Must read
There are four main reasons why the majority of our supporters
will no longer sign a petition about Local Government Ombudsmen hosted
by the Number 10 petition website. (1) We have proof that during the
petition submitted by Keith Edmunds and ever since Number 10 have been
removing supporters names from petitions. (2) Further, Number 10 do not
keep a record of the number of names they have removed, the names of
the people they have removed or even the reason why they were removed.
(3) In addition, we also have proof that Number 10 base their responses
on whatever the LGO tell them, and lastly (4) We have proof that the
LGO lie to them. The Number 10 petition website and the Local
Government Ombudsmen should be ashamed of themselves, but their actions
are at least indicative of the LGO meltdown. Accordingly until they stop doing the above this website and the majority of supporters will no longer support petitions submitted about Ombudsmen hosted on the Number 10 petition website. Therefore, if you are thinking of submitting a petition please ask for help and advice before doing so. Either via the public forum or by contacting us. Duration, timing, wording and marketing are key to ensuring your petition is successful as is the host of the petition.
Introduction
This is a summary of petitions submitted to the Governments E-petition
website that may be of interest to Public Services and Local Government
Ombudsman Watchers. Petitions have long been sent to the Prime Minister
by post or delivered to the Number 10 door in person. You can now both
create and sign petitions on the government's E-petitions website too, giving
you the opportunity to reach a potentially wider audience and to
deliver your petition directly to Downing Street.
Read about E-petitions here, a step by step guide here and frequently asked questions here. If you submit a petition about a UK Ombudsman please let us know. Please, sign as many petitions as you can and tell as many people as you can. Any petition that obtains 200 signatures is assured of a government response. Many of the Government's responses are just spin and rhetoric. However, when they include factual errors (as they did in Wilma Wright's petition) there is something seriously wrong. No wonder this country is in such a mess when Government departments appear happy to rehash LGO spin and falsified statistics.
Don't forget to tell your friends and relatives and then use these links to tell your MP, the Prime Minister and the Queen what you think about about the Ombudsman of your choice. The petitions are grouped into different ombudsmen, however, there are so many about the LGO we have also listed those in reverse chronological order. The latest one will be shown at the top.
Please note
Local Government Ombudsman
Graham Crane
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the local
government ombudsman (LGO) as they serve no useful purpose to members
of the public they are supposed to serve. According to my own
experience and that of others recorded on many web
sites, the local government ombudsman serves only to protect Local
Authorities interests and serves no useful purpose to members of the
public. The people who work for them are ex-council officials and civil
servants who take the council’s side regardless of how overwhelming the
evidence is. In the tiny number of cases they do find for the public
the compensation and remedies are totally inadequate. In these times
when we need to save money they are an ideal candidate to cut and as
soon as possible.
Government's response
The Local Government Ombudsman
performs the important function of providing redress for those who
consider they have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration
by a local authority. Where the Ombudsman finds there has been
injustice he can make a recommendation for redress, including a
recommendation of compensation.The Ombudsman’s annual report for 2008-2009 makes it clear that the Ombudsman makes a finding of no or insufficient evidence of maladministration by an authority in less than half of the complaints it receives. In 2008-2009 the Ombudsman recommended compensation totalling over £2.22m.
Ex-local authority staff make up just over half of the staff of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s remit is being expanded so as to deal with cases of maladministration not only in relation to local authority services but also to the provision of adult social care in private care homes and to investigate school matters affecting an individual pupil where there is no independent appeal process already in place.
Vicky Gray
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Change the Powers of the Local Government Ombudsman. I was bullied by a manager for over 12 months. I made a formal complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman with regards to the way Liverpool City Council dealt with my Grievance and Appeal. I was informed that they were unable to investigate personnel matters. The Grievance was based on Bullying and Oppressive Behaviour the witness where not questioned on these matters. There are 34 County Councils and 238 District Councils in England, 32 in Scotland and 22 in Wales. How many employees have been subjected to Bullying and Oppressive Behaviour by managers who have in effect dealt with the matters internally and reached the required result the council wishes to achieve. Local councils investigate there own complaints, which I feel is a conflict of interest. I feel this matter needs addressing and the way to achieve this is through Legislation in the House of Commons, by introducing a Local Government Bill, or Parliament to extend the powers of the Local Government Ombudsman to include personnel issues. This is why I have started this petition. The law needs to be changed.
Closed on the 18th February 2009 with 727 signatures. Click here to review this petition
Government's response
Bullying is completely unacceptable in the workplace as it is anywhere else.
However with provision already existing for employee grievances to be dealt with we do not consider that there is a necessity to change legislation to allow the Ombudsman the power to investigate personnel issues within a local authority.
The Local Government Ombudsman’s function is to provide a facility for redress for those who have suffered injustice because of maladministration by a local authority. Accordingly the Ombudsman’s responsibilities cover relations between councils and the people they govern rather than relations between an authority as employer and its employees.
Employees with a grievance against their employer have a number of different options available to them, including internal grievance proceedings and recourse to Employment Tribunals. It would not be desirable to have both a tribunal and the Ombudsman dealing with the same allegation. Extending the Ombudsman’s remit into the field already covered by Employment Tribunals would cause unnecessary duplication and confusion of roles, resulting in poor value for money.
Keith Edmunds
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Investigate LGO Investigations into Child Protection in Haringey. The Country is shocked by the awful situation of Haringey Council and Baby 'P.' Since the Victoria Climbie affair, one hundred and fifteen (115) complaints have been made to the Local Government Ombudsman about child protection in Haringey Council. Only one (1) of these complaints has been upheld with a finding of 'maladministration with injustice' with a paltry settlement of £70. This outcome is a statistical impossibility and exposes the inadequacy of Administrative Justice within the UK. An independent judicial review is requested into these matters.
Closed on the 26th January 2009 with 251 signatures. Click here to review this petition
Government's response
The death of Baby Peter in Haringey was a very tragic case that shocked and appalled the country. Safeguarding children is this Government’s top priority and we expect it to be the top priority for local agencies too. Ministers announced to Parliament on 12 November that they had asked Lord Laming to prepare an independent report of progress being made in the delivery of arrangements to protect children, and to identify any barriers to effective, consistent implementation and how these might be overcome. The Government welcomed Lord Laming’s report, published on 12 March, and responded immediately, accepting all his recommendations and taking swift, decisive action to begin to take them forward. On 6 May the Government published an action plan, confirming its commitment to implementing Lord Laming’s recommendations and its determination to do everything possible to make the arrangements in this country for protecting children the best in the world.
From April 2000 to March 2008 the Local Government Ombudsman investigated 115 complaints about social services as a whole in Haringey. During this time, the Local Government Ombudsman has received 53 complaints about children and family services in Haringey. Of the 53 complains received 12 were resolved through local settlement, 6 resulted in findings of no maladministration, 13 were resolved using Ombudsman’s discretion, 4 were considered to be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate and 18 were considered to be premature. Complaints categorised as about children and family services can include child protection, care arrangements including fostering and adoption or arrangements for children leaving care. The Government considers that the Local Government Ombudsman continues to provide a robust route of redress and that no review is required.
Wilma Wright
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make all Local Government Ombudsmen's recommendations legally enforceable. An ever growing number of Local Authorities are now refusing to follow the recommendations of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). This is not an unexpected development because Local Authorities can save a substantial amount of money through maladministration which can help keep local taxation down and local taxpayers happy. Using my case as an example, Trafford Council recently saved #100,000 through maladministration. The LGO found them guilty and recommended they pay my family the #100,000 they had saved through their actions. The Council refused to comply. Unfortunately, local taxpayers are reluctant to hold Trafford to account because of the direct correlation between the payment of compensation to us and an increase in their local taxes. This situation should not be allowed to continue. A Public Authority should not be able to profit from maladministration. They should administer correctly and effectively in the first place but when they fail to do so, and families like us suffer as a consequence, they should be forced to pay the compensation recommended by the LGO.Closed on the 6th November 2008 with 257 signatures. Click here to review this petition
Government's response
Thank you for signing the e-petition ‘justiceforcarly’. This is a extremely difficult case and the Government sympathises with Carly’s family in their efforts to ensure that she is well looked after now and in the future.
