| Local Government Ombudsman Watch |
The Balchin Case: Serious Flaws in the Local Government
Ombudsman System Exposed. - by Trevor R Nunn - Page 2
Ombudsman System Exposed. - by Trevor R Nunn - Page 2
3) Why and how the current Ombudsmen have manipulated recent events to hide the true reason
behind the prolonged plight of the Balchins.
The LGO terminates many complaints in the way they did with the Balchin’s case. Normally this is the end of the
matter, because most complainants have no other viable source of justice, there being no right of appeal and
little if any chance of being successful with a Judicial Review.
Even worse for the complainant, the Council is now free to flaunt the LGO’s implicit support of their unlawful
decision. Furthermore, it is then practically impossible for the complainant to pursue their own case because,
without an investigation, they cannot get hold of the necessary Council files or evidence.
Unfortunately for the LGO, the Balchins managed to continue their fight for justice through the PHSO. Although,
the reports also prove that the Parliamentary Ombudsman was not much better than the Local Government
Ombudsman, fortunately for the Balchins, the PHSO did not have the same foresight as the LGO and failed to
block a Judicial Review. Therefore, they left the way open for continued Judicial Reviews.
The case, together with a succession of successful Judicial reviews by the Balchins, was to become a
significant embarrassment to the PHSO, so during 2004 a move was made by the current PHSO to bring
closure to the case. If you analyse the case the PHSO was only suffering the problems that the LGO should
have been suffering had the LGO not blocked the Balchins’ right to a Judicial review.
However, if the LGO was going to save the day for the PHSO then it was also imperative that the PHSO help the
LGO draw people’s attention away from the reality of the situation. The last thing the LGO needed was the
1991 decision being looked at too closely. No doubt the reason why they decided to investigate the problem
from 1992 and exclude the 1991 decision altogether. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours so to speak.
Therefore, with a little more slight of hand, the LGO had no need to drag up the fact that his predecessor had
been responsible for the whole mess in the first place. Everything nicely swept under the carpet by the
Ombudsmen for the benefit of the Ombudsmen.
4) This is not the isolated case that the Ombudsmen would have us believe.
The PHSO made a comment that this was an isolated case. As far as the PHSO is concerned that may be true.
However, hundreds, if not thousands of other people have had their lives blighted by the erroneous and
unaccountable decisions of the Local Government Ombudsman.
Unfortunately, many complainants do not have the tenacity of the Balchins or the support of such an able MP,
and as a result they have given up their fight for justice. However, when you realise that many have had their
health ruined, and others have debts running into thousands of pounds or failed marriages due to the pressure
of trying to obtain justice through the LGO, you can understand why they had to give up.
My case is an example. It started in 1991 through Council maladministration. Following 7 years of council
maladministration, the LGO actually found in my favour in 1998. However, the promised remedy was never
forthcoming. The LGO then failed to issue a second report.
Further Council maladministration followed during 2001, but this time the LGO decided not to investigate my
second complaint. During 2005, following repeated attempts to get the LGO to do their job, I was finally told that
I could submit another complaint because they accepted that I had a case. 14 years of maladministration, and
the best the LGO can do is suggest I submit another complaint.
Why could they not investigate my 2002 complaint? Why did I have to submit another complaint? The answer is
an indictment of the LGO. An investigator told me that they have targets to achieve and coming back on an old
decision would compromise the achievement of those targets. The LGO wanted a new complaint rather than
investigating an existing complaint, just to make their statistics look good to the Government.
However, I also feel that the main reason that the LGO will not come back on my complaint is because they do
not want to admit that their original decision was wrong. They prefer, as they did with the Balchins, to conduct a
new investigation, because this gives them the opportunity to cover up the fact that they were responsible for
the whole mess in the first place.
I quote from the latest BMG survey into the LGO where one staff member stated `There is reluctance in the
organisation to accept that we are human and we do make mistakes.’ Perhaps that is the reason why the
current LGO evaded the issue.
The moral of the article is: stick to your complaint and, after about twenty years of suffering, the Local
Government Ombudsmen may do their job. Not for your benefit of course, but to ensure the media spotlight is
not focused too closely on how their perverse policies and unfair tactics have ruined people’s lives.
A famous Judge once stated ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. My question to the LGO is, why are they
denying justice to so many? My question to the Government is, why are you allowing it to happen.?
6) How can the Government improve the situation.
6.1 Make all Ombudsmen’s decisions subject to a full appeal.
6.2 Replace all ex Local Authority staff in the LGO’s office.
6.3 Replace the internal complaints system with an impartial and fair external complaints system.
6.4 Make the LGO responsible and accountable for their acts of maladministration.
6.5 Stop tinkering around the edges with a Regulatory Reform Order and introduce wholesale
reform of this discredited organisation.
In a recent joint statement the Ombudsman stated, ‘The Cabinet Office are currently consulting on proposals to
reform certain aspects of public sector Ombudsman services by means of a Regulatory Reform Order which, if
implemented as proposed, would enable us in future to work together even more effectively and produce a joint
report where appropriate. Mr and Mrs Balchin’s case clearly demonstrates the advantages that such reform
would deliver.’
If the Regulatory Reform Order is implemented It would certainly make it a lot easier for the Public Sector
Ombudsmen (PSO) to bounce a complainant about for a few years and then bury the truth, so I can
understand their enthusiasm for the RRO to be implemented.
However, if the PHSO and the LGO become the PSO, I suggest that they change their slogan ‘Redress in the
round’ to accommodate the way the LGO works. Therefore, I suggest a more suitable slogan would be ‘Redress
is never around’
Summary
As can be seen, everything that happened since 1991 was as a direct result on the LGO’s predecessor
accepting the word of the Council at face value, whilst not properly investigating a complaint of
maladministration. That was quite clearly wrong, and wholly unfair.
The current LGO has not criticised his predecessor’s decision. Even though he accepts it was wrong, he has
not criticised the policy of accepting the word of a Council at face value, and he has not offered a public
apology to the Balchins. Why?
Furthermore, whilst the LGOs refuse to acknowledge the undoubted flaws in their organisation, no procedures
will be put in place to stop it happening to others.
The citizens of this country deserve better. We have had to suffer significant injustice because of the perverse
decisions of an unaccountable LGO for far too long. If the LGO can’t or won’t do the job the Government has
given them, then they should be replaced by someone who will.
please read on... Page 1 2 3 4 5
behind the prolonged plight of the Balchins.
The LGO terminates many complaints in the way they did with the Balchin’s case. Normally this is the end of the
matter, because most complainants have no other viable source of justice, there being no right of appeal and
little if any chance of being successful with a Judicial Review.
Even worse for the complainant, the Council is now free to flaunt the LGO’s implicit support of their unlawful
decision. Furthermore, it is then practically impossible for the complainant to pursue their own case because,
without an investigation, they cannot get hold of the necessary Council files or evidence.
Unfortunately for the LGO, the Balchins managed to continue their fight for justice through the PHSO. Although,
the reports also prove that the Parliamentary Ombudsman was not much better than the Local Government
Ombudsman, fortunately for the Balchins, the PHSO did not have the same foresight as the LGO and failed to
block a Judicial Review. Therefore, they left the way open for continued Judicial Reviews.
The case, together with a succession of successful Judicial reviews by the Balchins, was to become a
significant embarrassment to the PHSO, so during 2004 a move was made by the current PHSO to bring
closure to the case. If you analyse the case the PHSO was only suffering the problems that the LGO should
have been suffering had the LGO not blocked the Balchins’ right to a Judicial review.
However, if the LGO was going to save the day for the PHSO then it was also imperative that the PHSO help the
LGO draw people’s attention away from the reality of the situation. The last thing the LGO needed was the
1991 decision being looked at too closely. No doubt the reason why they decided to investigate the problem
from 1992 and exclude the 1991 decision altogether. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours so to speak.
Therefore, with a little more slight of hand, the LGO had no need to drag up the fact that his predecessor had
been responsible for the whole mess in the first place. Everything nicely swept under the carpet by the
Ombudsmen for the benefit of the Ombudsmen.
4) This is not the isolated case that the Ombudsmen would have us believe.
The PHSO made a comment that this was an isolated case. As far as the PHSO is concerned that may be true.
However, hundreds, if not thousands of other people have had their lives blighted by the erroneous and
unaccountable decisions of the Local Government Ombudsman.
Unfortunately, many complainants do not have the tenacity of the Balchins or the support of such an able MP,
and as a result they have given up their fight for justice. However, when you realise that many have had their
health ruined, and others have debts running into thousands of pounds or failed marriages due to the pressure
of trying to obtain justice through the LGO, you can understand why they had to give up.
My case is an example. It started in 1991 through Council maladministration. Following 7 years of council
maladministration, the LGO actually found in my favour in 1998. However, the promised remedy was never
forthcoming. The LGO then failed to issue a second report.
Further Council maladministration followed during 2001, but this time the LGO decided not to investigate my
second complaint. During 2005, following repeated attempts to get the LGO to do their job, I was finally told that
I could submit another complaint because they accepted that I had a case. 14 years of maladministration, and
the best the LGO can do is suggest I submit another complaint.
Why could they not investigate my 2002 complaint? Why did I have to submit another complaint? The answer is
an indictment of the LGO. An investigator told me that they have targets to achieve and coming back on an old
decision would compromise the achievement of those targets. The LGO wanted a new complaint rather than
investigating an existing complaint, just to make their statistics look good to the Government.
However, I also feel that the main reason that the LGO will not come back on my complaint is because they do
not want to admit that their original decision was wrong. They prefer, as they did with the Balchins, to conduct a
new investigation, because this gives them the opportunity to cover up the fact that they were responsible for
the whole mess in the first place.
I quote from the latest BMG survey into the LGO where one staff member stated `There is reluctance in the
organisation to accept that we are human and we do make mistakes.’ Perhaps that is the reason why the
current LGO evaded the issue.
The moral of the article is: stick to your complaint and, after about twenty years of suffering, the Local
Government Ombudsmen may do their job. Not for your benefit of course, but to ensure the media spotlight is
not focused too closely on how their perverse policies and unfair tactics have ruined people’s lives.
A famous Judge once stated ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. My question to the LGO is, why are they
denying justice to so many? My question to the Government is, why are you allowing it to happen.?
6) How can the Government improve the situation.
6.1 Make all Ombudsmen’s decisions subject to a full appeal.
6.2 Replace all ex Local Authority staff in the LGO’s office.
6.3 Replace the internal complaints system with an impartial and fair external complaints system.
6.4 Make the LGO responsible and accountable for their acts of maladministration.
6.5 Stop tinkering around the edges with a Regulatory Reform Order and introduce wholesale
reform of this discredited organisation.
In a recent joint statement the Ombudsman stated, ‘The Cabinet Office are currently consulting on proposals to
reform certain aspects of public sector Ombudsman services by means of a Regulatory Reform Order which, if
implemented as proposed, would enable us in future to work together even more effectively and produce a joint
report where appropriate. Mr and Mrs Balchin’s case clearly demonstrates the advantages that such reform
would deliver.’
If the Regulatory Reform Order is implemented It would certainly make it a lot easier for the Public Sector
Ombudsmen (PSO) to bounce a complainant about for a few years and then bury the truth, so I can
understand their enthusiasm for the RRO to be implemented.
However, if the PHSO and the LGO become the PSO, I suggest that they change their slogan ‘Redress in the
round’ to accommodate the way the LGO works. Therefore, I suggest a more suitable slogan would be ‘Redress
is never around’
Summary
As can be seen, everything that happened since 1991 was as a direct result on the LGO’s predecessor
accepting the word of the Council at face value, whilst not properly investigating a complaint of
maladministration. That was quite clearly wrong, and wholly unfair.
The current LGO has not criticised his predecessor’s decision. Even though he accepts it was wrong, he has
not criticised the policy of accepting the word of a Council at face value, and he has not offered a public
apology to the Balchins. Why?
Furthermore, whilst the LGOs refuse to acknowledge the undoubted flaws in their organisation, no procedures
will be put in place to stop it happening to others.
The citizens of this country deserve better. We have had to suffer significant injustice because of the perverse
decisions of an unaccountable LGO for far too long. If the LGO can’t or won’t do the job the Government has
given them, then they should be replaced by someone who will.
please read on... Page 1 2 3 4 5
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |