| Local Government Ombudsman Watch |
The Balchin Case: Serious Flaws in the Local Government
Ombudsman System Exposed. - by Trevor R Nunn - Page 3
Ombudsman System Exposed. - by Trevor R Nunn - Page 3
Part 2 ...
... Or how those flaws ironically cost a Government department £100,000
Whilst I was researching and writing the original article it became evident that, in the interest of clarity, some
interesting information would have to be excluded. As a result I decided to write this extra mini article
concentrating on how the flaws identified in the first article ironically cost the Government £100,000.
It is quite clear from the LGO’s report that Mr & Mrs Balchin complained in 1991 about the Council's 1987 and
1990 decisions not to purchase their property. It is important to note that at this time the Department of
Transport (DoT) was not directly involved. Therefore, as I asserted in my first article, had the LGO done their
job properly the problem would have been sorted out during 1991/2. The Council would have been obliged to
purchase the Balchin’s property, or at least come up with a legal excuse not to. Something the Council have
never done.
Therefore, due to the flaws in the LGO system the dispute was not resolved, in fact the Council would have had
hardened their attitude to buying the property because of the LGO’s implicit support of their unlawful decision.
During 1992 the Council again refused to purchase the property but by this time the DoT had also issued
guidance to Councils regarding the purchase of blighted property. This gave Mr & Mrs Balchin an opportunity
to take their case further. If the LGO had blocked their case against the Council then the answer was to submit
a complaint with respect to the DoT guidance.
Although the PHSO accepted the case they kept finding against Mr & Mrs Balchin. Hence a succession of
Judicial Reviews against their findings.
However, the PHSO now had a significant problem. It is obvious by any standards that the Council were at fault
for not buying the land during 1990. The problem was that the PHSO could only investigate a case against the
DoT (Later DfT) and not investigate the Council’s role in the matter. In any event why should they, that was the
LGO’s job.
Hence the PHSO seeking the help of the LGO to bring closure to what was becoming a very embarrassing
situation for the PHSO. However, the last thing the LGO would want is the flaws in their system exposed if the
1991decsion was looked at again. Therefore, I believe the PHSO and the LGO decided to bring closure to the
case without exposing the problems with the LGO 1991 decision.
All they had to do was convince Mr & Mrs Balchin to submit a new complaint based on the 1992 to 1996
decisions and hey presto no need to expose the faults in 1991LGO decision. That can be evidenced from the
fact that they must have known that the pivotal point in this fiasco of injustice for Mr & Mrs Balchin was the 1991
decision. However, neither of them went out of their way to say so and investigate the circumstances around it.
Or at least bring in measures to stop it happening again.
Unfortunately the PHSO and the LGO now had a new problem, if they had gone back to the 1991 pivotal
decision then only the Council could have been found at fault. As a result the Council would have had to pay all
the compensation, some £200,000.
However, they only went back as far as 1992 and by this the DoT were also involved. As a result the PHSO and
the LGO also had to find against a party who ironically was only involved because or LGO incompetence during
1991 and because the current LGO wanted to hide the fact.
A double whammy for the Government! One of their departments had to pay £100,000 to Mr & Mrs Balchin
because the LGO caused the problem in the first place and then didn’t have the integrity to accept the blame.
Furthermore, the Government could have improved the LGO system for the benefit of others and because they
failed to had to pay £100,000 in compensation.
What goes round comes around. Can anyone think of anything more ironic?
please read on .... Page 1 2 3 4 5
... Or how those flaws ironically cost a Government department £100,000
Whilst I was researching and writing the original article it became evident that, in the interest of clarity, some
interesting information would have to be excluded. As a result I decided to write this extra mini article
concentrating on how the flaws identified in the first article ironically cost the Government £100,000.
It is quite clear from the LGO’s report that Mr & Mrs Balchin complained in 1991 about the Council's 1987 and
1990 decisions not to purchase their property. It is important to note that at this time the Department of
Transport (DoT) was not directly involved. Therefore, as I asserted in my first article, had the LGO done their
job properly the problem would have been sorted out during 1991/2. The Council would have been obliged to
purchase the Balchin’s property, or at least come up with a legal excuse not to. Something the Council have
never done.
Therefore, due to the flaws in the LGO system the dispute was not resolved, in fact the Council would have had
hardened their attitude to buying the property because of the LGO’s implicit support of their unlawful decision.
During 1992 the Council again refused to purchase the property but by this time the DoT had also issued
guidance to Councils regarding the purchase of blighted property. This gave Mr & Mrs Balchin an opportunity
to take their case further. If the LGO had blocked their case against the Council then the answer was to submit
a complaint with respect to the DoT guidance.
Although the PHSO accepted the case they kept finding against Mr & Mrs Balchin. Hence a succession of
Judicial Reviews against their findings.
However, the PHSO now had a significant problem. It is obvious by any standards that the Council were at fault
for not buying the land during 1990. The problem was that the PHSO could only investigate a case against the
DoT (Later DfT) and not investigate the Council’s role in the matter. In any event why should they, that was the
LGO’s job.
Hence the PHSO seeking the help of the LGO to bring closure to what was becoming a very embarrassing
situation for the PHSO. However, the last thing the LGO would want is the flaws in their system exposed if the
1991decsion was looked at again. Therefore, I believe the PHSO and the LGO decided to bring closure to the
case without exposing the problems with the LGO 1991 decision.
All they had to do was convince Mr & Mrs Balchin to submit a new complaint based on the 1992 to 1996
decisions and hey presto no need to expose the faults in 1991LGO decision. That can be evidenced from the
fact that they must have known that the pivotal point in this fiasco of injustice for Mr & Mrs Balchin was the 1991
decision. However, neither of them went out of their way to say so and investigate the circumstances around it.
Or at least bring in measures to stop it happening again.
Unfortunately the PHSO and the LGO now had a new problem, if they had gone back to the 1991 pivotal
decision then only the Council could have been found at fault. As a result the Council would have had to pay all
the compensation, some £200,000.
However, they only went back as far as 1992 and by this the DoT were also involved. As a result the PHSO and
the LGO also had to find against a party who ironically was only involved because or LGO incompetence during
1991 and because the current LGO wanted to hide the fact.
A double whammy for the Government! One of their departments had to pay £100,000 to Mr & Mrs Balchin
because the LGO caused the problem in the first place and then didn’t have the integrity to accept the blame.
Furthermore, the Government could have improved the LGO system for the benefit of others and because they
failed to had to pay £100,000 in compensation.
What goes round comes around. Can anyone think of anything more ironic?
please read on .... Page 1 2 3 4 5
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |