The Ombie and Human Rights

[shc]

The Courts look at the decision made by a public body. This is what is challenged.

The lawyers appear to have failed to look at the decision making process.. to determine if a public body's decision is legal... and depend on the public lawyer to give thie required admissions.

The LGO's look at the process used in making a decision... not the merits of the decision.. They are not allowed to look at the merits.

not following a constituton is a process issue..

and you are correct about my logic.. I would contend that a Council's failure to follow its constitution was fully covered by the Crossman catalogue.. and would indeed go further... and say the Crossman catalogue is irrelevant..in determing what is maladministration and that maladministration is faulty administration or inefficient or improper management of affairs, esp. public affairs. This issue was considered in the Court of Appeal in 1978.. Lord Denning identified that maladministration was based on the Crossman catalogue.. whilst Eveleigh and Cairns identified that it was faulty administration or inefficient or improper management of affairs, esp. public affairs.

.. and this is why there are so few reports.. the report's don't identify the problems.. and complainants don't get the finding (report) they need to prosecute a Council for contravening their human rights by breeching its constitution.

[shadow]

... and depend on the public lawyer to give this required admissions.

No so, it's up to a complainant's lawyer to prove the authority's decision is illegal. The council, the defendant in this case, is not required to admit anything. All they need to do is defend. A judge will eventually decide the case.

The LGO's look at the process used in making a decision... not the merits of the decision.. They are not allowed to look at the merits.

not following a constitution is a process issue..

But also illegal so taking it right back out of the LGO'a jurisdiction.

and complainants don't get the finding (report) they need to prosecute a Council for contravening their human rights by breeching its constitution.

A complainant does not need a report from the LGO in order to initiate a case against a council for a breach of their human rights. Which is a good job because the LGO could not produce such a report.

A court determines a persons civil rights an LGO can't. What should happen, but doesn't yet, is that if the LGO suspect the council has infringed a complainant's civil rights they refer the matter to a court for a determination. Once a determination has been reached by the court it is referred back to the LGO. Until this is can be done the LGO only has two ways of approaching the problem. [The government aims to empower the LGO to refer any such matter to a court for determination but until that happens the LGO will naturally keep evading the problem].

1) Inform the complainant that they suspect their civil rights have been breached by the council and ask them to take court action against the council. When was the last time you heard of the LGO advising a complainant to take legal action against the council?

2) Ignore civil rights when investigating a complaint. This is what the LGO usually do because it's easier and doesn't expose their underbelly. This also works on most complainants because they don't understand that they may still have a valid legal case against the council even though the LGO has found them not guilty of maladministration.

Thomas

[shc]

There is an issue here... and it is being tested at the moment..

The LGO appears to have never had a complaint based on the fact that a Council has not followed its constitution when making decisions.. There have been a number of discssions.. these relate to use of enforcement powers.. which are direct interferance with a number of different ECHR rights.. they are also linked to Council's role in sale of property..

It is expected that one set of claimants are going to follow the LGO route.. whilst another is likely to go down High Court route.. the issues are complicated.. (as the Council is also acting as prosecutor in the likely LGO case)..

However, there is an ECHR dimensions of that there is no doubt..

[Ann]

The LGO appears to have never had a complaint based on the fact that a Council has not followed its constitution when making decisions..

Well they wouldn't would they.

[vmayflower]

The argument about where a complaint should be dealt with, by the court or by the LGO, raises an important point of timing. Both the original 1974 Local Government Act which created the Ombies and the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act which Amended the 1974 Act, refer to a complainant sustaining injustice.

In 1974, the Human Rights Act did not exist in the UK so deciding what was or was not injustice was left to the Ombies, who were, almost without exception, of no legal experience save for being CEOs of Local Authorities which on occasions meted out “Ombie type” injustice.

This simply points up the nonsense of their having to decide what is or is not, injustice, their power to be satisfied with the appropriateness of action taken by a local authority, (financial compensation) and their being party to Local Settlements.

I believe that, whatever counsel has told the Ombies, injustice these days must have reference to a complainant’s Human Rights, for example the administrative process by which a Planning decision is reached which affects his Article 8 Right to Respect for Private and Family Life.

While I see Shadow ‘s point that we do not hear of the LGO having power to act in the same way as a court with regard to a breach of Human Rights, I disagree that a Report is irrelevant . That is precisely where a truly independent Ombie should suggest, in concluding that injustice has occurred, that such a breach has taken place. Once identified, at however early the stage of an investigation, discontinuing it, with a view to entering a Local settlement, leads to no Report and, my old theme, Article 10 infringement by denying me information on which to base Freedom of Expression; but now in addition concealing, according to SHC, a possible breach of the Local Authority’s own constitution, relating to Human Rights. In fact the 2007 Act should be amended so that a Report becomes mandatory when a breach of Human Rights appears possibly to have occurred or may be about to occur,as a consequence of maladministration.

At the end of the day we see that as far as justice/ injustice is concerned, the notion of the Ombies being a simple substitute for the legal process, is a pathetic fallacy. One which, unfortunately, the proper legal system is content to allow to act for it, as a work load reducing mechanism.

VM

[shadow]

Which is why the government aim to empower the LGO to refer any such matter to a court for determination. They intend to plug this 'anomaly' in the same way they recently did with local settlements. And any more you you care to identify for them. What most suporters appear to forget is that changes to the system won't improve matters whilst the system is controlled by the current LGO. Good people will find a way to make a bad system work whilst bad people can always find a way to corrupt a good system. We should be concentrating on the people running the system not helping them identify system anomalies that they can then ask the government to plug. As Keith recently pointed out, this endless bureacratic analysis does nothing but help the LGO.

Thomas

[Crazy C]

I agree,

if the right people with the right attitudes were in the job, they could make the system work. Pointing out failings in there systems also gives them the opportunity to change things and say there making progress.

But, Its only by people finding these technical failings, that we have any chance of changing it.

great points vmayflower, very interesting thread

[shc]

1 The Human Rights Act was adopted by Parliament in about 1998 (the ECHR was adopted by the UK in the 1950s as a member of the Council of Europe).

2 Since about this time only former Council CEO's have been appointed to the position of LGO.. It was not the case previously. This could be because only Council CEO's apply.

3 I would think it is more than arguable that the LGO by not issuing a report identifying maladministration and injustice infringes Artice 6 - Right to a Fair Trial. The LGO investigate if there has been maladministration.

4 An LGO's investigation can often be delayed if there is an infringement of the ECHR by a Local Authority (i.e. no report for over a year.. means a claim to High court is not possible). However, without the LGO accessing the documents needed there is no possible claim.

5 In 2000 when the Human Rights Act was introduced into UK.. Council's adopted written constitutions and the FoI Act was introduced.

6 The Introduction of the Human Rights Act should have made the role of the LGO to investigate (obtain documents) irrelevant. The LGO ceased to be needed in 2000.

7 The FoI act does not work (substantial delay) and Council's don't follow their constitutions. The LGO identifies that a Council's failure to provide them with documents in timescale is irrelevant (as FoI does not apply). The questions that the LGO asks Council's as part of their investigations are not based on a Council's written constitution... and they also introduce delay in providing these documents.

8 The LGO acts a 'blocker' to people being able to pursue an ECHR claim.. This has to be through High Court.. The LGO do determine people's human rights through their procedures they prevent citizens from being able to exercise them (delay and poor quality investigations)... and then make them 'unprosecutable' by 'conniving' with a Council not to produce a document that can be challenged (i.e. local settlement).

9 It is my belief that most people don't know how a Council operates (including lawyers) and that an investigation is required by a competent organisation.. it is further my belief that without access to documents citizens don't know if they have a claim.. they certainly can't prosecute one (the Council CEO ate my gerbil.. might be a fact.. but it is not necessaily prosecutable... and a lot of people (most) don't have the resources to pursue a High Court claim against a Council

There is a role for an LGO type of organisation. However, it is is not its current role. The issues that they need to be looking at are:

1 failure to meet FoI (give disclosure)
2 secure disclosure;
3 determine if a citizen damaged by a Council has an ECHR or other claim.. and provide the citizen with the information they need.

A High Court Claim under ECHR should be stayed until the LGO has completed their investigations.. and provided a citzen with the bundle, and their expert opinion.

[shadow]

A High Court Claim under ECHR should be stayed until the LGO has completed their investigations.. and provided a citzen with the bundle, and their expert opinion.

Staying court action is one of the holes the goverment is planning to plug. But if you honestly think the LGO will then provide a citizen with a bundle and an expert opinion you are missing the point. No matter how much the system is tinkered with the LGO will find way of conniving with a council to help them out of their self created difficulties. This constant analysis of the system is not the way forward because the only people it helps are the LGO, Council and Government. Local settlement s are a typical example of this.

Thomas

[vmayflower]

After several thousand views on this topic, it seems to me worth repeating what started it,in view of the attention SHC has drawn to the Local Government Act 2000.

“Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: The Ombie and Human Rights

________________________________________
Both the LGOs and Local Authorities are Public Authorities .
Under s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right"
The Act and the European Convention on Human Rights state in Article 10:- "Freedom of Expression"- that we all have the right to"receive and impart information..without interference by public authority..."
I submit to the Forum that the collusion between those two above mentioned public authorities in the non statutory arrangement the Local Settlement ,because in most cases it is used to foresshorten an investigation, is an offence against Article 10.
This does not happen incidentally or by accident, it is in my view intended to keep the local council tax payers ignorant of facts that may affect their electoral choices ( and therefore offends Article 3 of the First Prototcol).There are of course other serious legal implications "


My preoccupation has throughout been with the concealment of information about maladministration by local authorities and its consequences, by using Local Settlements to avoid Statutory Reports.

Now look at :-
“The Local Government Act 2000 (Constitutions) (England) Direction 2000
The constitution prepared and kept up to date in accordance with section 37(1) of the Act by a local authority which is operating executive arrangements or, as the case may be, alternative arrangements must include.......
e. a description of the rights and responsibilities of inhabitants of the authority's area including:
i. their rights to vote in elections for the return of members of the authority;

ii. [b]THEI RIGHTS TO ACCESS TO INFORMATION AOUT THE AUTHORITIES ACTIVITIES[/b]i

iii. their rights of access to meetings of the council, its committees and sub-committees and any joint committees established with any other authority........
Signed by authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions”

The denial of he Human Right to receive information is also as SHC points out, a contravention of a Local Authority’s own constitution. VM

[ABH]

And that folks is why people bump a thread.

[shc]

As we are revisiting.. It is worth recalling

In the Ombie's guidance for staff on Human Rights, Dec 1999 it states:

'11 Both public and private acts of the Ombudsman are subject to the HRA. When the HRA comes into force, it will be unlawful for the Ombudsman to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right, unless they are required to do so by primary legislation..

12 Counsel has advised the Commission that it is not subject to Article 6 (the right to a fair hearing) in carrying out investigations. This is because the activities of the Commission are not in the field of civil rights and obligations but rather are public, diciplinary or investigative. In other words the Ombudsman does not determine civil rights but simply makes recommendations..'

In paragraph 5.4 of another Ombie guidance document on the issue dated August 2000.. it states...

'In reaching decisions, by report or letter, we should generally say that we have considered whether the Council had regard to the complainant's Convention rights but we have decided only whether the Council acted reasonably and without maladministraton. We cannot decide whether the complainant's Convention rights have been infringed since it is a matter for the Courts.'

This takes us straight to the issue of a report identifying if a Council has broken its constitution.. I have yet to see any such statement in any of the LGO's many decision letters (fewer since January 2009) on its web site.

The CLAE's own guidance identifies that they should identify if convention rights have been broken - through an act of maladministration (i.e. not following its constitution). There is no need for the LGO to identify if rights have been infringed or the damage caused. They merely need to identify that the Council contravened its constitution.. the rest follows.

[vmayflower]

The Parliamentary Ombudsman (PO) has refused to investigate how the clauses of the 2007 Local Government and Public Health Act which give statutory recognition to Local Settlements were entered into without any awareness by the public of the forthcoming legislation.

The query raised was whether the DCLG or parliamentary Counsel or both should have ensured public consultation.

The PO dealt with this by asserting that Parliamentary Counsel’s job was legislative and not administrative.
I have dealt with that in previous posts relating to the Cabinet Office Document JOYS “The Judge over your shoulder “ where Parliamentary Counsel was supposed to ensure public consultation or face Judicial review. But apparently this would be difficult because of Parliamentary Privilege.

As far as the DCLG is concerned the PO asserts that we should have known about the Legitimising of Local Settlements because there were TWO CONSULTATION EXERCISES THAT NOTIFIED THIS INTENTION.

This is where it gets weird.

The first occasion was apparently the Collcutt Report for the Cabinet Office in 2000.Yes TWO THOUSAND

We are of course all should be freely acquainted with that as part of our erstwhile daily reading.Even allowing for the 7 year time gap, this Report as a “We informed you, the public of our intentions” is a nonsense.

The PO quotes several web sites related to the Report in the year 2000 .They are interesting in that they reveal that the intention then was the necessity for an Act of Parliament to make a Commission for Public Administration . which would also perhaps introduce less formal methods of investigation. In the event the project was abandoned. There was no such Act.

But you and I are supposed to have been put on the qui vive that legislation to give statutory recognition to local settlements might be on the horizon..

The second arm of the POs argument that there was public consultation on that issue, arises from the consultation in 2005 before the Regulatory Reform Order 2007

From a common sense stand point Local Settlements are Alternative Dispute Resolution but the government did not include formal ADR proposals because:-“They had decided that existing powers were more flexible than had perhaps been realised”.

I confess I find this argument difficult to understand,

IF the DCLG really believed that ADR in the form of Local Settlements was feasible within the existing powers, why was it necessary to seek statutory powers for something the Ombies already had? To use this as an argument that the public were informed that legislation was forthcoming when the support for the argument is that the legislation was not necessary, is self-contradictory or worse.

To go ahead and avoid public consultation when such consultation had, as it had done, actually incurred hostility from the public is disturbing.

I clearly have no depth of understanding of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. I just took it that my (and everybody’s) Freedom Of Expression depends on my Right to receive information about the Government’s legislative intention and impart my opinion about it (“Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy”) to my MP. I should have been able to spell out to him the implications for local democracy when legislation is contemplated which has and will permit English Ombudsmen to conceal from the public, information pertinent to the democratic rights of all citizens with an interest in Local Democracy, a prime concern of the 1974 Act.

The PO should go back to "Crossman" on the great legally undefined word maladministration.

Here is what applies to the DCLG:-

The simplest word is NEGLECT of the public interest.

The remainder of their explanation falls into one of the following::-

To consider that existing powers were more flexible yet to go ahead with legislation AND to claim this as public knowledge of the legislation to come, is PERVERSITY if looked at from a purely logical standpoint.

The less forgiving attitude classifies this whole conduct as TURPITUDE, when public hostility to the abbreviation of investigations was known.

All this is a manifestation of BIAS(“the Ombudsmen can do no wrong”).

VM

[shc]

Then this makes no sense..

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... /38308.htm

45. Under our current Standing Orders (No. 141(5)) we may report to the House on any matter arising from our consideration of a proposal. One matter that arises in our consideration of this RRO was the retention of the "MP filter" whereby complaints could only be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman via a Member of Parliament. As noted above, the existence of this MP filter was criticised by a number of respondents: this view was shared by a number of MPs according to the most recent survey of Members' views and the Public Administration Select Committee.[2] We asked the Cabinet Office about the removal of the MP filter. In its response, the Cabinet Office stated that it was the Government's view that a Regulatory Reform Order would not be an appropriate vehicle for making such changes and that these changes could only be made by primary legislation. We are content with this assessment.

[IVAN]

I know this may be veering from the recent interest of this thread but I would like to offer an input.

As far as the LGO York Office have advised myself, they obviously have to take into account certain circumstances before a citizens human rights are considered to be affected.

I have been informed by this LGO that if I chose to buy a property next door to a Public House then I should accept a change in amenity with a new landlord and if not happy to sell my house.
I would imagine that this is their interpretation of the Human Rights Act in that if anyone chooses to live within close proximity of a Public House you waiver any right to respect, privacy, amenity or quality of life and also expect any assistance with complaints to either the Local Council or themselves.
I have a letter from them advising of this change in amenity law, that being in having to accept a change of amenity for choosing to live next door to a Public House.

Absolutely pathetic attitude and a complete disregard for a lot of families in my position.

[shadow]

They are wrong. There is case law on this subject. It is no defence to a claim of nuisance that the aggrieved party new about or moved next to the nuisance. If I move next door to a concrete plant I can complain about noise and dust. They cannot argue that I knew about the nuisance so I have to accept it. In any event, in your case the nuisance you are complaining is new and you could not have expected to have known that a change in the law would encourage your neighbour to put a smoking shelter next to your garden. Article one of the first protocol, quiet enjoyment of your property, was breached by the council when it aided and abetted the creation of the nuisance.

Stop listening to the LGO they are biased in favour of the council. Go see a solicitor and take legal action jointly and severally against the brewery and council. Stuff the waste of space LGO and their incompetent know nothing investigators.

Thomas

[shadow]

PS The York office is the worst of the lot. Thomas appears to have collected together a rag bag of council backside licking incompetents to support her and Seex has done little if anything to correct the situation since she took over.

Thomas

[IVAN]

Thanks for your advice shadow.
It seems to be coming more difficult to find a solicitor who will take up our case. They are all saying that they do not deal with that aspect of law.
Is this Human Rights Act firmly adhered to, or is there some easy loophole for authorities to use and further deny people their actual rights.
What we as a family are experiencing is an absolute disgrace, but we can not get any help as the only people to turn to for help are the lying, corrupt Council who will not admit to our problems as they are at the root of them.They know that they made a grave error in what they have allowed to be done to my family, but will not admit to their mistake as it will cost them tens of thousands of pounds in compensation to the Brewery and ourselves.

[shc]

It is very unlikely that you will get a local solicitor to look at the problem....

and getting it into Court will be very expensive.

.. possibly you should think about a planning application yourself... say a very high concrete wall... that could always say someting about your local council.. and seek permitted development rights...

[vmayflower]

Its been some time since this topic has been aired,

The complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman produced the response quoted in my last post of 29 March 2009.That response completely ignored the part of the complaint relating to the absence of a Statutory Triennial Review 2005/2006. So an appeal for reconsideration of the complaint was lodged and is now perhaps being given some attention. The subject of the absent Review is being aired again recently eg by SHC elsewhere on this forum

There is an interesting anomaly in the account given about a certain sequence of events. On 24 April 2006 Redmond wrote to one Paul Rowsell at the ODPM,then part of the Cabinet office, for confirmation that it would be acceptable for the Submission ( I believe to the ODPM) by the CLAE, PUTATIVELY for the White Paper “Strong and Prosperous Communities” , (a Submission entitled ““Review of Local Government Act 1974”.) to count as the Triennial Review required under that Act s 23(12).

One,Cathryn Evans of the DCLG which was what the ODPM changed into on 6 May 2006, replied to Redmond on 22 May 2006 saying it would be OK

The White Paper referred to, published in October 2006, was claimed by the DCLG, in Explanatory notes,to be the precursor of the “Local Government and Public Involvement in Health”“ Bill 2007.The Submission referred to above-CLAE to ODPM) was 8 pages long and included the bit getting Statutory recognition for Local Settlements without Reports. The Explanatory notes gave it a couple of lines, the White paper about 15 lines .

