LGO petition, Cary Wright V Trafford is a go!

[shadow]

Hi all

Just to let you know Wilma Wright's petition about Trafford and the LGO is now live.

Please sign and ask you friends and family to sign it. More later.



http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/justiceforcarly/


Thomas

[Ann]

I have signed. Good for Wilma.

[shadow]

News: Trafford Council just been having a look at the psow website and the justice for carly petition.

Didn't take long did it?

Thomas

[Trevor]

When deciding whether or not to sign the petition please don't ignore the benefits for LGO watchers.

Remember the LGO have never wanted mandatory powers. The reason is that as soon as they get them they will no longer be excluded from article 6 of the hunam rights act and as such their decision will be open to full and proper appeal in fact and in law by either the council or the complainant.

That means they will no longer be a 'quasi' judicial organisation controlled by ex council staff who have the statutory discretion to stuff complainants. They will become a proper tribunal controlled by law rather than the whims of an ex council CEO.

So what at first glance appears to be against our principles, 'giving such a corrupt set up even more power', will in the end work to our advantage.

A win for people like Carly and her family and a much better system of administrative justice for all the thousands of people the LGO are currently stuffing.

Trevor

[Trevor]

PS The petition site can be very slow at times. If you give up please try again at a later date and please don't forget to tell your family and friends.

[frank]

Thanks Trevor for the clarification. If I may add another instinctive thought to the reasoning - It seems to me that the LGO is a toothless tiger and is all too aware of the fact. Naturally, such a creature will be fearful and even shy away from its "prey".

The LGO must show some successes to justify its existence and cannot legitimately class cases in which councils etc. choose not to follow its "advice" (rulings?) as such successes. Therefore it tries to appear benign to these government institutions and operatives and receives token action on obvious errors, blatant or "cheap" (i.e. cheaply rectifiable) cases.

The Ombusdman appears to be painfully aware (or deliberately unaware) of cases which might lead to true, and possibly costly precedents for the council, and which might undermine the "status quo" necessary for running substandard services and institutions in an underfunded social system.

Making the decisions binding for institutions would surely remove some of these disincentives, as the LGO would gain status by "successfully" exposing maladministration and would not have to fear non-cooperation from those bodies. Also, there might have to be consequences for the staff in government bodies - and that surely would lead to a better filtering out of incompetence. Could the government possibly object?

Wouldn't it possibly be better to do away with the LGO and institute some sub-tiers to the European Court for Human Rights? After all, it must be true that maladministration always has as one of its logical consequences a deleterious effect on people's well being and therefore on their right to life and security.

P.S.: I have had terrible difficulties in finding a lawyer to represent me at the ECHR, or even to guide me through the bureaucratic hurdle of making an initial application. Perhaps someone has some ideas. I'd be most grateful.

[Trevor]

Hi Frank

We have already had a petition to get rid of the LGO altogether. Unfortunately the petition website won't let you submit a petition with similar wording in a short space of time but another one will be submitted after Wilma's and Graham's are concluded.

The LGO are toothless tigers who use spin and manipulated statistics to hide the fact. When an organisation has to manipulate it's own customer satisfaction survey their is something very seriously wrong. Now they may have got away with it in the past but there is no hiding place now the Internet is here. We will root out all their wrongs and publicise them for all to read. Don't forget they created people like us by failing to do their job, therefore, they only have themselves to blame.

The LGO made a serious mistake when the Human Rights Act was introduced. They could have embraced it and become a major player in the human rights arena as far as local authorities were concerned, however, to do that meant exposing rather than burying maladministration. They chose to remain outside the human rights arena. They did the same thing with the Standards role. They can't see further than their nose ends, whilst their role is diminishing rapidly the roles they refused are growing exponentially. So in some respects the LGO is doing away with itself.

As far as legal advise is concerned have you every considered doing it yourself?

Trevor

[frank]

Thanks Trevor,

Is suppose it comes down to legitimizing government institutions by dispatching "small-fry" complainants into the "B" for "Bin" file cabinet.

This is, of course, a logical follow-through on practices widely honed in British colonial and empire days, and it does make for a lot of stability - for totalitarian and oppressive regimes!

However, the ECHR is precisely there to prevent the flourishing of oppression in Europe - perhaps not always as effectively and quickly as might be desired. Hence my thought of having several tiers of the EHRC.

I have had direct telephonic contact with the EHRC. Unfortunately, although I have a lot of hope in them, they are not nearly as clear and helpful as they should ideally be. I sent them a 70+ page dossier, with a formal letter requesting a case to be registered. Months later I received a letter back stating that I had to fill out a pre-printed form. I asked if I could get it off the internet, or have it emailed - I couldn't. I asked for it to be posted. Several weeks later it arrived. I couldn't understand much of it. I have been phoning around to the Law Society, Legal Services Commission, Amnesty International, Liberty, sent emails to lawyers, forums etc.

T.B.C.....

[frank]

All these institutions couldn't or wouldn't help. The lawyers never got back to me. The telephone numbers I got from the Community Legal Services led to Law firms without expertise in Human Rights cases and without options for legal aid.

One law firm told me that there was no legal aid available from anywhere to bring cases to the ECHR.

I have the forms with me now and I am considering sending them off incomplete, i.e. stating "information will be provided at a later date" or "legal council has not been appointed".

In fact, I think the ECHR should be far more pro-active in cases where people are evidently having problems ascertaining or securing their rights for council and information. A request letter should be, according to the seriousness and the merits of the case, considered as the prime source of potential rights to a claim, if not as a "full claim" in its own right.

I really thought the ECHR in Europe would have developed better methodologies in the last 20 odd years.

Nevertheless, I would be grateful for any more hints on how to go about my ECHR case.

[Trevor]

Have you tried the new Human Rights Commission?

Trevor

[shc]

256 signatures..

the government have to reply..

[shc]

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Civ 1140

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1140.html

For the second time this local authority cocked a snook at the order of the court. For the third time the court ordered on 25 March that that statement be served by 4 April. For the third time the local authority simply ignored it. In the result the matter was sent to the county court and, as I have already recited, HHJ Mitchell accepted the undertaking from the team manager of the local authority to file their pathway plan etc by 4pm on 4 July and heigh ho, what a surprise, for the fourth time the local authority metaphorically raised two fingers in the air to the court and ignored everything the court has ordered. This is a disgraceful state of affairs.

[shc]

http://www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=9603

Mencap seem to have neglected to identify the failures of the LGO in relation to Trafford.. etc..

[shadow]

Why are Mencap critical of the Ombudsman’s approach to reasonable adjustments?

The Ombudsman has supported what Sir Jonathan Michael said about NHS professionals breaking disability discrimination law. She has made a number of comments in the report regarding the failure of NHS staff to understand and to make reasonable adjustments and states that she has found no shortage of policy and guidance in regard to them.

The Ombudsman has not applied the requirement to make reasonable adjustments to all of the cases. In particular no service failure was found in the practice of any GP, where in our view they had not made appropriate reasonable adjustments. This is most striking in the case of Warren where, despite the fact that the Ombudsman’s own clinical adviser sets out the steps that should have been taken, she does not conclude that the failure to do so was service failure.

Mencap suggests that as the Ombudsman has concluded in some individual circumstances that the practice of doctors did not amount to service failure because most doctors would have done the same in similar circumstances, she is in effect condoning the fact that doctors are currently breaking the law.

This seems to suggest a need for better advice and training on the practical implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act in practice by all health professionals. We believe that the Ombudsman should have recommended that this be addressed with more detailed guidance by the GMC.

What does the Ombudsman say about ‘best interest’ decisions?

The Ombudsman says very little about best interest decision making and appears to have confused the defence that health professionals were ‘doing their best’ with the requirement to act within the law and the wealth of guidance available to them.

There was no evidence that any health professional intended to act maliciously, rather that they may have held misplaced assumptions about the degree of the disability or the quality of the individual’s life. These attitudes may have influenced the actions of the health professionals, resulting in them acting in a way that they thought was ‘for the best’. We feel that the Ombudsman’s report should have made it clear that this is a long way off from acting within the very clear legislation and guidance, or following the required process for making a best interest decision.

Mencap believes that the way health professionals make best interest decisions cuts to the heart of what can go wrong for many people with a learning disability, particularly those with the most profound disabilities. Instead of weighing up the risks and benefits of the intervention, judgements are made about the value and meaning of someone’s life. An example of this is Emma Kemp’s case, where doctors based their prognosis of 10% not only on the staging of the cancer but also on their misunderstandimisunderstanding of the impact of Emma’s learning disability on her ability to tolerate treatment.

What do Mencap think about the fact that the Ombudsman did not find service failure in all cases?

Mencap believe that the Ombudsman has conducted a detailed and rigorous investigation that has provided answers to most of the questions we and the families asked. We also recognise the Ombudsman’s task of weighing up the evidence objectively was difficult in some cases because of the passage of time and, in some instances, the absence of detailed clinical notes.

In some circumstances, where she has not found service failure, we accept this because her investigation has provided helpful clarification on the circumstances. For example in Ted’s case the Ombudsman was asked to investigate the role of Ted’s care team in following any discharge advice. However, the Ombudsman’s investigation found that there were no discharge plans. The Ombudsman concluded that he should not have been discharged from hospital because it was not safe to do so. Ted’s sister was pleased that the staff team from the care home, who she had always felt supported Ted so caringly, had not failed him.

However, where the Ombudsman has had to weigh up the evidence and recollections of the families against the recollections of the health professionals, we think that she has unfairly given greater credibility to the evidence provided by doctors. Mencap has heard the accounts of the families on many occasions and know that, because of the dreadful events that they experienced, they recall the events vividly. For example, Warren’s parents have consistently recalled the traumatic events leading up to the night Warren died but do not think that the Ombudsman believed them, and found this especially unfair because the doctor concerned did not have detailed notes to back up his account.

The Ombudsman did not conclude that all of the deaths were avoidable, were Mencap wrong to say they had died unnecessarily?
Mencap still believe that the six deaths were avoidable. We do accept that in some circumstances this was difficult to prove definitively. We also accept that there were a complex series of events that led up to the deaths and that it was difficult for the Ombudsman to identify which actions may have been pivotal in preventing the death.

However, in some circumstances we do think that she has misjudged this. For example, in Tom’s case we refute the fact that he was in an ‘inevitable decline’. We maintain that if the fact he had an ulcerated oesophagus had been identified sooner and a PEG operation been arranged faster, this would have resulted in an improvement in his nutrition and health.

There is every reason to believe that this would have given him some more years of good quality life. Tom’s family and Mencap are very disappointed about the Ombudsman’s finding that his death was not avoidable because we believe that there were several times when his life could have been saved.Why do Mencap and the families believe that some professionals should be named and referred to their professional bodies?

Mencap and the families believe that there were circumstances in which the care provided fell well below the standards set out in detail in their professional codes. The Ombudsman has been critical of many of the professionals concerned but has not recommended that they are referred to their professional bodies. We believe that this is wrong and that unless professionals are held to account for their actions there is a risk that this will give the wrong message to health professionals who will believe that they can get away with treating people with a learning disability in this way. For example, despite a catalogue of service failures which led to Martin being starved to death in an NHS ward not one of the professionals, who must have walked by his bed each day and seen him deteriorating in front of them, has been held to account.

We [MENCAP] think that she has unfairly given greater credibility to the evidence provided by doctors. Just like we [us] think that the LGO give greater credibilty to evidence provided by council officers.

Thomas

[shadow]

http://www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=9603

Mencap seem to have neglected to identify the failures of the LGO in relation to Trafford.. etc..

There is a time and place for everything. Why cloud this issue? The Trafford case is significantly different.

Thomas

[shc]

http://www.mencap.org.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=9607


Mencap are aware of the issues with the Ombudsmen and it is understood are going to be returning to this in the future... and are aware of other similar cases to the Wright's

The report is by the Ombudsmen.. and above (and below.. thanks Thomas) is Mencap's response to the complaints made by the family's and Mencap itself..

[shc]

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17883

Thank you for signing the e-petition ‘justiceforcarly’. This is a extremely difficult case and the Government sympathises with Carly’s family in their efforts to ensure that she is well looked after now and in the future.

The Government believes that the judgements of the Local Government Ombudsman should be accepted and implemented by local authorities, unless there are exceptional circumstances that mean the local authority is unable to implement a judgement.

In all but a very few cases the authority being investigated complies with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report where maladministration is determined. Indeed, for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 there has been a 100% compliance rate.

On this and all other cases on which the Local Government Ombudsman gives views, however, the Government continues to share the view of the Ombudsman, as stated in their 2002-2003 annual report, that their recommendations to councils not being enforceable in law is a ‘valuable feature facilitating an informal and non-adversarial approach to investigations.’ This way of working is considered to allow for a more thorough and prompt investigation and resolution of complaints.

The Government sincerely hopes that the local authority and Carly’s family will soon reach agreement on a way forward that is satisfactory to all.

[ke]

A typical, abdication of responsibility reply, from this soon to be thrown out into the wilderness, Government. What more can we expect from a Prime Minister who has the leadership qualities of a dead fish, and the proven lack of any ability, that has blindly led the country into its current dire situation. I am amazed he has not used the word 'global' in his response. Let us now see what capitulation response we get to the other petition. This is the worst Government I can ever recall!

