Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to know:

How many complaints on the LGO database were first opened more than
ten years ago. Which Council's are the complaints against and what
was the Ombudsman's ruling, and who was the Ombudsman.

How many complaints on the LGO database that are older than a year
have yet to be determined and/or a remedy agreed and/or settled
with a Council. Please identify for each year with an open file the
year of the complaint using the following time periods for the last
10 years (i.e. 07 september 2006 / 06 september 2005 etc.. till 07
september 1998 / 06 september 1999) (excluding the current year 07
september 2008 / 07 september 2007) the type of decision (i.e. MI,
LS, etc) if one has been made, the name of the Council with the
open file, and the Ombudsman's Office that is responsible for the
file (i.e. York, Coventry, London).

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email request, received on Monday
8 September.

I will aim to reply within the 20-working day target (which would be by
6 October). If I am unable to do so, I will write to you again
explaining why.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

Please find attached a letter in response to the request below, and a
separate document referred to in the letter.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections

Many thanks for your reply.

There appear to be very significant differences in recollection and
opinion of the Ombudsmen, the CLAE the Councils and the Minister of
State that sponsors the Ombudsman's Office, as well as serious
differences in the ability of the Ombudsmen to determine if there
has been maladministration, and if a remedy has been provided.
Could you explain why these differences exist?

For instance you identify in 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 that there
were no MI reports against Kerrier DC. Kerrier go further and state
that they have never rejected a remedy or a finding of MI of the
LGO. The LGO identify 6 MI reports were issued in 2002/2003. Yet
you identify that an MI report was issued and a remedy is still
awaited. Kerrier was not identified by the Secretary of State on 15
September 2008 to have failed to provide a remedy. Kerrier is also
not identified in the list of Council's that have failed to provide
satisfactory remedies since 1974. There are numerous additional
discrepencies. It could be that these are due to the length of time
that the LGO takes to determine if there is maladministration and
recommend a remedy. This certainly appears to be the case for the
York Office of the LGO. It is understood that delay was identified
in the Crossman catalogue as being maladministration. There are
numerous other examples.

The purpose of the Ombudsman as I understand it is solely to
determine if there has been maladministration, and if a Council
refuses to take responsibility for its act of maladministration to
recommend a remedy (to correct the injustice).

The decision is if there has been maladministration. After this a
remedy can be provided through a local settlement or a
maladministration and injustice report. The later can be rejected
by a Council and/or a complainant (as it is solely the LGO seeking
to provide an ADR service).

Review is requested to explain the differences and also the
catagorisation. The information should be available and flows from
the determination of maladministration by the LGO. The process
involved in securing a remedy is largely irrelevant.

The data provided only goes to 07/09/2001. However, the data was
requested till 07/09/2008. Could you confirm if your retention
period for findings of maladministration on your database is seven
years, even if a remedy is not secured for a complainant, and if
not supply the data.

I take it in relation to your second point (mine as well) that the
Ombudsman automatically closes files after a delay of ten years in
providing a remedy to a complainant (agreed between the LGO and the
Council) and often not including the complainant. Could you confirm
if this is the case, and if the Ombudsman is 'deleting' from the
record their findings of maladministration against Council's that
Council's refuse to remedy. If my understanding is correct I would
identify this as a failure to follow the Secretary of States
guidance related to record retention.

There appears to be clear and very real confusion on the first
issue. The Secretary of State appears to be misleading Parliament.
The LGO appears to have different records to the CLAE, and everyone
has different records to the Council's. Review and explanation is
requested.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Sir or Madam,

Typo. However, the data was requested till 07/09/2008. should read
07/09/1998

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

Please find attached a letter in response to the email below.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections