problems of depression, self harm and attempted suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT CONTACTS LGOWATCH FOR ADVICE.
In April 2006, Mr Shahnizam Sahari, of the Malaysian Ministry of Housing and Local Government, wrote to
LGOWatch requesting that we meet with a delegation from the Ministry. They wanted to discuss our
experiences of the UK ombudsman system, in order to inform their own plans for setting up an ombudsman
system in Malaysia. Although Mr Sahari had to cancel the meeting at short notice because of scheduling
difficulties, he wrote in his message, 'may I take this opportunity to wish you the best in your endeavours.' We
are grateful to him for his good wishes, and hope that the information on our website will encourage the
Malaysian government to set up a truly independent and fair local government commission, rather than
anything resembling the travesty citizens currently have to endure in this country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOGS WITH COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE LGO.
Given the overwhelming evidence of dishonesty, bias, hypocrisy, manipulation and spin-doctoring exposed in
the Local Government Ombudsman's dealings since LGOWatch was set up, it is quite obvious that the LGO is
not only unnecessary and inefficient, but indeed a real impediment to accountability in public administration
and a blight on the human rights of people expecting this tax-funded institution to act in good faith.
Trevor R. Nunn's case (detailed in his blog above) is a paradigm example of how public interest is betrayed by
the Local Government Ombudsman institution, who prefer to put their own interests and those of their ex-
colleagues in local councils before the interests of the general public.
Trevor also runs a Group Blog for 1) people who want a link to their own personal blog to appear in it, and 2)
people who do not want to write their own blog, but would like an account of their experience with the LGO to
be considered for inclusion in the group blog. He also runs a blog for people who specifically want to expose
the behaviour of their local authority, either instead of, or in addition to, the behaviour of the LGO. There is a
contact email for Trevor in the blogs, and please contact him directly if you would like him to consider your
blog/account for inclusion.
Please do not feel that you are alone in your experience of injustice from the office of the Local Government
Ombudsman for England. You personally have not been singled out for bad treatment. The Local Government
Ombudsman's office is biased in favour of local authorities and against citizen complainants. The huge public
dissatisfaction with his service was exposed in his own 1995 and 1999 MORI Customer Satisfaction Surveys,
which he has now abolished following a very successful campaign by LGOWatch to expose the detail in the
MORI reports that his spin-doctoring press release omitted.
All three Local Government Ombudsmen for England are former Chief Executives of local councils. They do not
tend to publicise that fact. The vast majority of senior staff at the LGO are ex-council bosses. The senior LGO,
Tony Redmond, is a Council member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. A number of
those entitled to vote in CIPFA council elections are local authority bosses.
The Local Government Association approves or vetoes all LGO appointments. How often are the accused
permitted to appoint their own judges, or indeed to appoint their own judges from among their own number?
The LGO is unaccountable. It is very, very difficult to achieve a judgement against an LGO decision at Judicial
Review, as judges are extremely reluctant to find against the Ombudsman, regardless of the merits of the
appeal. UK citizens are treated with contempt by the establishment when they dare to challenge the LGO -
Local Authority axis.
Things are changing. The information provided by LGOWatch has forced the LGO into a defensive position, and
we are delighted that the testimony of abused citizens who are willing to publicise their experiences and
research findings, has the power to get this multi-million pound outfit rattled. This is a tribute to the power of
rock-solid evidence, and to the possibility of achieving success in the fight for justice.
The Local Government Ombudsman institution, in its present form, functions as an instrument for protecting
the LGOs' friends and colleagues running local councils in England from valid accusations of maladministration.
We are campaigning for the abolition or radical reform of the Local Government Ombudsman institution, for
the removal of the current Local Government Ombudsmen from office, and for a politically and legally
accountable Independent Local Government Complaints Commission free from systemic maladministration and
pro-council bias, that is not staffed by the friends and former/current colleagues of local government officers.
