Members of Parliament

[JSL]

I have recently contacted my MP, Ann Coffey, Stockport, about the injustice meted out by the York Ombudsman's office. Her response has been to most definitely refuse to offer any help. She instead tells me that MPs cannot intervene in Ombudsman matters and she tells me:

"The service was set up by Parliament to be independent and free from political influence, and I see little point in having such a service if Parliament is then to challenge the judgement of the Ombudsman in individual cases. If you wish to pursue your complaint further, you should have recourse to the legal process and seek judicial review."

She also stated "MPs and Ministers have no power to intervene in the Ombudsman's decisions on individual cases".

I sent Ms. Coffey a copy of the letter and enclosures that I sent to the Communities department. Those documents show quite clearly how the Ombudsman's investigator changed her remit after she found that Stockport Council had acted in contravention of their written policy and that a council officer had been proved to have lied. In addition, they showed that the Deputy Ombudsman was at best incompetent when dealing with a complaint against the investigator (despite the investigator clearly stating in writing that her revised remit was to determine if a statutory nuisance exists, the Deputy Ombudsman stated that he did not believe that she made such a statement - why didn't he read her letter?!). Those documents showed that a serious injustice had occurred.

It is a surprise to note that MPs and Ministers have no power to intervene. Didn’t they intervene to actually create the Ombudsman? Ms. Coffey’s comments seem to suggest that Parliament, having created the Ombudsman, is now prevented from adjusting or abolishing the Ombudsman’s position in perpetuity. Of course, Parliament IS able to deal with the Ombudsman by changing the law. In addition, Ms. Coffey is possibly unaware that a judicial review would not reverse the decision of the Ombudsman; all that such a review could do is tell the Ombudsman to reconsider their decision. In the case of the Ombudsman’s investigator’s changes of remit and incompetent complaint handling of the Deputy Ombudsman, I would have hoped that Ms. Coffey would agree that the Ombudsman is hardly likely to reverse their decision when to do so would show them up as incompetents / cheats / biased. Furthermore, a judicial review would cost thousands. Does Ms. Coffey really expect me to spend that amount of money again and again to have the Ombudsman simply reaffirm their decision every time??

Has anyone else met with such a head in the sand attitude from their MP(s)? I’d really like to know.

Thanks.

[Mac99]

Hi JSL,

Sorry you had problems with your EH department. It is not uncommon for this to happen. Can I ask what the nature of the problem is and what you did when no statutory nuisance was found ie did you take action your self or make a complaint to the council, followed by a complaint to the Ombudsman?

Regards
Mac

[JSL]

Mac,

With regard to the EH department, when they visited my property on 30th June 2009, it was agreed that a nuisance existed due to streetlights that have shone into my bedroom windows since 2001 (when all this with the Ombudsman started). This was raised with the Ombudsman, along with fresh information that showed that the Council was not working in accordance with its written policy. In addition, I managed to show that the Council's "expert's" 2002 report on allowable levels was wrong and misstated facts and that a council officer had lied. This is the point at which the Ombudsman's investigator changed her remit from one of considering whether the Council was working to its policy to one of whether a statutory nuisance existed (she has no jurisdiction on that subject, of course). She then stated that the EH officer had not agreed that a nuisance exists; funny thing is, despite receiving two letters from the EH officer and writing to her to ask for her confirmation of what the Ombudsman's investigator stated, it remains that it is only the investigator who is saying that no nuisance exists. EH have remained silent and it is very clear to me that the people against whom I have a complaint have intervened to pervert things in their favour. This is where I am now - the Ombudsman has agreed that everything that informed their decision in 2002 was wrong but now they have found another excuse to find for the Council.

I am aware that I can take an action via the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act on the matter of statutory nuisance due to the lighting. However, I have tried to find a solicitor who can advise me but have so far failed. I need probably to try harder but it has also taken some time pursuing my case with the Ombudsman, my MP (I will not be represented by her unfortunatley, even in bringing the matter to the attention of Parliament because she thinks everything is OK) and the Communities and Local Government people. If anyone is able to advise on what I need to do with respect to the statutory nuisance aspect, I will be very grateful.

There is one other complaint that I have with the Ombudsman and that concerns my neighbour's conservatory erected in 2002 or 2003 (I need to check my files!). I have proved with photos that the conservatory contravenes the Council's written policy in more than one way (including the standout of the conservatory), something that was pointed out at the time to the Council and the Ombudsman (I have been proved totally correct).

[Mac99]

Hi JSL,

Thank you for your reply. I haven't been a member on here for long and am unsure of PM. Please PM me as whilst not a professional I think I have a lot of information that might help. It would probably be better to do this via PM rather than on the open forums.

Regards
Mac

[bob dootson]

It appears that your member of Parliament simply can't be bothered. We have recently had an eye-opening 18 months involvement with the LGO, during which time the member of Parliament for Chorley wrote several letters of support and concern to the LGO.

[Aku]

"Has anyone else met with such a head in the sand attitude from their MP(s)? I’d really like to know"

I have had similar problems with my then MP, Glenda Jackson. In my case, my MP did not even bother to offer any excuse for her disappointing reluctance to help me and proceeded to ignore my subsequent requests for help. It would be useful to find out whether there is any effective action that I should have taken about her perverse behaviour.

[the tenants eye]

"Has anyone else met with such a head in the sand attitude from their MP(s)? I’d really like to know"

I have had similar problems with my then MP, Glenda Jackson. In my case, my MP did not even bother to offer any excuse for her disappointing reluctance to help me and proceeded to ignore my subsequent requests for help. It would be useful to find out whether there is any effective action that I should have taken about her perverse behaviour.

Has anyone else met with such a head in the sand attitude from their MP(s)? I’d really like to know.


YES! SNAP! I've had the same situation with my MP - basically the LGO are like the Queen, part of the system and would be very difficult to change. I can prove that Housing Officers lied and changed their story after I complained, but the LGO nor my MP give a hoot - you either obey their silly rules or shut up! That's the situation I'm afraid. The LGO investigators have to make decicions in line with current council rules, so regardless of what you say, if an investigator can make what happened to you fit in with established council rules then they will rule against you.

Michael Mac.

The Tenants Eye.

[shc]

I recently had back a written answer from the new Minister obatained through my MP.. related to findings against Council's..

the gist of the answer was that: the LGO was viewed as essential to realisation of the current governments 'Big Society'

without the Audit Commission there will be no 'common standards' for local government..

[Tonto]

It appears Chorley's MP Lyndsey Hoyle has suddenly become the invisible man, now that he is deputy speaker his constituents problems don't appear to be important.