Dear Sir or Madam,

Since 01 April 2000 please identify by Council for each each year.

1 The number of complaints against each Council involving Social
Services.

2 The number of complaints against each Council involving Social
Services that were investigated identifying the Ombudsman
responsile

3 The outcome of the LGO's investigation (M, MI, LS, OD. OJ, P
etc), identifying which Ombudsman made the decision

If possible please additionally identify if the complaints related
to Adults or Children.

Further identify by each complaint if the Ombudsman raised concerns
with any other regulator of a Council (please identify by Council)
or sought legal advice.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email request, received on 15
December.

I will aim to reply within the 20-working day target (which would be by
15 January 2009). If I am unable to do so, I will write to you again
explaining why.

Yours sincerely

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 Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

I attach two letters in response to your request below - one from myself
and one from Nigel Karney.

Yours sincerely

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 Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Local Government
Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'Social Services'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/so...

Attached is additional information:

Dear sirs,

This is a response to the letters of the Deputy Chief Executive and
Secretary of the Commission for Local Administration in England
(CLAE) related to generic issues (unsigned), and specific issues
related to a request for information about Social Services provided
by Hilary POOK, Communications and Records Manager.

GENERIC ISSUES

CS/08/0114/NJK

Could I refer the Commission for Local Administration in England
['CLAE'] to s1 and s2 of the Freedom of Information Act, as well as
the Information Commissioners own guidance on the public interest
test (version 2).

The CLAE shall be aware that the Deputy Chief Executive and
Secretary to the Commission has previously identified that they
have been authorised to determine FoI requests using the 'public
interest test' by the Minister and their Department and that the
LGO's are not independent in response to an FoI request. This issue
is with the ICO. The Minister has provided no clarification as yet
despite a member of the CLAE responding for the Deputy Chief
Executive and Secretary. The member of the CLAE failed to identify
if they could rely on the public interest test. They are aware that
this is disputed as the CLAE specifically appears to be excluded
from a number of provisions. This is understandable, as the CLAE
needs to be open and transparent as an independent statutory body
(i.e. all but unaccountable).

The LGO has identified that the authorisation of the the Deputy
Chief Executive and Secretary to the Commission by the Secretary of
State shall be made available through one of the FoI requests, that
the Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary to the Commission is
seeking to identify as being vexatious. It is believed that Deputy
Chief Executive and Secretary to the Commission is placing their
private interest above the public interest.

The LGO's have failed to identify if they are independent or are
guided by staff to whom they delegate their decision making who
have through a certificate identified that they are under the
control of a Government Minister and their Department.

It is rather ironic that on return from holiday at the start of
2009 the Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary to the CLAE should
suddenly identify that the individual who made the request where
the CLAE and the College of Ombudsmen that run it identified that
they were not independent might be vexatious, and that the Deputy
Chief Executive and Secretary to the CLAE now requires proof that
this not the case before meeting the CLAE's duties under FOI.

Could I also point out that through the Whatdotheyknow site I have
actually made 48 FoI requests to the LGO between July and December
2008 and not 42. The number of requests is higher than others.
However, the number of successful requests (i.e. resulting in
information being freed from the CLAE) is also much higher than
others. There have been additional FoI requests made to the
Coventry Office on separate issues on behalf of others. The
majority of these FoI requests made on my own behalf were for
documents that should have been easily accessible from the CLAE
through its website as part of its publication scheme.

a) Finding's of maladministration and injustice against a Council
are removed from the CLAE site after three years. Removal of the
information makes it difficult for an individual to base a
complaint on a case where there has already been a determination.
It also supports Council's to make mistakes in record keeping. This
supports inconsistency in determining what constitutes
maladministration by the LGO's.
b) Annual Reports and Accounts are available for only a year. Again
these contain a great deal of background information.
c) The CLAE minutes and papers section on the CLAE Website has been
under development for several years.
d) Tri-annual reviews, management documents, studies etc are not
available on the Website. The LGO have identified that they were
given permission not to produce a 2006 Tri-annual Review by the
Secretary of State and their Department. The Secretary of State and
their Department have to date denied that there is any record of
them identifying this to the Chair of the CLAE or any other member
of the CLAE.

There is no dispute that the CLAE is a small organization. As such
it is in its interests to be as transparent as possible. Ten years
worth of data enables changes in the understanding of both
maladministration and injustice by the LGO's to be identified.
There is a paucity of data publicly available. The Whatdotheyknow
web site, and external websites now carry more information
generated by the CLAE provided in response to FoI requests than the
CLAE's own.

Three years worth of data merely identifies what the current
college of Ombudsmen who are all former local authority chief
executives identify what they believe maladministration and
injustice to be - and not if they have through their experience as
local authority chief executives (who have rejected findings of
maladministration and injustice) changed the understanding of these
terms. The LGO's through the CLAE website only publish a years
worth of data. Council's have a very different understanding of the
LGO's decisions to the CLAE.

The CLAE is an independent statutory body that provides an
infrastructure to support the Ombudsmen ['LGO'] appointed by the
Crown to carry out investigations into complaints of
maladministration and injustice. The LGO can make a determination
if there has been maladministration. The determination is
discretionary. There is acknowledgement that there are significant
problems with independent statutory bodies as they are all but
unaccountable. These issues were most recently manifested through
the retirement of Sir John Bourne (Comptroller General) following
identification of 'junketing' by himself. This issue is another
covered by an FoI request that the Deputy Chief Executive and
Secretary to the Commission has identified they wish to identify as
being vexatious.

There is an acknowledged lack of understanding as to what is both
maladministration and injustice. This is determined by the LGO.
There appears to have been changes in the LGO's understanding of
what constitutes maladministration following former Council Chief
Executives only being recommended to the position of LGO by the
Secretary of State and their Department (Communities and Local
Government). Most FoI requests to the CLAE could be avoided if it
actually provided access to the information it holds on its
website.

There would have been very little need to make FoI requests if the
CLAE was not seeking for whatever purpose to not make information
available. None of the activities or information resources of the
CLAE appear to be subject to any exemption under FoI. The CLAE
would not be subject to FoI requests if it actually published the
information under its control and made it accessible.

It would appear that

* at least one current LGO and the Council they represented
rejected an former LGO's finding of maladministration and
injustice.
* one of the current LGO's and their Council had more findings of
maladministration and injustice against them prior to their
appointment as an LGO than any other Council and Chief Executive in
the country.
* one of the LGO's has knowingly and deliberately it would appear
to have chosen not to undertake a tri-annual review in 2006
(despite the Cabinet Office having identified that it was desirable
that the Office of the LGO should be 'abolished' in 2000). In 2005
a Select Committee recommended that the Secretary of State and
their Department should identify the progress that had been made in
achieving the 2003 tri-annual review recommendations;
* there is considerable consumer disatisfaction with the service
provided by the LGO's (this is identified by its own surveys)
* staff of the CLAE identify that they are authorised to determine
FoI complaints by the Minister and their Department and apply the
public interest test;

Not surprisingly there appears to be:

a) inconsistency as to what actually constitutes maladministration
and injustice by the LGO's;
b) habitual rejection of the findings of the LGO's by Council's;
c) lack of trust and confidence in the LGO's and the CLAE that
provides services for them by consumers of Council services that
have a complaint. The Council's themselves have acknowledged that
in most cases their complaint systems are not fit for purpose;

There appears to be an acknowledged need for reform of the Local
Government Ombudsman system. Indeed the LGO is the subject of a
consumer movement seeking reform of its activities. In the LGO's
risk strategy it states:

Ombudsmanwatch acts as a focus for critics of our independence,
fairness and thoroughness

The main issue that you raise appears to fall under s12 of the FoI
rather than s14 in that the requests are burdensome for the CLAE
This is not vexatious.

This is not that surprising as government has reduced the budget
available to the CLAE. The requests have not previously proved
burdensome. There is extensive evidence from the CLAE's own
responses that they did not view the enquiries burdensome until:

a) spending cuts were introduced;
b) the CLAE responses to FOI identified significant management
failings, and that the CLAE is in a state of disarray (i.e.
uncertain if it is run by a Government Minister and their
Department or by a College of Ombudsmen), and is unable to provide
documents identifying that it has permission to breach statute;
c) the CLAE also appears to have problems in producing a Counsels
opinion identifying that it was desirable for the CLAE to seek a
change in the law;

The information released through the FoI requests has been
extensively used by those seeking reform of the Local Government
Ombudsmen and Council Complaint's systems. The issues have been
reported in the press, and ministers have been questioned on the
issues by Members of Parliament. In many cases the information
released by the Whatdotheyknow site has been instrumental in
engaging the public interest.

There is no requirement under FoI that I should seek to explain the
reasons for a request. It simply states that if the public body
holds the information that it should communicate it. It is believed
that the Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary of the CLAE is
seeking to disguise other failings by making their allegation that
the requests lack any serious value or purpose.

a) failure to transparently publish information held by the CLAE so
that most FoI requests are not needed, and that would enable the
independence, fairness and thoroughness of the LGO to be subject to
transparent scrutiny;
b) breach of statute (i.e. 2006 Tri-annual Review that would have
identified what steps the CLAE proposed to secure their 'abolition'
as recommended by the Cabinet Office in 2000);
c) staff of the LGO seeking to identify that they are under the
control of Ministers, and are able to claim that information should
not be released in the public interest when no such exemption
exists.

The above three issues are not FoI issues. However, the
justification for these acts and/or any failure to act by the CLAE
are FoI issues. It is possible to have the information released, or
the CLAE to identify that it supports acts that in a world not
filled with maladministration would be untenable by not producing
documents.

As judge you must stand higher than those that you judge. It is not
for me to judge.

However, I would have anticipated that the CLAE would have sought
to transparently publish as much information as possible in a user
friendly format rather than seek to state that requests for the
information are vexatious. If I was the Minister and their
Department with responsibility for nominating appointment of a
person to the position of Ombudsman to the Crown - I rather think I
would be seeking clarification from the CLAE as to why they have
allowed this sorry state of affairs to develop.

It is merely believed that the Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary
of the CLAE is aware that publication of the information and / or
meeting the requirements of FoI will enable it to be further
identified that the CLAE is in a state of disarray. This is a
private interest of the Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary of the
CLAE. It has no bearing on their allegations or demand that proof
of the serious nature of the question be provided..

The Specific Social Services Question raised by Hillary POOK

CS/08/0114/HJP

1) A petition has been raised with the Prime Minister in relation
to Child Protection issues
(http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/LGO-Har...) seeking reform of
the Ombudsman. The issues are discussed here:
http://www.amv3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...

2) Christine GILBERT the former CEO of Tower Hamlets and a friend
of the Chair of the CLAE has identified failings in the activities
of OFSTED. GILBERT has further identified that about 3 children a
week die as a result of abuse. A significant number of these
children are under the 'supervision' of Council Social Service
Departments. It is reasonably clear that systems are defective, and
that inquiries and findings are ignored by Council's. This is
straightforward in the Haringey case. There are about another 150
authorities within the LGO's jurisdiction that provide the same
services as Haringey.

3) There have been complaints to the LGO in relation to Child
Protection, and it is within the LGO's jurisdiction to determine if
there has been maladministration and injustice associated with a
complaint, and to provide training to the Council's on development
of complaints systems that are fit for purpose.

4) Response to the question will enable it to be identified if
there is a 'gap' in the system, or if the LGO has through their
determination as to what constitutes maladministration and
injustice contributed to what should at least in some cases have
been avoidable tragedies, and supported Council's to have defective
systems. The question will further enable it to be identified if
there is a difference in approach by the different Ombudsman
Offices.

Conclusion

It is believed that the Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary of the
CLAE has a questionable understanding of the FoI act, and has
sought to use s14 to support private interests. s12 is not
available as otherwise the issue would already have been raised.
The management failures are already apparent. It is for the CLAE if
they choose to put them right. They will obviously be subjected to
FoI questions to determine if they have and/or if they should act
unreasonably. Would the CLAE please identify if my understanding is
correct.

Internal Review is requested - and according to the CLAE's own
documents this should not be conducted by the Deputy Chief
Executive and Secretary of the CLAE in relation to their 'blanket
decision'.

I expect the information requested in relation to all requests
submitted to be provided.

Yours faithfully

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you refer Mr KARNEY to the CLAE Minutes of 09 September 2008

'Nigel Karney highlighted the high number of Freedom of Information
requests received by corporate services during the period (28). The
Commission commented that all references to people making requests
should be anonymised. '

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Carruthers

I attach a letter relating to the request below.

Yours sincerely

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 Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

Please find attached a letter in response to your request of 12
December.

Yours sincerely

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 Sir or Madam,

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 'Social Services'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/so...

Mr KARNEY as part of the review is requested to identify in writing
if he is authorised to make refusal for the Secretary of State and
apply the publuc interest test.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Sir or Madam,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/42...

Internal review Completed on 10 February 2009 (above link), and
refused.

The LGO fails to understand that since 2000 all council's in
England have operated with written constitutions.. and that any
breach of their constitution would in a country used to having a
written constitution be classed as maladministration..

Findings of maladministraton highlight to the democratic process
its failures. Local Government in the UK is now based on the
Napoleonic Code for some reason it still seems to consider that the
common law applies to its acts. Adoption of the Napoleonic code is
fundamental if government (and the political parties that control
it) is not to be able to abuse the rights of man.

Would the ICO please determine if the Secretary and Deputy Chief
Executive of the CLAE is placing their private interests above the
public interest. It is my reasonably strong belief that this might
be the case.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Carruthers

Are you expecting a response to this, or is it just for information? I'm
unclear whether it is addressed to us or the ICO.

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 Foi Officer,

For you it is just for information.

For the ICO it enables them to see the admin tricks being deployed
by the CLAE.. However.. they don't determine if it is
maladministration and also to access the documents all in one place

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS