| Local Government Ombudsman Watch |
The Balchin Case: Exposing Serious Flaws in the Local
Government Ombudsman System - by Trevor R Nunn
Government Ombudsman System - by Trevor R Nunn
Introduction
I decided to write this article after reading the recent reports issued by the Local Government Ombudsman
(LGO) and the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding the Balchin case. The Balchins
were recently awarded a total of £200,000 in compensation, (£100,000 from the Department of Transport and
£100,000 from Norfolk County Council), following a 20-year battle for justice with the support of their MP, Sir
Michael Lord.
The Guardian and other newspapers recently reported on the case: here is the Guardian article.
The full LGO report can be read at:
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/special_reports/pca/redress05/ind\ ex.html
The full LGO press release can be read at:
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news/press_releases/pr09-05.html
and an earlier Telegraph article reporting criticism of the LGO is at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/28/nplan28.xml
The Balchin award as an LGO media exercise: The Local Government Ombudsman is very much
aware that
1 Local Government Ombudsman Watch is growing in support, and drawing in people able to expose the
systemic maladministration and pro-council bias of the Local Government Ombudsman’s office.
2 In April 2005, for the first time since the LGO was founded in 1974, evidence of LGO maladministration, bias
and incompetence, much of it deriving from the LGO’s own (now abolished) MORI Customer Satisfaction
Surveys, was published in a Select Committee report sent to Government, (albeit that the Government and its
supporters in the ODPM Committee are very keen to preserve the LGO status quo.)
3 In August 2005, the Cabinet Office issued a Consultation Document on their proposal to introduce a
Regulatory Reform Order that would give the Public Service Ombudsmen, (the PHSO and the LGO) new
powers that they are very keen to have. Since August 2005, the number of press articles of the LGO finding in
favour of complainants has skyrocketed, with the LGO desperate for a damage limitation exercise to counter
the compelling evidence of anti-complainant bias published in the ODPM Committee Report of April 2005.
4 Mr and Mrs Balchin's complaint was upheld by the LGO & PHSO after it had originally been rejected by the
Local Government Ombudsman in 1991. The LGO and PHSOs had vested interests in upholding this complaint
at the present time because of how this finding would support arguments for the proposed RRO, and because
the LGO needed a high-profile case in the media where he was seen (untypically) to support a complainant
against the injustices of a council. The Balchins obtained their justice at this time from LGO and PHSO political
expediency, as well as because of the Balchins’ and their MP’s tenacity. It is excellent that Mr and Mrs Balchin
are now being granted some justice after their long fight, but deplorable that the Ombudsmen had self-serving
and manipulative motives in making this long-awaited award, rather than having an interest in the public good.
The LGO’s and PHSO’s news release would have us believe that they have saved the day for the Balchins. The
news release does not mention the quotation from a 2002 Telegraph article condemning the LGO's
responsibility for the Balchins' misery:
"The treatment that Maurice and Audrey Balchin received over the years from Norfolk county
council, the Department of Transport and the local government ombudsman has been branded "a
disgrace" by a High Court judge."
This case, contrary to what the Ombudsmen state, is not in fact unusual. Hundreds, if not thousands of people
across the country have suffered, and continue to suffer, similar injustice to Mr & Mrs Balchin.
What is unusual about this case, however, is that Mr & Mrs Balchin had the tenacity to keep fighting until they
received the Justice they so richly deserved. Something that most people are unable to do.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s part in this case is interesting, as well as deplorable. However, for reasons
that will become clear, this article focuses on the pivotal role of the LGO.
I am going to demonstrate
1) that Mr and Mrs Balchin suffered nearly fourteen years of additional injustice because of
serious errors of judgement by a Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
2) that the LGO accepted the Council’s statements without validation or investigation and then
worded his decision letter in a way that blocked any reasonable chance of the Balchins being able
challenge his flawed decision.
3) that the current Local Government Ombudsman has managed recent events in a way that
conceals the true reason behind the prolonged plight of the Balchins.
