8 October 2008

Mr S Hardwicke Carruthers

Via email ([FOI #2918 email])

Our ref: CS/08/0063/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

In your email of 3 October, you suggested there were differences in the records of the Ombudsmen, the CLAE, councils and the Department for Communities and Local Government on findings of maladministration and the remedies for them. In particular you say that I identified six MI reports against Kerrier DC in 2002/03. This is not correct. What the list I sent you shows is that there were two complaints received in 2001/02 on which one report was issued, and three complaints received in 2000/01 on which the same report was issued. In other words, one report was issued against Kerrier covering five different complaints (not six). According to our computer records, that report is still awaiting a remedy. However, the fact that Kerrier does not appear on the list of authorities who have not provided satisfactory remedies is not a discrepancy. Authorities only appear on that list when the Ombudsman has taken all steps available to him (ie after the issue of a further report, and statement if appropriate) and then declared the report `unsatisfied'. This has not happened in relation to the Kerrier report.

You say there are other “discrepancies” and ask for a “review to explain the differences” but as you've not given details of any other discrepancies, I am unable to provide any further explanation.

You say I have only provided data going back to 7/09/2001 (whereas I have in fact provided data back to 7/09/2000) and point out that you requested data going back to 7/09/1998. I have provided all the data there is in the last 10 years - there are no older cases than the ones on the list still awaiting a decision or a remedy to a report.

You suggest that “the Ombudsman automatically closes files after a delay of ten years in providing a remedy” and ask fro confirmation of this and whether the “Ombudsman is `deleting' from the record their findings of maladministration against councils that refuse to provide a remedy”. Neither of these suggestions are correct. The Ombudsmen's policy is to delete their computer records on cases 10 years after the case has been closed. If a report has been issued, the case is not closed until a remedy is provided and the Ombudsman declares the case `satisfied' or, if a remedy has not been provided, the Ombudsman has taken all the steps he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances and declared the case `unsatisfied'. The Ombudsmen do not delete records on cases that are still on-going.

I don't understand your point about the Ombudsmen and the CLAE having different records. The official title of the Local Government Ombudsman service is the Commission for Local Administration in England (CLAE), and there is only one set of records.

I hope this helps.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook (Ms)

Communications and Records Manager

LGO 01 (03/08)