OMBUDSMAN WATCHERS RESOURCE CENTRE

Live Case Study

This is an example of a Local Government Ombudsman Investigation as it happens, you will be able to follow the progress and comment on any aspects of it as it goes along. After the initial letter of complaint was submitted the Ombudsman responded with a letter of clarification. 

The complainant's response to the LGO's  letter of clarification. The response from the Council was received by the LGO and he confirmed this in writing to the complainant on 14 July 2010. Nothing further was heard so the complainant put in two Freedom of Information requests to obtain the response from the Council - One FOI request to the LGO and one FOI request to the Council.

The LGO then responded by email on the 13th Aug 2010 at 13.04 stating that he had not replied because some of the information was marked 'confidential.' The complainant repllied to the LGO's  email stating that all information should be released.

Further email sent to LGO from complainant 13 August 2010 18:46:18 GMT enclosing an article in the Local Newspaper with a comment underneath about the Chief Executive Portsmouth City Council being a Freemason.

The LGO responded by email on the 20th August 2010 at 18.06 stating that he had arranged for the Council’s comments and enclosures that he was able to send to the complainant to be forwarded to them.

The complainant received a letter dated the 19th August from the LGO together with the Council's comments. The complainant sent the LGO an email on the 23rd August 2010 and received an acknowledgement on the 24th August 2010. Further information on this investigation will be added as it goes along.

The true cost and effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman during 2009/10

Taxpayers directly funded them to the tune of £16,145,000 They decided 10,309 complaints. That's £1,566 per complaint decided.

(The LGO also train council officers in addition to deciding complaints but they do charge local authorities for this service thus deriving a further £139,000 per year income. Although this additional income is indirectly funded by taxpayers it has been excluded from the calculations below because it has no direct bearing on the cost of deciding complaints.)

They locally settled 2,366 complaints. That's 22.95% of the 10,309 complaints they decided. They also issued 69 reports finding maladministration causing injustice. That's 0.67% of the 10,309 complaints they decided. Total complaints in favour of the complainant = 2,366 + 69 = 2435. That's 23.6% of the complaints they decided.

They requested/accepted just over £1,300,000 compensation for complainants by way of local settlements or recommendations in their formal reports. However, as with Trafford Council and many others what the LGO recommend and what the complainant eventually receive are often two different things.

For argument sake lets use the higher figure of £1,300,000. That's an average of £533.88 per lucky complainant. About three times less than the £1,566 it costs the LGO to determine every complaint.

The Government could (except for the self financing local government training section) close down the LGO, give every single complainant, not just the lucky 23.6%, £533.88 and still save the taxpayer nearly £12 million pounds. £.16.145 million from LGO savings +  £1.3 million saved in Council compensation payments less the £5.5 million total compensation for the 10,309 complainants.  Now that is something the spending challenge should consider! PS We have already submitted this suggestion.

The Local Government Ombudsman: Delivering public value. What do you think?

Want to tell others how a Public Service Ombudsman mishandled your complaint?

Then why not use this resource centre to tell them. Don't get mad get even. Publish your case study, personal account, letter  Or why not start a blog like these ombudsmanwatcher  Local Government Ombudsman Corruption & Cover Ups.

Copyright © 2009 ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk      Designed and built by Trevor R Nunn      Based on a free template by Free CSS Templates