4) that this is not the isolated case the Ombudsmen would have us believe.
5) how the Government could remedy the situation to ensure this never happens again.
I must also state at the outset that Mr & Mrs Balchin, together with their MP, deserve the highest accolades for
their tenacity and determination in seeing their case through to its conclusion.
Many others have even suffered more injustice at the hands of the Local Government Ombudsman than at the
hands of the Public Authority they had originally complained about. Although many of these people are still
fighting for justice, many have had to give up their fight because of poor health or other personal reasons.
Therefore, I dedicate this article to them.
1) The serious error in judgement by the LGO during 1991.
I refer to paragraph 7 of the latest LGO report regarding Mr Balchin’s previous complaint.
‘On 27 April 1991 Mr Balchin referred the Council’s handling of the matter to the then Local Government
Ombudsman, who declined to investigate the complaint, setting out his reasons in a letter dated 31 May.
He was told that the complaint was out of time as regards the Council’s refusal to purchase in December 1987,
and that the Ombudsman could see no fault in the manner in which the Council had taken its
subsequent decision not to purchase in June 1990.’ (My emphasis)
This statement immediately throws up an interesting anomaly. If the LGO declined to investigate, then how did
he know there was no fault in the manner in which the council had taken its subsequent decision not to
purchase in June 1990?
There are only two answers to this conundrum.
1) The LGO did in fact investigate; however, if that is correct why did the LGO send a letter to Mr Balchin
declining to investigate something that he had investigated?
Furthermore, between the submission of the complaint and the LGO response there just wasn’t enough time to
properly investigate the matter. So it is doubtful if any investigation took place and this scenario can be ruled
out.
2) The LGO did not investigate; however, if that is correct, how could he be sure that there was no fault in
the manner in which the Council had taken its decision not to purchase the property?
The answer is, quite simple and unfortunately for the complainant, a very common practice. They just take
anything the Council say at face value. In essence, the Council just tell the LGO they have done no wrong, and
the LGO is all too often happy to accept that without further question.
Not exactly a fair and impartial way of handling a complaint, but nevertheless, I have a letter from a Deputy
Ombudsman stating that he sees nothing wrong in doing just that.
So it is more than likely that the Council just told the LGO that there was no fault in the manner in which they
took their decision, and the LGO accepted their word.
We will return to the reason why the LGO decided to write the refusal letter in the way they did. However, for the
moment I want to concentrate on the statement ‘the Ombudsman could see no fault in the manner in
which the Council had taken its subsequent decision not to purchase in June 1990.’
Now refer to paragraph 89 of the same LGO report,
…[Council]..Members were provided with advice previously offered them by officers in December 1987 and
June 1990. The advice in the latter report included the paragraph on “Precedent” that was underlined in its
“Conclusion”. This argued that exercising a discretion in favour of Mr Balchin would encourage others in
potentially similar situations also to make claims. It seems to me that, in considering whether to exercise a
discretionary power, generalised concerns that doing so for one applicant may lead to claims from another
have no place. That is a reason never to exercise any discretionary power the Council might have in favour of
any individual. In fact, of course, the Council has to be in a position to have full regard to individual
circumstances and to respond accordingly. This advice effectively deterred Members from giving any proper
consideration to Mr Balchin’s true circumstances. It fettered the Council’s discretion, and that was
maladministration. (my emphasis)
Therefore, the current LGO quite clearly contradicts his predecessor. The Council were in fact guilty of
maladministration during 1990.
Imagine if the then LGO had also identified maladministration as the current LGO has done. The Council would
have had to reconsider their decision not to purchase the property. The Council could not have used the same
reason for refusing to buy the property again because the LGO had already decided it would be
maladministration. Therefore, it is likely that they would have decided to buy the property. The only other
option was to come up with a legal excuse not to buy the property. Something that they have never done to this
day.
The LGO typically takes about 12 to 15 months to issue a report, then they give the Council some 3 months to
respond. As a result, the Council would have had to reconsider their decision between April 1992 and October
1992 or suffer a second LGO report. In any event, even if the Council had reached the same decision based
on different reasons it would have still been possible for the Balchins to submit subsequent complaints to the
LGO.
However, history proves that the LGO did not find a fault in the manner in which the Council had taken its
subsequent decision not to purchase the property. So not only did the Council think they were right they now
had an Ombudsmen actually agreeing with them. No doubt the reason for the Council’s ongoing reluctance to
change their decision.
This serious error of judgement by the LGO together with their implied support for the Council’s unlawful
decision during 1990 was to have catastrophic repercussions for the Balchins.
In essence, the LGO set in motion a completely unnecessary chain of events that would take some 14 years to
resolve. If the LGO had done their job properly, then Mr & Mrs Balchin would have had no reason to take a
complaint to the PHSO.
2) The insidious wording of the decision letter to block any chance of the Balchins’ being able
challenge his flawed decision.
I stated earlier that we would return to the reason why the LGO decided to write the refusal letter to the
Balchins in the way he did.
It is important to note that an LGO’s decision is not open to an appeal. The best a complainant can expect is a
Judicial Review of an Ombudsman’s decision. However, the LGO has an absolute discretion over whether to
initiate an investigation; therefore, a Judicial Review over his refusal to investigate the complaint would have
been difficult, if not impossible.
If, on the other hand, the LGO had investigated the complaint and taken the decision that there was no
maladministration, then the Balchins would at least have had recourse to a Judicial Review. A Judge would have
insisted that the LGO think again, as they did with the PHSO. (Note: it was originally a Judge that pointed out
that the Council’s 1990 decision was fettered and not an Ombudsman.)
Therefore by writing the letter to the Balchins in the way he did, he had also effectively blocked any chance of
a Judicial Review of his decision.
The Balchin’s case now proves that an LGO can take a decision that has catastrophic consequences on the
lives of ordinary people, block any right to justice by the insidious manipulation of their decision letter and then
remain totally unaccountable, by way of an appeal or otherwise. That is exactly what happened in the Balchin
case and is exactly what has happened to thousands of other people.
please read on .... Page 1 2 3 4 5
I decided to write this article after reading the recent reports issued by the Local Government Ombudsman
(LGO) and the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) regarding the Balchin case. The Balchins
were recently awarded a total of £200,000 in compensation, (£100,000 from the Department of Transport and
£100,000 from Norfolk County Council), following a 20-year battle for justice with the support of their MP, Sir
Michael Lord.
The Guardian and other newspapers recently reported on the case: here is the Guardian article.
The full LGO report can be read at:
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/special_reports/pca/redress05/ind\ ex.html
The full LGO press release can be read at:
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news/press_releases/pr09-05.html
and an earlier Telegraph article reporting criticism of the LGO is at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/28/nplan28.xml
The Balchin award as an LGO media exercise: The Local Government Ombudsman is very much
aware that
1 Local Government Ombudsman Watch is growing in support, and drawing in people able to expose the
systemic maladministration and pro-council bias of the Local Government Ombudsman’s office.
2 In April 2005, for the first time since the LGO was founded in 1974, evidence of LGO maladministration, bias
and incompetence, much of it deriving from the LGO’s own (now abolished) MORI Customer Satisfaction
Surveys, was published in a Select Committee report sent to Government, (albeit that the Government and its
supporters in the ODPM Committee are very keen to preserve the LGO status quo.)
3 In August 2005, the Cabinet Office issued a Consultation Document on their proposal to introduce a
Regulatory Reform Order that would give the Public Service Ombudsmen, (the PHSO and the LGO) new
powers that they are very keen to have. Since August 2005, the number of press articles of the LGO finding in
favour of complainants has skyrocketed, with the LGO desperate for a damage limitation exercise to counter
the compelling evidence of anti-complainant bias published in the ODPM Committee Report of April 2005.
