Track this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Response by Local Government Ombudsmen to Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS on 4 November 2009.
Some information sent by Local Government Ombudsmen to Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS on 25 January 2010.
Some information sent by Local Government Ombudsmen to Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS on 21 January 2010.
New Ombudsman
A Freedom of Information request to Local Government Ombudsmen by Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
Waiting for an internal review by Local Government Ombudsmen of their handling of this request.
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
8 February 2010
Dear Local Government Ombudsmen,
Please provide details of the number of complaints that Jane Martin
has personally determined in her first 20 days as an Local
Government Ombudsman (11 January - 30 January). Please further
identify the type of decision made. Please exclude all delegated
decisions, but please additionally identify all delegated decisions
made by the Coventry Office with outcomes.
Please identify the output of Tony Redmond and Anne Seex similarly
and the output of their offices.
Finally, please identify the number of complaints personally
determined by Jerry White for the last 20 days that he was in
office and the type of decision made. Please also identify all
delegated decisions with outcomes.
Yours faithfully,
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
Foi Officer
Local Government Ombudsmen
10 February 2010
Dear Mr Carruthers
Our ref: CS/10/015
This is to acknowledge receipt of your request below received on 9 February. We will respond within the 20 working day target (which would be by 9 March 2010) 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
16 February 2010
Dear Mr Carruthers
Our ref: CS/10/015
Part of your request below is for the number and type of decisions made by each office. The figures for the whole of January will eventually be available as part of the Commission's Performance Indicators report. The Ombudsmen personally take decisions on cases where reports have been issued (which is shown in the report), but don't usually take many, if any, decisions personally in other cases. Can I ask why you want this period of 20 days in particular?
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
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
16 February 2010
Dear Foi Officer,
20 days hath FOI :-)
I am very interested in a direct comparison between the decision
making of the Ombudsmen over the 20 day period.. and am especially
looking forward to comparing this with the productivity of Jerry
White and his staff over the last 20 days that Jerry White was in
office.
Please supply the information requested.. as it allows direct
comparison rather than different decisions in different months..
the information should be easily accessible.. if you collect it for
performance monitoring
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
9 March 2010
Dear Local Government Ombudsmen,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Local Government
Ombudsmen's handling of my FOI request 'New Ombudsman'.
Clarification has been provided. The information should be readily
available.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ne...
Yours faithfully,
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
Foi Officer
Local Government Ombudsmen
9 March 2010
Dear Mr Carruthers
Our ref: CS/10/015
A little hasty, I think. We received you request on 9 February (as you sent it on 8 February at 9.40 pm) so today is the 20th day.
I attach my response.
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
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
9 March 2010
Dear Foi Officer,
Internal review has already been requested.
20 days hath FOI and I recieved this message this morning..
Reply-To: WhatDoTheyKnow <[email address]>
To: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS <[email address]>
Subject: Delayed response to your FOI request - New Ombudsman
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:45:03 +0000
Local Government Ombudsmen have delayed.
They have not replied to your FOI request 'New Ombudsman' promptly,
as normally required by law.
Click on the link below to send a message to Local Government
Ombudsmen reminding them to reply to your request.
and made a request for internal review this morning following the
computer generated identified breach of s10 FOIA by your
goodselves.
Please conduct the review. The information requested should be easy
to obtain.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
Foi Officer
Local Government Ombudsmen
9 March 2010
But I've sent you a response now.
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
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
9 March 2010
Dear Foi Officer,
and I have still requested an internal review. So please conduct
the review.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS
Sheila Oliver left an annotation (21 March 2010)
I am very interested in the work load of the Local Ombudsman Service. We complained about the Council building a school on what they knew from documents in their own archives to be a site intensively tipped with industrial waste from 1954 to 1974. The Council wanted to do no contamination remediation whatsoever (evidence available on request). It seemed to take the Local Ombudsman several years to reach a decision (totally in Stockport Council's favour, of course). We relied on our own initiative and finally forced Stockport Council to admit the site was entirely contaminated with lead, arsenic and probably asbestos. It should have opened in September 2008 and 500 primary children would have been in that contamination every day. A fat lot of use the Local Ombudsman was!
There is also the case of our town hall protester
You tube mypeacefulprotester
http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s...
Again, this innocent man, who only asked for counselling help for his from Stockport Council adopted daughters who had a terrible time with their birth parents, was actually repeatedly sent to a tough Manchester prison for a sneeze which didn't even take place. Obviously the Local Ombudsman should have found in his favour, especially following the Serious Case Reviews which stated the Council would help people who needed help with vulnerable children following the tragic two instances detailed below:-
http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s...
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/n...
Again, the Local Ombudsman was a fat lot of use!
I don't know the point of the Local Ombudsman Service. If they take years and years to deal with complaints and then just do a whitewash job, then I for one would rather they simply didn't exist and the money be put to better use.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
Anne Hide left an annotation (16 February 2010)
S-POOK-ED?
Link to this