Dear Sir or Madam,

Would the Local Government Ombudsman provide all details of any
expenditure it has incurred in relation to the identification of
maladministration causing injustice by Trafford council and
Trafford Council rejecting the Local Government Ombudsman's
recommendations in relation to 'Carly'. Specifically, how much has
the LGO spent in relation to an advertisement identifying that
Trafford is a maladministering Council seeking to cause injustice
as enabled by s31 of the Local Government Act.

Additionally would the LGO identify how many other Council's have
following identification of maladministration and injustce simply
changed Ombudsman,

Yours faithfully,

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

I attach a letter (ref CS/08/0021) in response to your request.

Regards

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections

Dear Hilary Pook,

Many thanks for your prompt reply.

In relation to the newspaper advertisement I was aware that the
Local Government Ombudsman ['LGO'] is able to reclaim expenses from
the Council when the Council decides to ignore an Ombudsman's
second report identifying maladministration causing injustice. I
note that at the moment the LGO is exercising discretion and
choosing not to identify maladministration causing injustice by
Trafford Council.

I am additionally aware that the LGO is appointed following a
recommendation being made by the Secretary of State and their
Department by the Crown.

The Commission for Local Administration England [CLAE] provides the
infrastructure for investigating complaints. The issue is that
Trafford identified considerable dissatisfaction with the York
Office (under the control of SEEX).. and then subsequently
identified that they had requested a change of Ombudsman as they
[Trafford] identified that the York Office was not fit for purpose.

Obviously, the change of Ombudsman by a Council is at the decision
of the CLAE. Effectively, the CLAE identified that SEEX was not
competent to be an Ombudsman by allowing Trafford to change
Ombudsman's Office. If the CLAE were content with the service
provided by SEEX they would not have allowed the discretion of SEEX
to be questioned.

The question is.. 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.

It is acknowledged that resignation by SEEX is a personal issue for
herself. However, clarification on the CLAE's understanding is
being sought.

Hopefully, this provides the clarification that you require.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Hilary Pook,

Many thanks for your prompt reply.

In relation to the newspaper advertisement I was aware that the
Local Government Ombudsman ['LGO'] is able to reclaim expenses from
the Council when the Council decides to ignore an Ombudsman's
second report identifying maladministration causing injustice. I
note that at the moment the LGO is exercising discretion and
choosing not to identify maladministration causing injustice by
Trafford Council.

I am additionally aware that the LGO is appointed following a
recommendation being made by the Secretary of State and their
Department by the Crown.

The Commission for Local Administration England [CLAE] provides the
infrastructure for investigating complaints. The issue is that
Trafford identified considerable dissatisfaction with the York
Office (under the control of SEEX).. and then subsequently
identified that they had requested a change of Ombudsman as they
[Trafford] identified that the York Office was not fit for purpose.

Obviously, the change of Ombudsman by a Council is at the decision
of the CLAE. Effectively, the CLAE identified that SEEX was not
competent to be an Ombudsman by allowing Trafford to change
Ombudsman's Office. If the CLAE were content with the service
provided by SEEX they would not have allowed the discretion of SEEX
to be questioned.

The question is.. 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.

It is acknowledged that resignation by SEEX is a personal issue for
herself, as she is dependent on the recommendation of the Secretary
of State and their Department for their appointment. Clarification
on the CLAE's understanding is being sought, as if Trafford is the
only case where the CLAE has allowed a Council to change Ombudsman,
and if SEEX is the only LGO where this occurred.. I would have
thought that Ms SEEX was likely to have embarrassed the Secretary
of State and their Department... and the CLAE.

Obviously, if my understanding is flawed you will advise that there
has been more than one occassion where Ombudsmen Office have been
changed at the request of a Council (particularly after two reports
of maladministration causing injustice) on the same issue that the
Council rejects as being the case.

It is noted that Jerry WHITE stated in the Annual letter to
Trafford dated June 2008 :

'My staff tell me that they find working with Trafford is positive
and constructive. I would like to thank the Council for the forward
looking way in which it continues to handle complaints and, as I
say above, its willingness to put things right when they have gone
wrong. And I am very much aware what a personal contribution
particular members of your staff make in this important area of
service delivery. '

The opinion of WHITE and his staff appears to be very different to
SEEX and her staff who had two reports of maladministration causing
injustice rejected by Trafford. It would appear that WHITE and his
staff identify that investigations conducted by SEEX and her staff
were not competent.

Hopefully, this provides the clarification that you require.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Mr Carruthers

I attach a letter in response to the email below, and your previous
email of 18 July.

Regards

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager
Local Government Ombudsman's Office
Tel: 020 7217 4734
www.lgo.org.uk

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of
the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error
please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

show quoted sections