4 Mr and Mrs Balchin's complaint was upheld by the LGO & PHSO after it had originally been rejected by the
Local Government Ombudsman in 1991. The LGO and PHSOs had vested interests in upholding this complaint
at the present time because of how this finding would support arguments for the proposed RRO, and because
the LGO needed a high-profile case in the media where he was seen (untypically) to support a complainant
against the injustices of a council. The Balchins obtained their justice at this time from LGO and PHSO political
expediency, as well as because of the Balchins’ and their MP’s tenacity. It is excellent that Mr and Mrs Balchin
are now being granted some justice after their long fight, but deplorable that the Ombudsmen had self-serving
and manipulative motives in making this long-awaited award, rather than having an interest in the public good.
The LGO’s and PHSO’s news release would have us believe that they have saved the day for the Balchins. The
news release does not mention the quotation from a 2002 Telegraph article condemning the LGO's
responsibility for the Balchins' misery:
"The treatment that Maurice and Audrey Balchin received over the years from Norfolk county
council, the Department of Transport and the local government ombudsman has been branded "a
disgrace" by a High Court judge."
This case, contrary to what the Ombudsmen state, is not in fact unusual. Hundreds, if not thousands of people
across the country have suffered, and continue to suffer, similar injustice to Mr & Mrs Balchin.
What is unusual about this case, however, is that Mr & Mrs Balchin had the tenacity to keep fighting until they
received the Justice they so richly deserved. Something that most people are unable to do.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s part in this case is interesting, as well as deplorable. However, for reasons
that will become clear, this article focuses on the pivotal role of the LGO.
I am going to demonstrate
1) that Mr and Mrs Balchin suffered nearly fourteen years of additional injustice because of
serious errors of judgement by a Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
2) that the LGO accepted the Council’s statements without validation or investigation and then
worded his decision letter in a way that blocked any reasonable chance of the Balchins being able
challenge his flawed decision.
3) that the current Local Government Ombudsman has managed recent events in a way that
conceals the true reason behind the prolonged plight of the Balchins.
4) that this is not the isolated case the Ombudsmen would have us believe.
5) how the Government could remedy the situation to ensure this never happens again.
I must also state at the outset that Mr & Mrs Balchin, together with their MP, deserve the highest accolades for
their tenacity and determination in seeing their case through to its conclusion.
Many others have even suffered more injustice at the hands of the Local Government Ombudsman than at the
hands of the Public Authority they had originally complained about. Although many of these people are still
fighting for justice, many have had to give up their fight because of poor health or other personal reasons.
Therefore, I dedicate this article to them.
1) The serious error in judgement by the LGO during 1991.
I refer to paragraph 7 of the latest LGO report regarding Mr Balchin’s previous complaint.
‘On 27 April 1991 Mr Balchin referred the Council’s handling of the matter to the then Local Government
Ombudsman, who declined to investigate the complaint, setting out his reasons in a letter dated 31 May.
He was told that the complaint was out of time as regards the Council’s refusal to purchase in December 1987,
and that the Ombudsman could see no fault in the manner in which the Council had taken its
subsequent decision not to purchase in June 1990.’ (My emphasis)
This statement immediately throws up an interesting anomaly. If the LGO declined to investigate, then how did
he know there was no fault in the manner in which the council had taken its subsequent decision not to
purchase in June 1990?
There are only two answers to this conundrum.
1) The LGO did in fact investigate; however, if that is correct why did the LGO send a letter to Mr Balchin
declining to investigate something that he had investigated?
Furthermore, between the submission of the complaint and the LGO response there just wasn’t enough time to
properly investigate the matter. So it is doubtful if any investigation took place and this scenario can be ruled
out.
2) The LGO did not investigate; however, if that is correct, how could he be sure that there was no fault in
the manner in which the Council had taken its decision not to purchase the property?
The answer is, quite simple and unfortunately for the complainant, a very common practice. They just take
anything the Council say at face value. In essence, the Council just tell the LGO they have done no wrong, and
the LGO is all too often happy to accept that without further question.
Not exactly a fair and impartial way of handling a complaint, but nevertheless, I have a letter from a Deputy
Ombudsman stating that he sees nothing wrong in doing just that.
So it is more than likely that the Council just told the LGO that there was no fault in the manner in which they
took their decision, and the LGO accepted their word.
We will return to the reason why the LGO decided to write the refusal letter in the way they did. However, for the
moment I want to concentrate on the statement ‘the Ombudsman could see no fault in the manner in
which the Council had taken its subsequent decision not to purchase in June 1990.’
Now refer to paragraph 89 of the same LGO report,
…[Council]..Members were provided with advice previously offered them by officers in December 1987 and
June 1990. The advice in the latter report included the paragraph on “Precedent” that was underlined in its
“Conclusion”. This argued that exercising a discretion in favour of Mr Balchin would encourage others in
potentially similar situations also to make claims. It seems to me that, in considering whether to exercise a
discretionary power, generalised concerns that doing so for one applicant may lead to claims from another
have no place. That is a reason never to exercise any discretionary power the Council might have in favour of
any individual. In fact, of course, the Council has to be in a position to have full regard to individual
circumstances and to respond accordingly. This advice effectively deterred Members from giving any proper
consideration to Mr Balchin’s true circumstances. It fettered the Council’s discretion, and that was
maladministration. (my emphasis)
Therefore, the current LGO quite clearly contradicts his predecessor. The Council were in fact guilty of
maladministration during 1990.
Imagine if the then LGO had also identified maladministration as the current LGO has done. The Council would
have had to reconsider their decision not to purchase the property. The Council could not have used the same
reason for refusing to buy the property again because the LGO had already decided it would be
maladministration. Therefore, it is likely that they would have decided to buy the property. The only other
option was to come up with a legal excuse not to buy the property. Something that they have never done to this
day.
The LGO typically takes about 12 to 15 months to issue a report, then they give the Council some 3 months to
respond. As a result, the Council would have had to reconsider their decision between April 1992 and October
1992 or suffer a second LGO report. In any event, even if the Council had reached the same decision based
on different reasons it would have still been possible for the Balchins to submit subsequent complaints to the
LGO.
However, history proves that the LGO did not find a fault in the manner in which the Council had taken its
subsequent decision not to purchase the property. So not only did the Council think they were right they now
had an Ombudsmen actually agreeing with them. No doubt the reason for the Council’s ongoing reluctance to
change their decision.
This serious error of judgement by the LGO together with their implied support for the Council’s unlawful
decision during 1990 was to have catastrophic repercussions for the Balchins.
In essence, the LGO set in motion a completely unnecessary chain of events that would take some 14 years to
resolve. If the LGO had done their job properly, then Mr & Mrs Balchin would have had no reason to take a
complaint to the PHSO.
2) The insidious wording of the decision letter to block any chance of the Balchins’ being able
challenge his flawed decision.
I stated earlier that we would return to the reason why the LGO decided to write the refusal letter to the
Balchins in the way he did.
It is important to note that an LGO’s decision is not open to an appeal. The best a complainant can expect is a
Judicial Review of an Ombudsman’s decision. However, the LGO has an absolute discretion over whether to
initiate an investigation; therefore, a Judicial Review over his refusal to investigate the complaint would have
been difficult, if not impossible.
If, on the other hand, the LGO had investigated the complaint and taken the decision that there was no
maladministration, then the Balchins would at least have had recourse to a Judicial Review. A Judge would have
insisted that the LGO think again, as they did with the PHSO. (Note: it was originally a Judge that pointed out
that the Council’s 1990 decision was fettered and not an Ombudsman.)
Therefore by writing the letter to the Balchins in the way he did, he had also effectively blocked any chance of
a Judicial Review of his decision.
The Balchin’s case now proves that an LGO can take a decision that has catastrophic consequences on the
lives of ordinary people, block any right to justice by the insidious manipulation of their decision letter and then
remain totally unaccountable, by way of an appeal or otherwise. That is exactly what happened in the Balchin
case and is exactly what has happened to thousands of other people.
please read on .... Page 1 2 3 4 5
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |