Ombudsman Watchers Group Blog

They, lie to complainants ~ lie to Government Departments ~ lie to the public ~ collude with councils ~ fabricate documents ~ misinterpret statutes, policies and guides etc in favour of the council ~ manipulate evidence in favour of the council ~ use fallacious reasoning/argument to explain their perverse findings ~ don’t allow a complainant to see or challenge much of the evidence ~ manipulate/fiddle their statistics to hide the truth ~ manipulate/fiddle customer satisfaction surveys in their favour ~ are biased in favour of the council ~ don’t understand many of the technical and legal issues surrounding a complaint ~ often ignore legal and human rights issues ~ very rarely criticise any council officer for lying or misleading them ~ allow councils to misuse 1974 LG Act part III section 32(3) notices ~ very rarely admit their mistakes ~ often terminate a complaint after a quick telephone conversation with the council ~ are unaccountable ~ are not fit for the purpose ~ constantly raise the level of injustice a complainant has to suffer before they will investigate a complaint ~ often use linguistic gymnastics to evade the truth ~ use delay as a tactical tool to help councils and exhaust other avenues of possible redress ~ attack the complainant for asking a question rather than answering the question ~ misuse their own policy and guidelines ~ ignore natural justice and the law when it suits them ~ misuse discretion ~ are toothless tigers ~ dilute the remedies they recommend after discussion with a council ~ defy logic ~ double and in some cases triple count complaints to artificially boost complaint numbers ~ label complainants unreasonable when they challenge their perverse findings ~ alter deadlines to make it easier for councils to meet them ~ waste taxpayer’s money ~ don’t meet the criteria for membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman’s Association ~ are ineffective in reducing maladministration ~ betray the good citizens of this country ~ are impotent ~ allow councils to swap Ombudsmen but don’t allow complainants the same freedom ~ are guilty of mission creep ~ often use argumentum verbosium ~ ignore inconvenient facts ~ have developed a system in which maladministration pays ~ fail to meet complainant expectations ~ often ignore part of a complaint altogether ~ break their promises ~ fail to keep adequate records ~ they give investigators a bonus if they close a complaint down quickly ~ recruit most of their staff from councils.

Want to help? Then tell us about your experience or send us your evidence.