| Local Government Ombudsman Watch |
The Balchin Case: Serious Flaws in the Local Government
Ombudsman System Exposed. Or how the current LGO ended
the Balchin’s case by stuffing them again - by Trevor R Nunn -
Page 5
Ombudsman System Exposed. Or how the current LGO ended
the Balchin’s case by stuffing them again - by Trevor R Nunn -
Page 5
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Part 4 ... The final instalment By Trevor R Nunn
I believe the series of articles quite clearly proves that the Balchins' problems were seriously prolonged by the
LGO’s flawed decisions during 1991. 14 years of extra suffering for the Balchins just because the then LGO
could not do their job in a fair and just manner during 1991 and because the current LGO could not do his job
in a fair and just manner during 2004.
One would have thought that the current LGO would have had the integrity to comeback on Mr & Mrs Balchin’s
original complaint during 2004, quickly correct his predecessor's flawed decision, and then make things right for
the Balchins.
However, the current LGO’s failure to comeback on his predecessor's decision delayed justice yet again for the
Balchins. He was obviously more worried about damage limitation to his own organisation than about natural
justice for the Balchins. So another year was wasted whilst he was trying to bury the truth with a new
investigation. As a result of the current LGO’s tactics the Balchins had to wait an extra year for the justice they
so deserved.
In addition the Balchins also lost a significant amount of interest on the compensation into the bargain.
The current LGO states in his report:
‘that he [Mr Balchin] might have pursued a complaint against the Council with the Local
Government Ombudsman after the Council’s decision in October 1992 to offer him no assistance;
and that the precise nature of his financial difficulties in December 1992 remain obscure. Letting
interest run to 2005 in these circumstances would, I believe be disproportionately onerous on the
Council’s purse’.
Mr Balchin pursued a valid complaint in 1991 and the then LGO wrongly refused to investigate, and wrongly
stated that he saw no fault in the way the Council had taken their decision. This resulted in the Council having
the implicit support of the LGO for their flawed decision.
To now suggest that Mr Balchin’s compensation should be reduced because he didn’t pursue a complaint
against the Council with the Local Government Ombudsman after the 1992 decision is deplorable.
Why should he have? The LGO has proven they couldn’t do their job effectively in 1991 and they have just
proven that they can’t do their job effectively in 2005. Suggesting that Mr Balchin’s compensation should be
reduced because he did not submit another complaint to them in 1992 is off the scale of perversity. Just how
many complaints do the LGO want or need before they do their job effectively?
I just hope the reader realises that we (LGO customers) have to put up with this sort of perverse nonsense all
the time. Hence the reason for the article and the existence of Ombudsmanwatch: to show others what we have
to accept in the name of 'justice, LGO style'.
Trevor R Nunn
Page 1 2 3 4 5
I believe the series of articles quite clearly proves that the Balchins' problems were seriously prolonged by the
LGO’s flawed decisions during 1991. 14 years of extra suffering for the Balchins just because the then LGO
could not do their job in a fair and just manner during 1991 and because the current LGO could not do his job
in a fair and just manner during 2004.
One would have thought that the current LGO would have had the integrity to comeback on Mr & Mrs Balchin’s
original complaint during 2004, quickly correct his predecessor's flawed decision, and then make things right for
the Balchins.
However, the current LGO’s failure to comeback on his predecessor's decision delayed justice yet again for the
Balchins. He was obviously more worried about damage limitation to his own organisation than about natural
justice for the Balchins. So another year was wasted whilst he was trying to bury the truth with a new
investigation. As a result of the current LGO’s tactics the Balchins had to wait an extra year for the justice they
so deserved.
In addition the Balchins also lost a significant amount of interest on the compensation into the bargain.
The current LGO states in his report:
‘that he [Mr Balchin] might have pursued a complaint against the Council with the Local
Government Ombudsman after the Council’s decision in October 1992 to offer him no assistance;
and that the precise nature of his financial difficulties in December 1992 remain obscure. Letting
interest run to 2005 in these circumstances would, I believe be disproportionately onerous on the
Council’s purse’.
Mr Balchin pursued a valid complaint in 1991 and the then LGO wrongly refused to investigate, and wrongly
stated that he saw no fault in the way the Council had taken their decision. This resulted in the Council having
the implicit support of the LGO for their flawed decision.
To now suggest that Mr Balchin’s compensation should be reduced because he didn’t pursue a complaint
against the Council with the Local Government Ombudsman after the 1992 decision is deplorable.
Why should he have? The LGO has proven they couldn’t do their job effectively in 1991 and they have just
proven that they can’t do their job effectively in 2005. Suggesting that Mr Balchin’s compensation should be
reduced because he did not submit another complaint to them in 1992 is off the scale of perversity. Just how
many complaints do the LGO want or need before they do their job effectively?
I just hope the reader realises that we (LGO customers) have to put up with this sort of perverse nonsense all
the time. Hence the reason for the article and the existence of Ombudsmanwatch: to show others what we have
to accept in the name of 'justice, LGO style'.
Trevor R Nunn
Page 1 2 3 4 5