The Government believes that the judgements of the Local Government Ombudsman should be accepted and implemented by local authorities, unless there are exceptional circumstances that mean the local authority is unable to implement a judgement.
In all but a very few cases the authority being investigated complies with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report where maladministration is determined. Indeed, for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 there has been a 100% compliance rate. [OWRC This is simply not true!]
On this and all other cases on which the Local Government Ombudsman gives views, however, the Government continues to share the view of the Ombudsman, as stated in their 2002-2003 annual report, that their recommendations to councils not being enforceable in law is a ‘valuable feature facilitating an informal and non-adversarial approach to investigations.’ This way of working is considered to allow for a more thorough and prompt investigation and resolution of complaints.
The Government sincerely hopes that the local authority and Carly’s family will soon reach agreement on a way forward that is satisfactory to all.
Keith Edmunds
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove the absolute exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act enjoyed by the Local Government Ombudsman under Articles 32 and 44 of the Local Government Act 1974. The statutory prohibitions referred to above are an anachronism that allows the Local Government Ombudsman to refuse the release of facts to complainants that have been obtained from Councils, during an investigation of a complaint. This is contrary to both natural law, and entitlement to full disclosure in the normal judicial process. Consequently refusal to provide information under these absolute exemptions, to a complainant, is a breach of the complainant's human rights. In any case, this information can be obtained from the Councils, as they have no absolute exemption whatsoever under the Freedom of Information Act. The Local Government Ombudsman's absolute exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, therefore, are both anachronistic and redundant. The removal of these absolute exemptions would put a stop to the practices detailed below: ODPM: Local Government and the Regions Committee: The Role and effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman for England - Eleventh Report of session 2004-2005, published 7 April 2005. It would also promote open investigations with a consequent improvement in Council efficiency and service delivery.
Closed on the 3rd July 2008 with 252 signatures. Click here to review this petition
Government response
Government believes that it is important that a prohibition on disclosure of information obtained in the course of an investigation exists. Those who make complaints or provide information to the Local Government Ombudsman’s investigators do so in the knowledge that the information they have given will only be used for the purposes of the investigation or in the report/statement of reasons, and will not otherwise be disclosed. This encourages co-operation and allows the investigators to obtain information which may otherwise be withheld.
Removal of the prohibitions on disclosure could deter some individuals from making complaints and so affect the accountability of bodies within jurisdiction. This could disproportionately impact vulnerable people such as those complaining about housing disputes and neighbourhood nuisance.
It is the policy of the Local Government Ombudsman to operate as openly as possible without causing detriment to the investigation. Where the request for information is made by the complainant, the Local Government Ombudsman will carefully consider whether to exercise his discretion, permitted under the Local Government Act 1974, to release the information if this would be helpful to the investigation; this would include in order helping the complainant’s understanding of the Ombudsman’s decision on the complaint.
Trevor Nunn
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to to set up an Appeal Tribunal that can review the decisions of Public Service Ombudsmen (including Local Government Ombudsmen) should the Public Authority or Complainant concerned request such an appeal. The current system of administrative justice in England is causing significant injustice and hardship to many of this country’s citizens. The current system does not embrace the principles of natural justice and it is doubtful if it is even compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Currently the only option open to a Public Authority or a Complainant, should they disagree with an Ombudsman’s decision, is a judicial review. That option is severely limited in scope and in any event is well beyond the financial means of the average citizen. Introducing an Appeal Tribunal would guarantee a much fairer system of administrative justice in England.
