| Local Government Ombudsman Watch |
The Balchin Case: Serious Flaws in the Local Government
Ombudsman System Exposed. The Local Government
Ombudsman (LGO) also ignores their own Comeback
Procedure. - by Trevor R Nunn - Page 4
Ombudsman System Exposed. The Local Government
Ombudsman (LGO) also ignores their own Comeback
Procedure. - by Trevor R Nunn - Page 4
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Part 3 ...
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) also ignores their own Comeback Procedure.
By Trevor R Nunn
During 2004 the LGO specifically asked Mr & Mrs Balchin to submit a new complaint about the Council’s
decisions between 1992 and 1996. Why, when a Comeback Procedure was already in place to handle a case
like theirs?
The Local Government Ombudsman’s Comeback Procedure states
The term comeback is used when a complaint has been determined without a formal report and the
complainant alleges that one or more of the following apply:
1. The complaint, or a material part of it, has not been understood by the commission's staff;
2. Evidence submitted before termination has not been taken into account;
3. The council has not been telling the true story and evidence of this is provided; or
4. New information has been supplied about the original complaint
If the complainant meets any of the stated criteria, the initial decision not to investigate their complaint should
be reviewed by a senior officer.
Mr & Mrs Balchin complained in 1991 about the Council's 1987 and 1990 decisions not to purchase their
property. The then LGO refused to investigate and as a result no formal report was issued. Therefore, Mr &
Mrs Balchin’s case was a classic case for Comeback on the LGO’s original decision not to investigate.
Although the LGO has very recently put a 3-month time limit on comeback, the rule cannot have any bearing on
Mr & Mrs Balchin’s case because their case originated in 1991 well before the introduction of the new rule,
therefore, the LGO cannot retrospectively apply the rule to old cases. In any event, the 3-month time limit is self
imposed and should not have fettered the LGO’s decision regarding the Balchin’s case. So why did the LGO
not use the Comeback Procedure for the Balchins?
In my case I was never even told about the Comeback procedure by the LGO; I only found out about the
procedure when I complained to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) that the LGO was accepting
the word of the Council without validation. Although this proved to be a waste of time, they did at least send me
a copy of the LGO Comeback Procedure.
Therefore, if my experience is anything to go by, I doubt that Mr & Mrs Balchin knew about the Comeback
Procedure. If they had known I am sure they would have used it.
Furthermore, a new complaint allows the LGO to initiate a measure of damage control that Coming Back on an
earlier decision would not. So the pursuit of an unnecessary new complaint by the LGO just goes to prove what
extraordinary lengths they will go to hide past mistakes. This underhand tactic will be further explored in
another article about my own case.
Once the LGO makes their mind up, no matter how flawed their decision or how strong your evidence is, it is
practically impossible to get them to accept the fact that they have made a mistake. Even one of their staff is on
record agreeing with that assessment.
My argument is quite simple; why should anyone have to submit a further complaint in order to remedy the
injustice they have suffered through Council and LGO maladministration, just so the LGO can hide from the
consequences of their earlier mistakes?
Trevor R Nunn
Page 1 2 3 4 5
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) also ignores their own Comeback Procedure.
By Trevor R Nunn
During 2004 the LGO specifically asked Mr & Mrs Balchin to submit a new complaint about the Council’s
decisions between 1992 and 1996. Why, when a Comeback Procedure was already in place to handle a case
like theirs?
The Local Government Ombudsman’s Comeback Procedure states
The term comeback is used when a complaint has been determined without a formal report and the
complainant alleges that one or more of the following apply:
1. The complaint, or a material part of it, has not been understood by the commission's staff;
2. Evidence submitted before termination has not been taken into account;
3. The council has not been telling the true story and evidence of this is provided; or
4. New information has been supplied about the original complaint
If the complainant meets any of the stated criteria, the initial decision not to investigate their complaint should
be reviewed by a senior officer.
Mr & Mrs Balchin complained in 1991 about the Council's 1987 and 1990 decisions not to purchase their
property. The then LGO refused to investigate and as a result no formal report was issued. Therefore, Mr &
Mrs Balchin’s case was a classic case for Comeback on the LGO’s original decision not to investigate.
Although the LGO has very recently put a 3-month time limit on comeback, the rule cannot have any bearing on
Mr & Mrs Balchin’s case because their case originated in 1991 well before the introduction of the new rule,
therefore, the LGO cannot retrospectively apply the rule to old cases. In any event, the 3-month time limit is self
imposed and should not have fettered the LGO’s decision regarding the Balchin’s case. So why did the LGO
not use the Comeback Procedure for the Balchins?
In my case I was never even told about the Comeback procedure by the LGO; I only found out about the
procedure when I complained to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) that the LGO was accepting
the word of the Council without validation. Although this proved to be a waste of time, they did at least send me
a copy of the LGO Comeback Procedure.
Therefore, if my experience is anything to go by, I doubt that Mr & Mrs Balchin knew about the Comeback
Procedure. If they had known I am sure they would have used it.
Furthermore, a new complaint allows the LGO to initiate a measure of damage control that Coming Back on an
earlier decision would not. So the pursuit of an unnecessary new complaint by the LGO just goes to prove what
extraordinary lengths they will go to hide past mistakes. This underhand tactic will be further explored in
another article about my own case.
Once the LGO makes their mind up, no matter how flawed their decision or how strong your evidence is, it is
practically impossible to get them to accept the fact that they have made a mistake. Even one of their staff is on
record agreeing with that assessment.
My argument is quite simple; why should anyone have to submit a further complaint in order to remedy the
injustice they have suffered through Council and LGO maladministration, just so the LGO can hide from the
consequences of their earlier mistakes?
Trevor R Nunn
Page 1 2 3 4 5