25 July 2008

Mr S Hardwicke Carruthers

Via email ([FOI #1206 email])

Our ref: CS/08/0021/HJP

(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

If telephoning contact Hilary Pook on 020 7217 4734

or if using email send to: [email address]

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

Request for information

Following my reply, dated 19 July, to your request for information of 17 July, you sent two emails on 18 July. In both you asked “How many times has the CLAE identified that an LGO is not fit for purpose by allowing a council to change Ombudsman's office - is Trafford the only case, and is Seex the only LGO who has been identified by the CLAE as not being suitable to be a LGO.”

The answer is that the Commission has never `identified that an LGO is not fit for purpose' nor has it `allowed a council to change Ombudsman's office'. The Commission occasionally makes changes to the allocation of areas among the three offices for operational reasons. This can be to address imbalances of workload between the offices or where a potential conflict of interest with a Commission member (an LGO) exists, such as a family connection or personal friendship.

It is up to the Commission to decide on the division of England into areas and to provide for an Ombudsman to be responsible for each area. Councils have no involvement or say in the decisions.

For your information, other transfers that have taken place recently are Lancaster City Council from Mr White to Mrs Seex, London Borough of Tower Hamlets from Mrs Seex to Mr Redmond, Hambleton District Council from Mrs Seex to Mr Redmond, and London Borough of Lewsiham from Mr White to Mrs Seex.

You make some comments - more extensively in your second email - about resignation of an Ombudsman, and you say “Clarification of the CLAE's understanding is sought”, but I'm not sure what clarification you seek. You follow this by repeating your enquiry about whether Trafford is the only council to request a change of Ombudsman and whose request has been met. As I have already stated above, this is not the case.

/…

Your second email continues with some comments about Mr White's annual letter to Trafford Council. This states your opinion, but does not appear to include a question for me to respond to.

I hope this now concludes my response to your first request for information satisfactorily. I will respond separately to your second request.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook (Ms)

Communications and Records Manager

Page 2

LGO 01 (03/08)