Track this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Some information sent by Local Government Ombudsmen to Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS on 13 November 2009.
Some information sent by Local Government Ombudsmen to George Cant on 26 October 2009.
Some information sent by Local Government Ombudsmen to Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS on 21 January 2010.
Cost of investigating a complaint response: The supporting documents.
A Freedom of Information request to Local Government Ombudsmen by Trevor R Nunn
Local Government Ombudsmen did not have the information requested.
Trevor R Nunn
16 November 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Background information.
On the 11th September 2009 I submitted the following Freedom of
Information request.
I would like to know on what date,
1) the Commission for Local Administration in England started to
factor in the likely cost of an investigation into their decision
whether to investigate a complaint or not?
2) you made the department of Communities and Local Government
aware that you were no longer deciding to investigate complaints
based on merit alone?
3) you made complainants aware that the decision to investigate
their complaint would no longer be made on merit alone?
On the 5th October 2009 you sent the following response.
The answers to the questions you pose in your email of 11
September, are:
1.The Commission does not do this, so there is no date.
2.Never (see above).
3.Never (see above).
I would now like copies of any and all documents, including emails
and telephone notes, between the individual Ombudsmen, Officers of
the Commission and yourself in order to produce the response of the
5th October 2009.
Yours faithfully,
Trevor R Nunn
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS left an annotation (17 November 2009)
The CLAE have experienced a 'cut' in investigators of about 30 per cent (i.e. redundancy and moving staff to provide training to Council's).
In July 2008 the grant from DCLG had been reduced by 15% over the previous three years.
It is unlikely that the LGO's now have the capacity to actually investigate compliants (these are following the LGO's providing training to Council's) as being much more complex (resource intensive)..
.. so their only response can be is to identify improvements in council complaint systems (when this is not the case).. and fewer findings against Council's.. they don't have the resources to act diiferently..
.. and they are being supported to act in this way by being given new areas of work (contracts)
A Johnson left an annotation (17 November 2009)
The LGO have been misleading everyone rather than being open and honest about the situation. Have they every brought this issue to the attention of the CLG?
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l ... ate_a_comp
A Johnson left an annotation (25 November 2009)
The answer to my question above is NO.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lg...
Foi Officer
Local Government Ombudsmen
26 November 2009
Dear Mr Nunn
Our ref: CS/09/130
This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information below. We will respond within the 20 working day target (which would be by 15 December 2009) or, if unable to do so, we will write to you again explaining why.
Yours sincerely
Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
|
show quoted sections
Foi Officer
Local Government Ombudsmen
15 December 2009
Dear Mr Nunn
Our ref: CS/09/130
I attach a letter in response to your enquiry below.
Yours sincerely
Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
|
show quoted sections
Trevor R Nunn
15 December 2009
Dear Foi Officer,
Thank you for the response to my FOI request.
For the record you were misleading the public, possibly
unintentionally, when you stated earlier that you do not take costs
into account.
Evidence is available that proves that the York Office does take
costs into account, therefore, your earlier response left only two
possible conclusions, the York Office misled you when responding to
your enquiry or you misled me when responding to the FOI request.
This additional FOI request sought to identify which of the two
possible scenarios was correct. Unfortunately your latest response
does nothing to clear up the confusion.
However, the fact remains that the York Office does take costs into
account and your previous response misleads the public.
Yours sincerely,
Trevor R Nunn
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
Trevor R Nunn left an annotation (16 November 2009)
http://lgowatcher.blogspot.com/2009/11/l...
Link to this