Local Government: Complaints
Communities and Local Government
Written answers and statements, 11 December 2007
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
(1) what the average length of time the Local Government Ombudsman took to consider a complaint was in each of the last three years;
(2) how many complaints her Department has received on the decision-making process of the Local Government Ombudsman in each of the last three years;
(3) what consideration she has given to bringing forward amendments to reform the system of appeals against local government ombudsman decisions.
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
The average length of time taken for the Local Government ombudsman to determine a complaint in each of the last three years was as follows:
| Weeks | |
| 2004-05 | 15.5 |
| 2005-06 | 16.9 |
| 2006-07 | 18.4 |
My Department has received around 50 letters of complaint about the decision-making process of the local government ombudsman in each of the last three years.
Challenges to decisions made by the local government ombudsman are matters for the courts. My Department has no plans to amend these arrangements.
Annotations
Trevor Nunn
Posted on 13 Dec 2007 6:47 pm (Report this annotation)
The true average is much longer than the 16 weeks quoted. Local Government Ombudsmen manipulate their statistics. Unlike the Parliamentary Ombudsman they include premature complaints and even complaints that are outside their remit in order to produce favourable statistics. The Local Government Ombudsman has investigated two of my complaints. The first one in 1997 took 16 months to consider and the one I submitted in March 2001 is still being considered.
Paul Abraham
Posted on 14 Dec 2007 9:24 am (Report this annotation)
The system for handling appeals desperately needs overhaul. Currently appeals are handled by the ombudsman himself! And with the lack of independence of the service (it is exclusively run by ex council officials and it keeps the proportion of ex council workers manning it secret) a serious independent appeal process is an absolute requirement for it to have any credibility at all.
LGO Reporter
Posted on 2 Jan 2008 2:13 pm (Report this annotation)
A MORI survey found that 73% of complainants were dissatisfied with the final outcome of their complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, and only 22% were satisfied. Of the few cases (less than 2%) where the LGO found maladministration causing injustice, 50% of these complainants were dissatisfied with the outcome. 57% of complaints regarded the fairness of the LGO's report to be poor or very poor, and only 31% regarded the fairness of the report to be good or very good. Only 45% felt their complaint was investigated fairly by the Local Government Ombudsman. The LGO also manipulated the selection of the survey sample by excluding certain complainants so as to bias the results to favour the LGO.
In the year ending 31 March 2007, the Local Government Ombudsman issued reports of maladministration (with or without injustice) in only 1.3% of investigated cases. These reports include a remedy the LGO agree with the Council, but this remedy is invariably not agreed with the complainant. In other cases, the Local Government Ombudsman connive with Councils to conceal maladministration from the public by agreeing to discontinue an investigation if the Council undertake a remedy the LGO determine to be satisfactory, although this remedy is invariably not agreed with the complainant. The Local Government Ombudsman call this ruse a 'local settlement', and 27.7% of investigated cases were determined by the LGO to be a 'local settlement'. The Local Government Ombudsman use a 'local settlement' to conceal maladministration from the public.
See this link http://local-government-ombudsman-lgo.blogspot.com/