LGOWatch
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
THE OMBUDSMAN’S UNDER-REPORTING OF MALADMINISTRATION
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) will only permit investigation
of cases where he claims he considers that there is a prima facie case of
both maladministration and significant injustice caused by that
maladministration. Maladministration is defined in the LGO's website.
However, in most cases where he admits to finding that there has been
maladministration with injustice, he invites the council in question to pay
an inappropriately small sum in compensation, or else asks them to take
practical action to make good the injustice.
If the council complies with this request, the actions previously found by
the Local Government Ombudsman to be maladministration with injustice
are then very likely not to be recorded or reported as maladministration by
the LGO. If the council complies with the Ombudsman’s
recommendations, there is in fact usually no mention of maladministration
relating to the council in question in the Ombudsman’s annual report.
Instead, the matter is euphemistically reported as a 'local settlement'.
The local press are then unable to report the Ombudsman’s findings as
maladministration, even though the Ombudsman has found
maladministration according to his own published definitions, and only
undertook the investigation on the basis of apparent maladministraion
with injustice. The council concerned is thereby spared press exposure
of its maladministration.
Unless a formal report of maladministration is published, which is seldom,
the Ombudsman simply does not report the council’s actions as
maladministration, and the council can present itself as compensating
individuals they have harmed as a 'friendly gesture', (as happened in my
own case).
Interestingly, I was informed by the investigator assigned to my
complaints that the LGO will sometimes threaten to publish a formal
report if a council does not comply with the 'local settlement' proposed. It
does not seem rational to me that an injustice can suddenly take on the
description of 'maladministration' merely because a council has not
complied with the LGO's request for a 'local settlement': surely the
injustice per se either is or is not maladministration, regardless of whether
a council does or does not comply with the remedy proposed. The
Ombudsman seems to me to be exploiting two different definitions of the
term ‘maladministration’, one of which is provided for the public domain,
the other of which is being used privately and disingenuously.
has been found to be substantiated by the Ombudsman. However, the
Ombudsman then requests that the council put the injustice right, or pay
the Ombudsman finds there is such a prima facie case, then an
investigation is initiated. If the complaint is one of the few to be upheld, a
sum in compensation. If the council agrees, it has a very good chance of
then presumably the prima facie case of maladministration with injustice
has been found to be substantiated by the Ombudsman. However, the
Ombudsman then requests that the council put the injustice right, or pay
exposure it deserves.
a sum in compensation. If the council agrees, it has a very good chance of
the maladministration not being reported at all, and instead being
described as a ‘local settlement’, sparing the council the accurate media
exposure it deserves.
Hardly any wonder then that councils do not baulk at suggesting that
dissatisfied citizens take their complaint to the Local Government
Ombudsman. What better way of closing them down?
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) will only permit investigation
of cases where he claims he considers that there is a prima facie case of
both maladministration and significant injustice caused by that
maladministration. Maladministration is defined in the LGO's website.
However, in most cases where he admits to finding that there has been
maladministration with injustice, he invites the council in question to pay
an inappropriately small sum in compensation, or else asks them to take
practical action to make good the injustice.
If the council complies with this request, the actions previously found by
the Local Government Ombudsman to be maladministration with injustice
are then very likely not to be recorded or reported as maladministration by
the LGO. If the council complies with the Ombudsman’s
recommendations, there is in fact usually no mention of maladministration
relating to the council in question in the Ombudsman’s annual report.
Instead, the matter is euphemistically reported as a 'local settlement'.
The local press are then unable to report the Ombudsman’s findings as
maladministration, even though the Ombudsman has found
maladministration according to his own published definitions, and only
undertook the investigation on the basis of apparent maladministraion
with injustice. The council concerned is thereby spared press exposure
of its maladministration.
Unless a formal report of maladministration is published, which is seldom,
the Ombudsman simply does not report the council’s actions as
maladministration, and the council can present itself as compensating
individuals they have harmed as a 'friendly gesture', (as happened in my
own case).
Interestingly, I was informed by the investigator assigned to my
complaints that the LGO will sometimes threaten to publish a formal
report if a council does not comply with the 'local settlement' proposed. It
does not seem rational to me that an injustice can suddenly take on the
description of 'maladministration' merely because a council has not
complied with the LGO's request for a 'local settlement': surely the
injustice per se either is or is not maladministration, regardless of whether
a council does or does not comply with the remedy proposed. The
Ombudsman seems to me to be exploiting two different definitions of the
term ‘maladministration’, one of which is provided for the public domain,
the other of which is being used privately and disingenuously.
has been found to be substantiated by the Ombudsman. However, the
Ombudsman then requests that the council put the injustice right, or pay
the Ombudsman finds there is such a prima facie case, then an
investigation is initiated. If the complaint is one of the few to be upheld, a
sum in compensation. If the council agrees, it has a very good chance of
then presumably the prima facie case of maladministration with injustice
has been found to be substantiated by the Ombudsman. However, the
Ombudsman then requests that the council put the injustice right, or pay
exposure it deserves.
a sum in compensation. If the council agrees, it has a very good chance of
the maladministration not being reported at all, and instead being
described as a ‘local settlement’, sparing the council the accurate media
exposure it deserves.
Hardly any wonder then that councils do not baulk at suggesting that
dissatisfied citizens take their complaint to the Local Government
Ombudsman. What better way of closing them down?