Closed on the 13th June 2008 with 295 signatures. Click here to review this petition
Government response
The Government has no plans to create a tribunal to consider appeals from the decisions of the public service ombudsmen. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman are wholly independent of the government departments, public bodies and local authorities which are the subject of the original complaint and they provide a fair, transparent and robust means for the pursuit of complaints. Where any decision of either of these ombudsmen are disputed there is an internal procedure to enable them to be reviewed.
Judicial review remains an option in those cases where the complainant remains dissatisfied.
Pauline Nunn
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to implement Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield's 1995 recommendations and abolish Local Government Ombudsmen. Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield recommended abolition of the LGO because they were an unnecessary institution whose work could best be carried out by other bodies. His report was subverted by the interference of the then LGO and its allies. Since then the LGO has demonstrably failed to improve the system, and continues to exclude the public interest from their remit. Irrefutable evidence of its dishonesty and bias has been gathered by LGOWatch since 2003. The LGO is counter-productive to effective management in local government and a blight on the human rights of citizens looking to this publicly funded institution to act in good faith. On the rare occasions when it is found, the intervention of the LGO tends to entrench maladministration rather than put a stop to it. The continuance of this office is not in the public interest.
Closed on the 10th October 2007 with 441 signatures. Click here to review this petition
Government's response
The Government believes that the Local Government Ombudsman service has an important continuing role to play in contributing to the improvement of local public services, by providing an effective and proportionate means of redress for the citizen where maladministration occurs, as well as through its work in promulgating good practice advice and providing training to local authorities on maintaining efficient systems for handling complaints.
The Government recognises that certain provisions in the Local Government Act 1974, which set out the operational framework of the Ombudsman, require updating.
Provisions in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill therefore aim to bring the Ombudsman’s operations in step with modern means of service delivery. The provisions were informed by consultation with local government and citizens advice services, and feedback from those who have submitted complaints to the Ombudsman.
The Bill provisions support and reinforce the Ombudsman’s role as an independent and impartial arbiter of disputes about standards of local authority services. They will help to provide a clearer, more effective and accessible service for complainants.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
Jean Mullan:
I petitioned Parliament with my concerns towards North Ayrshire Council, concerning their treatment, towards me relating to a unlawful planning application, and how negligent both North Ayrshire Council and involving certain planning officials into disrepute within the Scottish Government offices. I sent all copies of information into the Office of the SPSO which proved without doubt that the Council were being less than transparent and honest with me. The SPSO decided to take the side of the Council in which they are known to do according to enclosed petition taken from the web. I note that Mr John Scott MSP had spoken up for the SPSO in the past, I have asked him to recover answers via this organisation put into the position of protecting the Scottish citizens, yet, failing not only decent hard working tax- payers but the rest of Scotland as a whole. Copies of the letters sent to me via North Ayshire Council were used as proof of what the Council had done to me. How they lied, by informing me, there were no planning procedures, how, the council had tried to hoodwink me, by advising me not allowed to address the planning committee, even to protect me and my home, just to sit and remain gagged. My objections were asked for but ignored, by the Council, all this information sent to the SPSO had been ignored by Professor Brown and her staff. Due to the SPSO failing to investigate my concern and complaint towards the Council, the Council have got away with maladministration and in doing so, have, just like the council denied me the right to a review of this planning fiasco."
Closed on the 29 August 2008. Click here to review the petition
D W R Whittet QPR:
Calling for the Scottish Parliament to set up an Appeal Tribunal to review final decisions by the Public Services Ombudsman where any complainer so requests.
Closed with 43 signatures. Click here to review this petition and the response and for the Petition Committee meeting minutes.
Gregor Hamilton:
Closed with over 107 signatures. The petition is (provisionally) going before the committee on the 10th June. You can watch the committee on Holyrood TV