Our opponents in this campaign, apart from the LGOs and their cronies, are all those self-serving, complacent
MPs who are indifferent to the complaints of their constituents, and who avoid rocking the boat in the service
of furthering their own careers.
Our allies are the thousands of people who have had their human rights abused by the LGO institution over the
years, as well as a growing body of genuinely concerned MPs, some of whom are taking a tremendously
proactive role in trying to bring about change.
The Councils' Champion - the Local Government Ombudsman defending and encouraging local authority
maladministration
Public dissatisfaction disaster: their own MORI polls condemn the Local Government Ombudsman service
Hiding maladministration: how the Local Government Ombudsman disguises cases of council injustice and bad
practice
The 'insignificant injustice' trick: the Local Government Ombudsmen can make a completely subjective
judgement as to how much suffering is worth worrying about
Tax funding for injustice: LGOWatch exposes what citizens pay the Local Government Ombudsman to defend
local authority bad practice
The judicial review joke: no justice for the poor, and even bad prospects of justice for the rich from the Local
Government Ombudsman
Human rights: maladministration and injustice with impunity from the Local Government Ombudsman
Human misery: the appalling effects of local authority maladministration and Local Government Ombudsman
bias.
Ombudsman spin-doctoring in the Times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SELECT
COMMITTEE REPORT PUBLISHED ON THE LGO
The three Local Government Ombudsmen for England were summoned to appear on 15 March 2005 before the
ODPM Select Committee to answer questions on the role and usefulness of the Local Government Ombudsman.
The Committee published its Report on 7 April 2005, and it contains several Memoranda, including one from
LGOWatch, that provide devastating evidence of the Ombudsman's bias in favour of councils, incompetence
and astonishing unaccountability. There is even a Supplementary Memorandum in the Report from the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister, signed by Nick Raynsford MP, challenging the impression that the Local
Government Ombudsmen gave in their evidence that the ODPM had not responded fully to the Commission's
2003 review. The Report can be read online here.
The damning submissions are on pages EV16 - 28, and the transcript of the Evidence Session, where the
ombudsmen were questioned, starts on page EV1. Copies of the Report can be purchased via the following site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CAUGHT OUT!
Local Government Ombudsman Investigator tries to infiltrate LGOWatch Forum, and then fails to come clean
about his intentions. Read more.
Please note: although we will not tolerate attempts at infiltration, we will however certainly respect the
anonymity of any current or past LGO employee who genuinely wishes to provide us with information about
injustice and bad practice in the workings of the Local Government Ombudsman institution. If you work or
have worked for the LGO, we would invite you to contact us, anonymously if you would prefer, if you wish to
contribute important information to our campaign for justice.
Local Government Ombudsman Watch believes that U.K. citizens have a right to an Independent Local
Government Complaints Commission that does not recruit its senior staff from local authorities, as does the
current council Ombudsman. A local authority Ombudsman system should also be expected to investigate
complaints fairly and impartially, and report that a council is at fault when maladministration is established,
rather than disguising the maladministration as a 'local settlement' in its publications. It must become possible
to complain about maladministration when it is committed by a council Ombudsman to an independent tribunal;
at present, the citizen is restricted to either complaining to the local authority Ombudsman that the
Ombudsman's findings are unjust, or else applying to take the decision to judicial review, which can be a very
expensive procedure and is only open to those who are so poor they can get legal aid, or so wealthy that they
can afford to lose potentially tens of thousands of pounds. The prospects of success at judicial review are also
very poor: in the financial years 2001-2004, Nick Raynsford MP reports judges to have found in favour of the
council Ombudsman in all 25 cases taken to judicial review. Even when an appeal is successful, the judge only
has the power to ask the Local Government Ombudsman to take another look at the case. This does not seem
like a fair appeal system against a local authority Ombudsman service. A credible local authority Ombudsman
service needs to conduct itself with a degree of honesty, integrity and impartiality that makes it beyond
reproach, and be made politically and democratically responsible to the taxpayers who fund it. The present
arrangement merely encourages local councils to commit maladministration with impunity, because local
authorities know that it is the case that the Local Government Ombudsman is usually very much on their side.
LGOWatch unequivocally supports social diversity, and is opposed to discrimination in all its forms, including,
but not limited to, discrimination with regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, age, socioeconomic status, marital status, language, disability, or immigration status.
© Gary Powell, Local Government Ombudsman Watch, 2007. This web page may be reproduced and
distributed, but only unamended and in its entirety.
the Government to make all Local Government
Ombudsmen's recommendations legally enforceable. On
those occasions when the LGO ask a council to pay compensation to a complainant,
the council can simply refuse, and there is no mechanism for forcing compliance.
Trafford Council have just refused to pay a £100,000 settlement under exactly
these circumstances, (read more). The LGO have never wanted mandatory
powers, and indeed having them would cause the LGO to lose their exemption
under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, making their decisions subject to proper
legal appeal for the first time. So although the LGO are a biased and worthless
institution that needs to be abolished in its present form, making their decisions
legally enforceable would serve to make them more accountable as a step on that
journey. It would also ensure that, on the very limited number of occasions where
the complainant is offered a just outcome by the LGO, councils would no longer be
able simply to ignore the request for compensation with impunity.
1. To receive occasional LGOWatch e-bulletins about campaigns, petitions and developments, please send an e-
mail to this address, (important: please put 'LGOWatch e-bulletins' in the subject line).
2. To join the LGO complainants' discussion forum, please click here.
In 2007, over 420 people signed a petition hosted on the Downing Street Website, calling on the Government
to abolish the Local Government Ombudsman's office because of its bias and dishonesty. The petition closed on
10 October 2007. VIEW IT HERE.
WHY IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE A NATIONAL DISGRACE?
As a result of its pro-council bias, the tax-funded Local Government Ombudsman is responsible for
encouraging bad practice in local councils, rather than reducing it.
Generally, people can try to take their complaint about bad administrative practice to the LGO if they have
exhausted the council's own complaints procedure and have nowhere else to turn to.
What most people don't know when they complain to the LGO is that
All three current (2007) Local Government Ombudsmen were themselves previously Chief Executive
Officers of local authorities.
The Local Government Ombudsman only declares maladministration in less than 2% of the complaints
within jurisdiction that are submitted to him.
The LGO chooses to misleadingly report a further 21% of complaints of maladministration as 'local
settlements', which leads to gross under-reporting of council maladministration on a national basis.
Complainants regularly discover that the LGO finds in favour of their council despite overwhelming and
watertight evidence of maladministration. The LGO can claim at his utter discretion that the complainant
has suffered 'insufficient injustice'.
73% of complainants to the LGO were dissatisfied with the outcome. according to the LGO's own MORI
Customer Satisfaction survey, which also revealed that around 50% of those whose complaints were
upheld with a finding of maladministration were also dissatisfied.
Local Government Ombudsman Watch exposed the above on its website, and campaigned for the
reintroduction of the MORI Customer Satisfaction survey after the LGO replaced it with a bland Customer
Awareness Survey. An Ipsos MORI Customer Satisfaction Survey was eventually carried out in 2007, and
has now been published, (February 2007).
Despite the fact that the LGO was again allowed to remove 12% of the original survey sample on spurious
grounds, and this yet again it seems with no independent verification of the validity for this removal from
Ipsos MORI, the 2007 Survey report is nonetheless a damning indictment of the LGO. It is pretty well
hidden on the LGO website, and no doubt now the LGO knows itself to be under scrutiny, it was published
without the fanfare and disingenuous, selective, spin-doctoring press release that had followed the similarly
damning 1999 Survey report. The new report is currently being analysed, but there will no doubt be more
information about it on the LGOWatch website in due course; in the meantime, it can be read here.
Many of the LGO's Investigators previously worked in local government. If you were taking a complaint
against, say, the Police to a publicly-funded outfit that claimed to be independent, would you expect the
investigator appointed to be a former police officer, and the final adjudicator to be a former police chief
constable?
There is much more evidence of the LGO's pro-council bias on this website, on at www.psow.co.uk and on http:
//lgowatcher.blogspot.com/ . Local Government Ombudsman Watch has been campaigning since 2003 for
better local government accountability, and more truthful reporting of maladministration.
The abolition of the LGO, and its replacement with a truly independent local government complaints
commission, where no commissioner previously worked as a council CEO, will be a very positive change for
the better.
For the first time, councils will have something to fear when
citizens threaten to complain to the local government watchdog.
Gary Powell
Local Government Ombudsman Watch
www.ombudsmanwatch.org
Read more on the LGOWatch Factsheet at
www.ombudsmanwatch.org/factsheet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOIN THE LGO DISCUSSION FORUM. (N.B. This forum is independent from Local Government Ombudsman
Watch, though many victims of LGO pro-council bias are members. Register via button on top right of the
Forum site.)
BELOW ARE THE MAIN U.K. CAMPAIGN WEBSITES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR OMBUDSMAN AND LOCAL
AUTHORITY JUSTICE:
LGOWatch accepts no responsibility for the content of the websites below, which are completely separate,
independent websites from LGOWatch. Any views expressed in these blogs/ on these websites represent the
views and accounts of the individuals who have written them, and are linked to from this website in the
service of public information and research.
Local Government Ombudsman Watcher
Public Service Ombudsman Watchers
Scottish Ombudsman Watch
Rotten Borough
Logiclaw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INJUSTICE EXPOSED
Read the ODPM Select Committee's Report on the LGO, with damning evidence of ombudsman bias, injustice
and cover-up provided by consumers of the Local Government Ombudsman service, (pages EV16 onwards)
From an LGOWatch website visitor: "I really admire the effort you are putting in and especially the promotion
on the internet. I found the site by keying in LGO..... I was actually looking for the address of the Coventry
office to complain at a senior level about the investigator in charge of my complaint. Fortunately this was the
day that I found your website instead. The whole website encapsulated everything I had experienced. At times
I felt that I was dealing with criminals rather than people who were supposed to have my best interests at
heart. I would love to be able to help in some small way if I can." (M.B., December 2005)
An analysis of an LGO annual letter to a local authority.
An analysis of an LGO's Annual Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LGOWatch supporter Brenda Prentice has written a book to chronicle the harrowing experiences of her son,
who was living with a debilitating medical condition, at the hands of uncaring, bureaucratic authorities,
including the Local Government Ombudsman. The book is called 'Andrew's story,' and can be purchased via
this link.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Like many people, Brenda Prentice does not like to see injustice. When her adopted son, who was chronically
ill with 20 years of Pancreatitis, became homeless, he was told he could ‘live on the streets as homeless like
any other homeless person’. There was no help from Social Services, the Housing Authority or some Medics.
She took up the issues with the Healthcare Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsman and the
Parliamentary Ombudsman to no avail and after five years all denied any wrongdoing. The way he was treated
brought further mental health problems of depression, self harm and attempted suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT CONTACTS LGOWATCH FOR ADVICE.
In April 2006, Mr Shahnizam Sahari, of the Malaysian Ministry of Housing and Local Government, wrote to
LGOWatch requesting that we meet with a delegation from the Ministry. They wanted to discuss our
experiences of the UK ombudsman system, in order to inform their own plans for setting up an ombudsman
system in Malaysia. Although Mr Sahari had to cancel the meeting at short notice because of scheduling
difficulties, he wrote in his message, 'may I take this opportunity to wish you the best in your endeavours.' We
are grateful to him for his good wishes, and hope that the information on our website will encourage the
Malaysian government to set up a truly independent and fair local government commission, rather than
anything resembling the travesty citizens currently have to endure in this country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOGS WITH COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE LGO.
Given the overwhelming evidence of dishonesty, bias, hypocrisy, manipulation and spin-doctoring exposed in
the Local Government Ombudsman's dealings since LGOWatch was set up, it is quite obvious that the LGO is
not only unnecessary and inefficient, but indeed a real impediment to accountability in public administration
and a blight on the human rights of people expecting this tax-funded institution to act in good faith.
Trevor R. Nunn's case (detailed in his blog above) is a paradigm example of how public interest is betrayed by
the Local Government Ombudsman institution, who prefer to put their own interests and those of their ex-
colleagues in local councils before the interests of the general public.
Trevor also runs a Group Blog for 1) people who want a link to their own personal blog to appear in it, and 2)
people who do not want to write their own blog, but would like an account of their experience with the LGO to
be considered for inclusion in the group blog. He also runs a blog for people who specifically want to expose
the behaviour of their local authority, either instead of, or in addition to, the behaviour of the LGO. There is a
contact email for Trevor in the blogs, and please contact him directly if you would like him to consider your
blog/account for inclusion.
Please do not feel that you are alone in your experience of injustice from the office of the Local Government
Ombudsman for England. You personally have not been singled out for bad treatment. The Local Government
Ombudsman's office is biased in favour of local authorities and against citizen complainants. The huge public
dissatisfaction with his service was exposed in his own 1995 and 1999 MORI Customer Satisfaction Surveys,
which he has now abolished following a very successful campaign by LGOWatch to expose the detail in the
MORI reports that his spin-doctoring press release omitted.
All three Local Government Ombudsmen for England are former Chief Executives of local councils. They do not
tend to publicise that fact. The vast majority of senior staff at the LGO are ex-council bosses. The senior LGO,
Tony Redmond, is a Council member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. A number of
those entitled to vote in CIPFA council elections are local authority bosses.
The Local Government Association approves or vetoes all LGO appointments. How often are the accused
permitted to appoint their own judges, or indeed to appoint their own judges from among their own number?
The LGO is unaccountable. It is very, very difficult to achieve a judgement against an LGO decision at Judicial
Review, as judges are extremely reluctant to find against the Ombudsman, regardless of the merits of the
appeal. UK citizens are treated with contempt by the establishment when they dare to challenge the LGO -
Local Authority axis.
Things are changing. The information provided by LGOWatch has forced the LGO into a defensive position, and
we are delighted that the testimony of abused citizens who are willing to publicise their experiences and
research findings, has the power to get this multi-million pound outfit rattled. This is a tribute to the power of
rock-solid evidence, and to the possibility of achieving success in the fight for justice.
The Local Government Ombudsman institution, in its present form, functions as an instrument for protecting
the LGOs' friends and colleagues running local councils in England from valid accusations of maladministration.
We are campaigning for the abolition or radical reform of the Local Government Ombudsman institution, for
the removal of the current Local Government Ombudsmen from office, and for a politically and legally
accountable Independent Local Government Complaints Commission free from systemic maladministration and
pro-council bias, that is not staffed by the friends and former/current colleagues of local government officers.
Our opponents in this campaign, apart from the LGOs and their cronies, are all those self-serving, complacent
MPs who are indifferent to the complaints of their constituents, and who avoid rocking the boat in the service
of furthering their own careers.
Our allies are the thousands of people who have had their human rights abused by the LGO institution over the
years, as well as a growing body of genuinely concerned MPs, some of whom are taking a tremendously
proactive role in trying to bring about change.
The Councils' Champion - the Local Government Ombudsman defending and encouraging local authority
maladministration
Public dissatisfaction disaster: their own MORI polls condemn the Local Government Ombudsman service
Hiding maladministration: how the Local Government Ombudsman disguises cases of council injustice and bad
practice
The 'insignificant injustice' trick: the Local Government Ombudsmen can make a completely subjective
judgement as to how much suffering is worth worrying about
Tax funding for injustice: LGOWatch exposes what citizens pay the Local Government Ombudsman to defend
local authority bad practice
The judicial review joke: no justice for the poor, and even bad prospects of justice for the rich from the Local
Government Ombudsman
Human rights: maladministration and injustice with impunity from the Local Government Ombudsman
Human misery: the appalling effects of local authority maladministration and Local Government Ombudsman
bias.
Ombudsman spin-doctoring in the Times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SELECT
COMMITTEE REPORT PUBLISHED ON THE LGO
The three Local Government Ombudsmen for England were summoned to appear on 15 March 2005 before the
ODPM Select Committee to answer questions on the role and usefulness of the Local Government Ombudsman.
The Committee published its Report on 7 April 2005, and it contains several Memoranda, including one from
LGOWatch, that provide devastating evidence of the Ombudsman's bias in favour of councils, incompetence
and astonishing unaccountability. There is even a Supplementary Memorandum in the Report from the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister, signed by Nick Raynsford MP, challenging the impression that the Local
Government Ombudsmen gave in their evidence that the ODPM had not responded fully to the Commission's
2003 review. The Report can be read online here.
The damning submissions are on pages EV16 - 28, and the transcript of the Evidence Session, where the
ombudsmen were questioned, starts on page EV1. Copies of the Report can be purchased via the following site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CAUGHT OUT!
Local Government Ombudsman Investigator tries to infiltrate LGOWatch Forum, and then fails to come clean
about his intentions. Read more.
Please note: although we will not tolerate attempts at infiltration, we will however certainly respect the
anonymity of any current or past LGO employee who genuinely wishes to provide us with information about
injustice and bad practice in the workings of the Local Government Ombudsman institution. If you work or
have worked for the LGO, we would invite you to contact us, anonymously if you would prefer, if you wish to
contribute important information to our campaign for justice.
Local Government Ombudsman Watch believes that U.K. citizens have a right to an Independent Local
Government Complaints Commission that does not recruit its senior staff from local authorities, as does the
current council Ombudsman. A local authority Ombudsman system should also be expected to investigate
complaints fairly and impartially, and report that a council is at fault when maladministration is established,
rather than disguising the maladministration as a 'local settlement' in its publications. It must become possible
to complain about maladministration when it is committed by a council Ombudsman to an independent tribunal;
at present, the citizen is restricted to either complaining to the local authority Ombudsman that the
Ombudsman's findings are unjust, or else applying to take the decision to judicial review, which can be a very
expensive procedure and is only open to those who are so poor they can get legal aid, or so wealthy that they
can afford to lose potentially tens of thousands of pounds. The prospects of success at judicial review are also
very poor: in the financial years 2001-2004, Nick Raynsford MP reports judges to have found in favour of the
council Ombudsman in all 25 cases taken to judicial review. Even when an appeal is successful, the judge only
has the power to ask the Local Government Ombudsman to take another look at the case. This does not seem
like a fair appeal system against a local authority Ombudsman service. A credible local authority Ombudsman
service needs to conduct itself with a degree of honesty, integrity and impartiality that makes it beyond
reproach, and be made politically and democratically responsible to the taxpayers who fund it. The present
arrangement merely encourages local councils to commit maladministration with impunity, because local
authorities know that it is the case that the Local Government Ombudsman is usually very much on their side.
LGOWatch unequivocally supports social diversity, and is opposed to discrimination in all its forms, including,
but not limited to, discrimination with regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, age, socioeconomic status, marital status, language, disability, or immigration status.
© Gary Powell, Local Government Ombudsman Watch, 2007. This web page may be reproduced and
distributed, but only unamended and in its entirety.
Campaigning against bias and maladministration
in the English Local Government Ombudsman service.
in the English Local Government Ombudsman service.