LGO what's the rush?

[bob dootson]

All of a sudden the LGO(York) are rushing to close the investigation into Chorley Councils behaviour, we've informed them that we have requested an internal review regarding a FOI answer which we suspect has been edited to suite.
We also suspect that the internal review will support their officer, thereby leaving us no option but to report it to the Information Commissioner's Office.
So why can't the LGO put everything on hold until our question as been dealt with to our satisfaction, or is that asking to much? (to get satisfaction).
We have proof that documents have been altered, but no-body seems to have the courage to come down hard on the offenders, this has been a real eye-opener for us, and it's certainly left a bad taste in the mouth.

[Ann]

If they close your complaint you can request comeback if new evidence comes to light. Unfortunately York is the worst of the three office for devious behaviour so take care.

We have proof that documents have been altered

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it did it make a noise? If you have evidence that no one will look at what proof have you got? Seex and her staff are well know for failing to look at any evidence that doesn't fit the outcome they want. You could have a video of a council officer altering documents but York office staff would find a reason not to look at it if suited their needs, which it often does.

[ke]

Bob,
If you think an FOI request has been tampered with, altered by higher authority or provides false information then the LGO is not the one to complain to (not that you would get any joy anyway). This is a criminal offence in English Law and you should immediately make a formal complain to the ICO (Information Commisssioner) providing your evidence. To make a complaint you just write a letter stating the facts and enclosing the evidence supporting your complaint. The FOI Act is the mechanism to hang these B*st*rds, they know it, and none of their cover up organisations can do anything about it. Complain to the ICO.

[ke]

If you get a positive out come from the ICO then go back to the LGO with a 'comeback' with the new evidence. Notwithstanding, you will still get no joy from the LGO!

[Crazy C]

If they close your complaint you can request comeback if new evidence comes to light. ........
If you have evidence that no one will look at what proof have you got? Seex and her staff are well know for failing to look at any evidence that doesn't fit the outcome they want.......

same here, but they have refused to look at the evidence again, mmmm am not having that ?

[shc]

s77 of the FOI.. and request the ICO to disclose the information to the LGO.. under s76 might be worthwhile

ask for comeback... immediately from the CLAE..

it might also be worthwhile to identify any possiible failure of the CLAE to have s23(10)(b) of the LGA 1974 in relation to complaints about flawed investigations. The Local Commissioner (LGO) is responsible for determining complaints.. The CLAE are responsible for providing the staff to conduct investigations.. There is no complaints procedure available to complain about a flawed investigation by the CLAE for the LGO.. if the investigation is flawed the LGO's decision is likely to be flawed..

s23(10)(b) of the Local Government Act 1974 states: Each of the Commissions-

shall publish information about the procedures for making complaints under this Part of this Act.

[LGObias]

Bob,
If you think an FOI request has been tampered with, altered by higher authority or provides false information then the LGO is not the one to complain to (not that you would get any joy anyway). This is a criminal offence in English Law and you should immediately make a formal complain to the ICO (Information Commisssioner) providing your evidence. To make a complaint you just write a letter stating the facts and enclosing the evidence supporting your complaint. The FOI Act is the mechanism to hang these B*st*rds, they know it, and none of their cover up organisations can do anything about it. Complain to the ICO.

How far can we trust the ICO though?

I have had plenty of experience of the LGO and I am consequently aware that they are a sham, but have little experience of the ICO (yet).... and if the LGO can get away with it.....

[shc]

The ICO is watched and both their sponsoring minister and the ICO themselves encourage their activities to be scrutinized.. they come out of an campaign for FOI.. The ICO also has the Information tribunal on which their guidance is based (defn of vexatious etc).. the ICO's decisions are set up to be open to challenge..

The LGO comes out of a quick fix.. to not ensure that ministers and their departments were responsible for their acts (Critchell Down).. and that there was an alternative route of appeal.. The LGO's decision's are set up to not be open to challenge..

The culture is very different..

The FOIA poses very real problems for both the ICO and the CLAE as.. s76 FOIA provides that: The Commissioner may disclose to a person specified in the first column of the Table below [e.g. LGO'] any information obtained by, or furnished to, the Commissioner under or for the purposes of this Act or the Data Protection Act 1998 if it appears to the Commissioner that the information relates to a matter which could be the subject of an investigation by that person under the enactment specified in relation to that person..

s33A of the Local Government Act 1974 gives the CLAE may disclose to the ICO.. any offence under s77.. (i.e. altering records)...

The LGO will want the complaint out of the door before the ICO can show the CLAE investigation was flawed.. the Information Tribunal as yet have not given any guidance to the ICO on how they should exercise their s77 powers..

[Ann]

I have had zero success with the LGO but 100% success with the ICO. They have backed every complaint I have taken and persuaded the authority concerned to comply with my requests. Very different to the way the LGO work. I have no complaints about the ICO.

[Ann]

I see that Stuart has brought the WDTK website down with all his requests.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

[shc]

I have a similar experience to Ann.. although not a 100% success rate.. (although it is close)..

Not me Ann.. was the LGO looking to release more information onto the WDTK website I think

it is working again..

[ke]

LGO Bias,
I too have no complaints about the ICO and in the final analysis, if he makes a decision that you disagree with, you can appeal to a Tribunal. The Tribunal is staffed by co-opted Lawyers, who have the same powers as a judge. They are independent and even though I lost a decsion at the Tribunal, when I studied their judgement, I had to agree that it complied with the Law.

[ABH]

Now if people who complain to the LGO could, as in the case of the ICO, take their dissatisfaction at the outcome to an independent tribunal, wouldn't we all be happy bunnies. Doubt the LGO would be happy though because it would overnight put a stop to their corrupt practices.

[LGObias]

What a breath of fresh air it is to hear everybody speaking so highly of the ICO.

But isn't the same system that created the ICO also responsible for creating the monster that is the LGO, specifically to turn a blind eye to the corruption and incompetence of council officers?

[shc]

the ICO merely highlights the problems of the LGO..

It is a very good indicator.. as failure of a Council to conform with FOIA is an act of maladministration (failure to follow process).. and highlights very nicely the problems.. However.. the LGO is not responsible for the FOIA...

The ICO finds maladministration in about 70 per cent of the decision notices they issue to Council's.. (failure to follow FOIA) this excludes a lot of 'local settlements'.. The reality is that the ICO identifies M about 90 per cent of the time.. The LGO with Local Settlements identifies M about 25 per cent of the time (Ombie discretion)...

[ke]

The LGO was set up in 1974. No doubt when it was set up, it worked as it was supposed to by Act of Parliament. In fact looking at the stats, there were far more findings of Maladminstration with fewer complaints in those days, than today. In fact the findings then were statistically acceptable, today they are not. What has happened with the LGO is that, doing its job properly and embarassing corrupt and incompetent Local Government, was unacceptable to Local Government. The outcome was that Local Government set out to, and succeeded in hijacking, the LGO Institution, to run it in a way that was acceptable to itself i.e. reduce findings of maladministration, and, cease to embarrass corrupt and incompetent local Government. This they did successfully, evidenced by the fact that today's outcomes are statistically impossible (less than 1% findings of maladministration) and the fact that each of the 3 LGO's are ex Council Chief Executives.
A parallel example is how Local Government thwarted the indroduction of the rank of Chief Executive, by this Government, which was introduced to bring in professional managers from outside Local Government, to sharpen up its performance. They were not going to have this so they created SOLACE (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives). SOLACE have virtually recommended the appointment of all Chief Executives since, been paid £20k, tax free, per appointment, and recruited them exclusively from within Local Government. They have also achieved pay increases for them of 33% per annum since 2003.
These things happen, and are allowed to happen, when you have an incompetent Central Government.
With regards to the ICO, he has only existed since 2005, the orginal appointment is still in post. The position has not yet been hijacked. However I guess that there are government Agencies actively plotting to hijack the ICO, and this will happen in time. When this happens the ICO will be just like the LGO.
If you want another example, look at the creation of the Standards Board at the end of John Major's Government. Dame Elizabeth Filkin was appointed, and did such a good job that the MP's got rid of her early, then appointed a Numpty in her place. The outcome is that the Standards Board is now as corrupt and ineffectual as the LGO.
This is how it works in this country. the public sector works for itself not you and I.

[Ann]

I agree with everything you say except

With regards to the ICO, he has only existed since 2005, the original appointment is still in post.

I think he retired and a new boy has replaced him. Although it looks like he wants to get even tougher than his predecessor was.

[Ann]

Sorry KE think I made a boo boo I was thinking of someone else.

[Ann]

This is the article I read

The UK's data protection watchdog today called for prison sentences for people found guilty of serious misuse of confidential personal information.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham, who took up his post in June this year, dismissed the penalties currently available to judges under the Data Protection Act as 'pathetic' and said that legislation could be tightened to give them the option of custodial sentences by April next year.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ioner.html

[LGObias]

I agree with everything you say except

With regards to the ICO, he has only existed since 2005, the original appointment is still in post.

I think he retired and a new boy has replaced him. Although it looks like he wants to get even tougher than his predecessor was.

That we should be reliant on the integrity of one honest man is a ludicrous situation...perhaps it would be wise for us all to cross our fingers...just in case.

The powers that be may not have been responsible for creating what the LGO has become but as they have allowed it to be "got at" it amounts to the same.

Sorry to have hijacked your post in this way bob dootson, had I have realised I would have posted as a new topic.

As I said I have had plenty of experience as a victim of the LGO, to start with, like everybody else, I was naive enough to assume they would be a professional unbiased body. I soon discovered otherwise.

[ABH]

That we should be reliant on the integrity of one honest man is a ludicrous situation.

Who said we were?

[LGObias]

If you want another example, look at the creation of the Standards Board at the end of John Major's Government. Dame Elizabeth Filkin was appointed, and did such a good job that the MP's got rid of her early, then appointed a Numpty in her place. The outcome is that the Standards Board is now as corrupt and ineffectual as the LGO.
This is how it works in this country. the public sector works for itself not you and I.

