Current Complaints against Darlington Borough Council

Chris,

We have the same problem in camden where the council gives lots of public funding and official recognition to bodies it sets up - in the name of certain sections of the community, but in reality these council set up bodies do as they please and are not accountable to to the actual members they claim to represent.

Trying to set up and maintain a representative body which is genuinely indendent of the council isn't something council's like despite all their claims of being inclusive and giving residents a genuine say in matters, and of course despite the resident participation compact they have all signed up for. Its a big con.

DBC are particularly viscious towards anyone they perceive as not being 'with' them

Hi Chris

Rather than copying complaints to the LGO you should get the individuals concerned to submit a complaint to the LGO about the council's failure to allow you to represent them.

The Complainants have requested the Council to send the Complaints directly to the LGO for exactly that reason following a Stage 3 independent review of another complaint which pointed out the Council should not try to prevent people having the representative of their choice.

The LGO has begun to 'investigate' something an independent investigator has already investigated and found the Council to be wrong about!

Mind you this is a Council who had the original complaint against its unqualified Head of Social Services, investigated by his Wife and then his Deputy, both of whom (surprise surprise) vindicated him!

Wait until the LGO get involved. Think of them as the council's mistress. Their creative manipulation of evidence to get their 'friends' in the council off the hook never ceases to amaze me. Visit the website below to obtain more info about the supposedly impartial Local Government Ombudsman.

http://www.psow.co.uk/

As we all read the dreadful reports of what went on in Haringey, it is important to realise what is behind the headlines.

What emerged in Haringey(and which must be confusing for people not involved with Social Care) is that on the surface, even after Baby P’s death, Haringey was receiving ‘good’ reports from it Inspectors.

For those of us involved with Adult and Children’s services however, this was all too understandable albeit lamentable.

Haringey received their ‘good’ rating based largely on the ‘evidence’ presented by Mme Shoesmith and her staff rather than by direct physical inspection.

This form of ‘self assessment is all too common and all too easy for failing managers to take advantage of to “massage” their own actions making them look better than they deserve.

So now we know how delusional and deceptive that ‘assessment’ was, can we trust other departments up and down the Country to carry out similar ‘white washing’ exercises when some of our most vulnerable people/children’s lives are at risk?

Well by and large, yes we probably can so long as there are meaningful and robust ‘partnership’ arrangements and we do not have situations which have arisen even in places like Darlington, where Complaints against the Head of Adult Services(who like Mme. Shoesmith has no qualifications or experience in Care), were left to be dealt with by his Wife are not left unchallenged.

Having your Wife carry out a purported investigation into a Complaint about your own actions equates in our view to the Hackney situation although thankfully without the same dire consequences.

The process was wrong and it is only lucky that the complaint only ended in potential negligence rather than actual harm.

Process and probity demands that all of the monitoring of services is open, robust and has no ‘apparency’ of bias or there may well be repeats of Baby P’s case up and down the Country.

We all sincerely hope that will not be the case but Councils need to get their acts together now before it is too late and begin listening rather than bullying people in local areas before it is too late.

It is also up to people like the LGO to point out to Councils that the complaints we have seen our clients lodge are responded to and not to allow Senior Council managers to mislead both the public and the LGO.
Chris Close

BABY P - not merely a 'HYPOTHETICAL INJUSTICE' but ours is dismissed despite similar fact evidence.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, no reply from the LGO and certainly not from DBC.

Despite the LGO's officer telling one of our clients who has made a complaint that DBC was guilty of maladministration in having the wife of the Head of Adult services carry out the investigation of a complaint against him and then vindicating him, when it has come to replying in writing yet again, the LGO rolls over and lets a Council off........

So it is no surprise to me she has not even bothered to reply to me.

This is a corrupt system run by corrupted people.

Publc accountability under this Government is a busted flush.

The LGO should be abolished.

We were making complaints which amount to NEGLIGENCE in terms of responding to complaints which 'mirrored' the concerns set out in the BABY P, Shannon Matthews and other cases but as in those cases, the LGO backs up the Councils who are not only acting NEGLIGENTLY but lets them off because only HYPOTHETICAL injustice has occurred.

ie. if our Client's child had been killed then something might have been done about it but because by luck rather than intention, he has stayed safe then nothing could be done about it!!!!

Translate that to the BABY P case and think about it???

Blog post about this request:
http://a-i-darlo.com/wordpress/?p=138

Dear Mr Close

Are you a Charity or Company Limited by Guarantee ? if so let us know.

James

The question is irrelevant. You don't have to be a charity to help others. Anybody can ask someone else to act on their behalf whether they are a charity or not. The point here is that people asked this man for help and the council and the ombudsman are ignoring him. Just what are they frightened of?

I note it's the LGO York office yet again!

Dear Mr Nun

The question is irrelevant to what?? I was asking for very specific reason not connected with the ability of who can ask or not? But thanks for your interest

Relevant to this FOI request, I thought that was obvious. Is that not the whole purpose of this website?