So we were left largely ignorant of what was to come in the Bill, especially as the “Submission to the Whjte Paper” was NEVER PUBLISHED.

And this is where the public needs some answers as it is claimed that the submission “for the White Paper” was sent to the ODPM in November 2005.But a month later, at the December 2005 meeting of the CLAE, the following item is recorded:-

“Confidential business Dec 05

9 Triennial Review of LGA 1974 (exempt from FOIA under section 22, 36, 42) CLA 1506 had been circulated to Commissioners and Deputies. The Commission reviewed and made a number of changes to the schedule of items for inclusion in its 2005/06 Triennial Review submission, in the light of the results of the consultation exercise with staff and solicitors.
The Commission noted that a consultation draft will be put to its February 2006 meeting for approval WHEREUPON IT WILL BE PUBLISHED.” My capitals

Of course it never was, and all the goings on between Redmond and the ODPM (“Confidential business”) look to me to bespeak the intention of the CLAE that we the public should be kept in the dark about , inter alia, the jurisdictional changes the CLAE wanted.

But to claim that a submission “for the White Paper” made in November 2005 was effectively “the Triennial review” when 3 months later in February 2006 “ changes to the schedule of items for inclusion” in it, makes that claim, at least a howler, if not plain mendacious.

Even the PHSO appears not to have been kept in the picture. This is March 2006 CLAE minutes:-

In response to question from Ann Abraham, Tony Redmond confirmed that the
consultation draft of the 2005/06 Triennial Review has not yet been issued, pending
recent contacts with the ODPM on the Commission’s submission in respect of the
forthcoming Local Government White Paper.

It was all just a con to keep Joe Public in the dark, so that no views could be expressed to our MPs about forthcoming jurisdictional issues in legislation.

VM

[shc]

vm

There is an error with your sequence.. ?

On 24 April 2006 Redmond is identified as writing to Paul Rowsell requesting confirmation that there was no need for a 2005/2006 Tri-annual review due to the Local Commissioners November 2005 submission to the ODPM on the Local Government White paper.



On 08 October 2008 the CLAE stated:

No Triennial Review was carried out in 2005/06. A letter from the Chairman of the Commission to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister explaining why is attached. No reply to this letter was ever received.

As no Review was conducted in 2005/06, I cannot supply a list of consultees for that year, but I have the list of consultees for the 2002/03 review should you want it.

On 15 October 2008 the CLAE stated:

In your email of 8 October, following my reply to your original request, you said that I had identified that the “Secretary of State appears not to have accepted the request” of Tony Redmond made in his letter of 24 April. That is not the case. The Department did not reply in writing to Mr Redmond, but Paul Rowsell, to whom the letter was written, did give Mr Redmond verbal confirmation that the position outlined in his letter was correct.


The Commission is due to conduct another Triennial Review this year.

On 22 January 2009 following an internal review the CLAE confirmed that there was no file note or letter from the ODPM / DCLG.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2 ... al_reviews

On 18 December 2008

DCLG said:

Thank you for your e-mail of 27 October requesting information about the Commission for Local Administration triennial review. Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.


I am writing to advise you that I am unable to provide you with the information you asked for as Communities and Local Government does not hold this information.

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

The question is why have they identified a 'note' from Kathryn Evans (she is / and was not the policy lead) for DCLG on these issues.. having denied the existence of any note to Redmond in December 2008.. and the CLAE having identified that no not existed..

..and where is the 2008 tri-annual review.. again there is nothing in the CLAE documents.. although they have not managed to get past January 2009 yet. There is an FOI against this..

[vmayflower]

Not quite sure where my sequence is wrong.
The problems may have arisen in the transit from ODPM to DCLG-stalling between two fools.
However SHC notes an initial denial by the LGO of a written response by the DCLG or ODPM to Redmond's request to Rowsell, effectively to allow the Commission not to bother to produce a PUBLISHED 2005/ 2006 Triennial Review .

Cathryn Evans' (of the DCLG) letter to Redmond dated 22 May 2006, confirming that this was was OK was finally coughed up on 14 May 2009, following a FOI request 6 weeks earlier.

Why go into all this,at this late date when a new Triennial Review is due?

My view is that two Government Departments , ODPM and DCLG colluded , the charitable view is NEGLECT,to keep the public from having available information influencing their Article 10 Feedom of Expression.

Ruth Kelly has gone and Hazel Blears has gone but at least let the Parliamentary Ombudsman look at what went on-maladministartion from which I and the whole public have sustained injustice. iI is unacceptable for the Commission for Local Administration in England, to manipulate,via the back door, the activities of Government Departments supposedly supervising it. VM

[shc]

vm

The issue is that I have denials from both the CLAE / LGO and DCLG that there was any correspondence from DCLG allowing the CLAE not to meet their duties in relation to the 2005 / 2006 Triennial Review.

My FoI to the CLAE was dated 24 September 2008. This was concluded on 22 January 2009 with an identification from Karney following internal review as piursued this as it involved a breach of statute that there was no letter in existence giving the CLAE permission and/or authority from DCLG to not conduct a 2005 Triennial review. This issue was discussed with the ICO who identified that there was nothing that they could do as the information did not exist, and had been confirmed not to exist by both the CLAE / LGO and DCLG

The FoI to the DCLG was dated 27 October 2008. On 18 December 2008 the DCLG identified that they had no record of any correspondence on the isssue.

My FOI's predate yours by several months.

Have just checked with DCLG they are unaware of anyone called Cathryn Evans who would have had authority to send a letter to the CLAE.

The story appears to have changed over a period of months.

Have you raised a complaint with the PO ? as either someone in DCLG is forging documents.. or they are being manufactured by the CLAE / LGOs. This would include the Parliamentary Ombudsman as a member of the CLAE.

[vmayflower]

Cathryn Evans exists. i have spoke to her about a week ago, She no longer works for LGO issues.

The letter 22 May 2006 from her to Redmond "no published Triennial Review necessary" may have been issued without authority, which would fit the facts.

Perhaps the DCLG decided she was naughty to have done this and have moved her elsewhere in that Department (or perhaps she was a stool pigeon for Rowsell.)

The PO has all these facts and correspondence.As I pointed out recently , her underlings rejected my request for her to investigate and my appeal is based on those underlings completely ignoring the "No 2005 Triennial Review" issue.

In a responsible and respectable society, heads would roll.

VM

[shc]

Hi David

Spoke to Cathryn Evans today.. and she did work in the unit that sponsors the LGO.. and it would appear was responsible for answering my FoI request from DCLG.. she moved just afterwards..

Also spent a fair ammount of time talking to VP.. who agreed that it was a conundrum how they had missed the letter (not received by the CLAE) when meeting the FoI.

I think you can guess what I think has has happened..

[vmayflower]

Very interesting.

How come the statement "(not received by the CLAE)"

The LGO's FOI officer initially denied there had been a reply to Redmonds letter to Rowsell of 24 April 2006. However the reply from Cathryn Evans "Demoxcracy and Local Gocernment" (sic) at the DCLG later turned up.It is adressed to Tony RedmondChairman Commission for Local administration Millbank Tower

Here it is:-
Dear Tony,
Triennial Review

[vmayflower]

Sorry about the hiccup in last post
This is Cathryn Evans letter to Millbank.from the DCLG 22 May 2006

"Dear Tony,
Triennial Review

Thank you for yorletter of 24 April to Paul Rowsellin respect of th the triennial review in 2005/2006. Paul has asked me to reply.
We agree that your November 2005 submission for the Local Government White Paperplanned for later this year constituted a thorough review of Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 which framesthe Commission's operations. Our view is that the Commission has therefore fulfilled its duty ,under Section 23(12) of tthe Act, to conduct a review every three years..i would like to take the opportunity the Commission for allits workon preparingthe submission. This has proved most helpful in dfeveloping our proposals for the White Paper.

Regards,Cathryn
Cathryn Evans "

This, the "we" and the "our view..." seems to me to answer the question of authorisation.

vm

[shc]

The Triennial review is of great importance as it is the only time that the activities of the LGO are subject to scrutiny. The LGPIHA changed this slightly by requiring them to provide copies of their annual report to Parliament. s23(12) requires the CLAE to review their operation every three years. This is not just legislation.. It should include refusal to comply with MI decisions by Council's, council's use of barristers.. failure of council's to have functioning complaint systems... etc.. etc..

Redmond's innovation appears to have been to issue annual letters to Council's.. and seek to split the legislative side from the qualitative.. based on s12(B) introduced through the Local Government Act 1989. The CLAE has effectively identified that they are totally unaccountable.. whilst at the same time having massive levels of consumer dissatisfaction (MOIRI surveys..for both the CLAE and Councils)... whilst also identifying that they had no need to report this to the Secretary of State.. THIS ISSUE CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED BY CLGCOM and/or Parliament.. as the LGO determines what is maladministration..

s23(12) provides that:

(12) In the financial year beginning on 1st April 1990, and in every third financial year afterwards, the Commissions shall review the operation (since the last review was made under this subsection) of the provisions of this Part of this Act about the investigation of complaints, and shall have power to convey to authorities to which this Part of this Act applies or the National Assembly for Wales, any recommendations or conclusions reached in the course of their reviews and shall send copies of those recommendations or conclusions to the representative persons and authorities concerned.

(12A) Each of the Commissions may, after consultation with the representative persons and authorities concerned, provide to the authorities or any of the authorities to which this Part of this Act applies such advice and guidance about good administrative practice as appears to the Commission to be appropriate and may arrange for it to be published for the information of the public.

(12B) The representative persons and authorities concerned are—
for the purposes of subsection (12) above, such persons appearing to the Commission to represent authorities in England or, as the case may be, authorities in Wales to which this Part of this Act applies, and in the case of such authorities as are not so represented, those authorities; and for the purposes of subsection (12A) above, such of those persons and authorities as the Commission think appropriate.

Why not received by the CLAE

In your email of 8 October, following my reply to your original request, you said that I had identified that the “Secretary of State appears not to have accepted the request” of Tony Redmond made in his letter of 24 April. That is not the case. The Department did not reply in writing to Mr Redmond, but Paul Rowsell, to whom the letter was written, did give Mr Redmond verbal confirmation that the position outlined in his letter was correct.

The Commission is due to conduct another Triennial Review this year.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3 ... 2.doc.html

Then there will be a file note identifying that the Secretary of
State and their Department had excused the CLAE from their
statutory duties, and that this had been identified to REDMOND.

A copy is required.

REDMOND was well aware that consumer satisfaction with the LGO
service was very low, and REDMOND would have been aware that he
owed a duty of care to consumers that these issues were articulated
and made available as part of the triannual review.

15 October 2008
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2 ... al_reviews

There is no file note on this matter.

27 October 2008

In response to your email of 18 December, I have conducted a review of Ms Pook's response to your request.

I conclude that Ms Pook has correctly dealt with your request.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3 ... 9.doc.html

[shc]

have submitted an FOI to determine status of 2008/2009 Triennial Review

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

In Autumn 2008 the documents had not been prepared and there had been no consultation (earlier FoI). However, this work shouyld now have been completed.

This is possibly an issue for the CLGCOMM and possibly a petition.. as without the CLAE identifying the issues and problems as required by statute.. the CLAE and LGO's have no reason to identify their problems to DCLG.

[shc]

There is also an related FoI internal review with the PHSO

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c ... dministrat

[anonimus]

Thanks for the explanation. I now understand where you are coming from. However, in my humble opinion I think it's a somewhat tenuous link.Thomas

Not only "tenuous" but, with due respect, a distraction and waste of scarce resources.