I assumed that the same might well apply to the ICO - infiltrate from the top down

[Ann]

I assumed that the same might well apply to the ICO - infiltrate from the top down.

You may well be right, that's why we shouldn't be reliant any anybody.

[shadow]

All of a sudden the LGO(York) are rushing to close the investigation into Chorley Councils behaviour, we've informed them that we have requested an internal review regarding a FOI answer which we suspect has been edited to suite.

We also suspect that the internal review will support their officer, thereby leaving us no option but to report it to the Information Commissioner's Office.

So why can't the LGO put everything on hold until our question as been dealt with to our satisfaction, or is that asking to much? (to get satisfaction).

We have proof that documents have been altered, but no-body seems to have the courage to come down hard on the offenders, this has been a real eye-opener for us, and it's certainly left a bad taste in the mouth.

I have had a quick look at your FOI request.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n ... ming-41302

Can you obtain a hard copy of the document from someone who received an original when it was first sent out. If you have seen the copy they gave the LGO and you can obtain a copy of a different one you have them bang to rights. I doubt the council will give you a copy that contradicts what they have sent the LGO and I doubt the ICO can force them to produce a document that they say doesn't exist.

If not a copy of the original what proof have you already got that the document given to the LGO has been altered ? If they can't produce a copy for you how did they produce one for the LGO?

Thomas

[shc]

If the contents of the two letters are different then that should be identified to the people with responsibility for the internal review....

If the Council has failed to follow procedure as to the steps required for consultation and/or changed the procedural steps in the letters.. that is an issue for the CLAE investigator to identify to the LGO..

It is also something that if the internal review failed to deal with properly could be raised with the ICO.. as it would be clear that the Chorley Council only made one version of its letter available.

... and you would have twin tracked the CLAE.. and Chorley..

[ABH]

The council have explained why they haven't got a copy of the letter to give you. ICO will be of no help because they can't force the council to give you something that doesn't exist. The only way forward with the ICO is for you to prove the council still has a copy of the original letter. That will prove to the ICO that the council has not been telling the truth. Have you tried asking other councils if they keep a copy of similar letters? If other councils keep hard copies of these letters then at least it would add some weight to your complaint to the ICO.

[bob dootson]

Can you obtain a hard copy of the document from someone who received an original when it was first sent out. If you have seen the copy they gave the LGO and you can obtain a copy of a different one you have them bang to rights. I doubt the council will give you a copy that contradicts what they have sent the LGO and I doubt the ICO can force them to produce a document that they say doesn't exist.

If not a copy of the original what proof have you already got that the document given to the LGO has been altered ? If they can't produce a copy for you how did they produce one for the LGO?

Thomasshadow

Thomas..
I have a copy of the one they sent to the LGO which contained serious errors, and in reply to my FOI request they sent me a copy which has been falsified to try to cover up the errors.
I therefore have two documents that should be identical but contain major differances. I should add that the document in question is a National Requirement under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
The Council have infact given me a copy that contradicts the one they sent to the LGO.And that's because they have told that many lies during the investigation, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand as done.

Bob

[shc]

What are the differences in the documents ?

Parliament legislates.. the Crown executes.. which is why the LGO and ICO are crown appointments..

[shadow]

I have a copy of the one they sent to the LGO which contained serious errors, and in reply to my FOI request they sent me a copy which has been falsified to try to cover up the errors.

Then you have all the evidence you need and don't need the ICO. Out of interest, as Stuart has already asked, what are the differences and how does it contradict the original?

Thomas

[bob dootson]

[quote][/quoteThen you have all the evidence you need and don't need the ICO. Out of interest, as Stuart has already asked, what are the differences and how does it contradict the original?

Thomasshadow

Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: Nether Kellet
Private messageWebsite ]

The dates have been altered regarding the notification and comment deadline, plus the second one contains different applicant details.

Bob

[shadow]

I assume you have given the LGO a copy of the said document and brought to her attention that it's substantially different than the one the Council gave her in defence of your complaint? What was the response from the LGOs office about the differences? You do realise you have a new complaint quite separate to your original complaint. You could submit a complaint about the council fabricating a document in an attempt to mislead the ombudsman and pervert the course of justice. What they have done is maladministration and the injustice to you is obvious. That may make her sit up and take the matter seriously for a change.

Thomas

[bob dootson]

The arrogance of the Council is unbelievable, a fresh complaint is inevitable but can we go straight to the LGO or would we have to go through the whole complaints procedure again?
I can see why so many good people throw the towel in, the system stinks.Well I'm not going away that easy.

[shadow]

I would send it straight to the LGO. The LGO have the right to investigate a complaint without it first going through a council complaints procedure. In any event you shouldn't have to complain about something the LGO should have stopped. If the LGO didn't accept all the bullshit from a council without prudent validation there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. Until they start validating everything a council tells them they are as guilty as the council who misled them.

Thomas