[gary]

What is the point of the Government offering e-petitions on its 10 Downing Street website if it isn't willing to listen to its citizens when they have uncomfortable things to say, and just responds with the usual spin and self-serving claptrap which we have come to know so well?

This is certainly an appalling Government. Given what we have experienced of them though, I wouldn't expect anything better - so no surprises at their pathetic response.

I just wonder whether the Government only gets away with so much because of the degree of political indifference, passivity and defeatist resignation in our population. They will perhaps simply try to get away with as much as we permit them to get away with. Maybe there is a lesson or two to be learned from our French neighbours.

Gary

[shadow]

Read the Government’s response

Thank you for signing the e-petition ‘justiceforcarly’. This is a extremely difficult case and the Government sympathises with Carly’s family in their efforts to ensure that she is well looked after now and in the future.

The Government believes that the judgements of the Local Government Ombudsman should be accepted and implemented by local authorities, unless there are exceptional circumstances that mean the local authority is unable to implement a judgement.

In all but a very few cases the authority being investigated complies with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report where maladministration is determined. Indeed, for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 there has been a 100% compliance rate.

On this and all other cases on which the Local Government Ombudsman gives views, however, the Government continues to share the view of the Ombudsman, as stated in their 2002-2003 annual report, that their recommendations to councils not being enforceable in law is a ‘valuable feature facilitating an informal and non-adversarial approach to investigations.’ This way of working is considered to allow for a more thorough and prompt investigation and resolution of complaints.

The Government sincerely hopes that the local authority and Carly’s family will soon reach agreement on a way forward that is satisfactory to all.

The LGO must have lied to the Government because they did not have a 100% compliance rate over the years shown. I doubt they actually know the true compliance rate.

Thomas

[shc]

Thomas is quite correct the LGO's did not have 100 per cent compliance with their MI reports between 2006 and 2008

It is also worth being aware of the full statement by Jerry White in the Annual Report 2002/2003.

A copy of this report is available on the Whatdotheyknow site not the LGO's...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2 ... ual_report

The Ombudsman’s recommendations to councils are not enforceable in law. This is quite often considered a disadvantage of the Ombudsman system by organisations which represent complainants. In general though, the Ombudsmen consider this to be a valuable feature facilitating an informal and non-adversarial approach to investigations. The capacity for a council finally to disagree with the Ombudsman’s findings generally means that councils are open, co-operative and not defensive while the investigation is being carried out.

It is now relatively rare for my recommendations to be rejected by councils. So it is disappointing to state that this year I had to issue five further reports where councils had rejected the recommendations I had made in my first reports. One of these, against Castle Point District Council, led to a change of heart by the Council and another, against North Norfolk District Council, was still being considered at the end of the year.

A third, against Portsmouth City Council, was rejected. I had criticised the Council for making what I considered to be oppressive enquiries of a charity applying for a street collections permit, and for defects in the way it sought police checks in respect of the same application. I felt there was no basis in law for the enquiries the Council had made, and that the police check was not carried out with due regard to relevant case law. The Council was supported by the Charity Commission in the action it had taken. And I recognised that the only way of determining the question definitively was by clarification of the law or through a judicial challenge of my decision. I wrote to the Home Secretary to explain what I considered to be an unfortunate gap in the law as presently enacted, and he replied to the effect that the law was currently under review by the Cabinet

There was no mention of this in the 2003 Trennual Review.. and no 2006 triennual review.. there is no mention in the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act.


In 2008 and 2009 about half of the MI reports issued by the LGO's have been rejected by Council's.. and the LGO don't monitor.

[shc]

Rest of Jerry White's quote

I wrote to the Home Secretary to explain what I considered to be an unfortunate gap in the law as presently enacted, and he replied to the effect that the law was currently under review by the Cabinet ............


Office. I hope that this will lead to an early clarification of the rights and duties of local authorities in matters of this kind.

It was most unfortunate for the charity concerned that the City Council did not comply with my recommendation to pay compensation of £1,000 and revise its practice in this area. However, I did not proceed to take the only further action open to me and order that the Council publish a statement relating to this case in the local press. I continue to believe that the Council acted wrongly here. But I can see why the Council felt it had a reasonable basis for holding to its view while the law remains silent on crucial points, and while its actions receive the support of the Charity Commission.

I cannot, though, understand the actions of Chichester District Council who rejected the recommendations of two separate reports to pay compensation of £500 and £1,000 to complainants whose grievances I had upheld. Here the Council advertises the Ombudsman as the third and final stage of its complaints procedure. Yet its citizens should be aware that the Council seems to have no compunction in rejecting any decision it chooses not to like. This is a council that apparently finds it very hard to admit that it has made a mistake. In my view, its actions do no credit to local government or the people of Chichester.

In 2002/2003 about 5 per cent of Jerry White's MI findings were being openly rejected by Council's and reported by himself in the LGO's own reports (figure is about 80 per cent if partial compliance is identified)..

[shadow]

Think this needs another petition asking for a review of the information supplied by the LGO to the government. It's obvious that the LGO have not told the government the truth regarding this issue and it needs exposing. What else has the LGO lied to the government about?? Anyone care to volunteer? We are a bit busy at the moment with a major website upgrade amongst other things.

Thomas

[shc]

I think that possibly a petition is not in order..

Would guess that a letter to the pm from anyone that signed the petition might be more effective..

and they should probably be maintained on a website.. with responses ?

[ke]

Disagree.Another petition is the answer with media involvement from the start. Read Camilla Cavendish's article in today's Times (do not have time to find a link). Will propose wording i.d.c. Please provide me with the facts about the LGO's duplicity.

[Ann]

I agree with KE. Publicity is the key here. Don't just tell Gordon show the world that the LGO lied to government.

[Aku]

I agree that more pubilicity is the key. We can not rely on this corrupt and hopeless Government to do anything right.

We need to find effective ways to get the attention of the public and the national press on to the fact that the LGO lied to the Government and is perversely dishing out injustice to complainants with the full support of the Government.

We could try wearing T shirts with attention grabbing quotes or slogans about how harmful and fraudulant the LGO is. This is probably amounts to scraping the bottom of the barrel but it is an idea.

[ABH]

Looks like the response to the peition was based on a dodgy dossier. Isn't that what Labour used to take us into the Iraq war? Just lie appears to be this government's way of tackling any thorny issue. No wonder our watchdogs also use the same tactics when faced with a question they can't answer. What has happened to this country?

[shadow]

Better than that. Just been talking to Trevor who pointed out a flaw in the government's argument. Wilma's case came during the period when they assert there was 100% compliance.

Thomas

[shc]

Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (05C11921)
http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaint-outcome ... c11921-fr/

In July 2007, the Ombudsman upheld the complaint made by ‘Mr and Mrs Kaye’ (not their real names for legal reasons) that the Council had failed to meet the needs of their adult disabled daughter.

The Ombudsman found maladministration as the Council had failed to meet Daisy’s needs and:
• failed to use the transition period appropriately to find a permanent placement for Daisy, no serious attempt was made to find a placement until the end of the transition placement;
• has not provided any evidence for its assertion that a centre could meet her needs nor provided any sort of transition plan for her move to it;
• carried out a flawed needs assessment before she left her transition placement and failed to carry out a proper, thorough, agreed, up to date needs assessment for Daisy since July 2005;
• delayed considering and offering any support and help to the family whilst they struggled to care for Daisy at home. When provided the ‘help’ was at best sporadic.

[Ann]

The $64,000 question is who lied, the LGO or the government? My money is on the LGO. They often shoot themselves in the foot like this when they write a report.

[shc]

Once might be careless..

http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaint-outcome ... c17057-fr/


Private housing grants & Adult care services
Further report
15 May 2007

Trafford Council’s rejection of an Ombudsman’s recommendation to waive the repayment of a housing grant acts against the legitimate interests of an elderly woman with mental health problems who it has wronged, said the Ombudsman. She had asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused, but in her second critical report she says “I am dismayed that it has responded in what I can only describe as a cavalier manner to the prejudice of a very vulnerable citizen.”

In her first report, issued on 30 November 2006 following an independent and thoroughly researched investigation, the Ombudsman criticised the Council for not having ensured that the woman fully understood the terms and conditions of the housing renovation grant at the time she signed the application, and for officers advising councillors that the woman’s mental state was not relevant. She recommended that, in the unusual circumstances, it should exercise its discretion and waive the repayment of the grant.

‘Ms Walker’ complained on behalf of her mother, ‘Mrs Walker’ (not their real names for legal reasons) who suffered from severe mental illness over a long period. In spring 1996 Mrs Walker enquired about a renovation grant for her home.

If someone who received a renovation grant sold or moved out of their property within a specified time period, the council could require partial repayment. Between the time when Mrs Walker first enquired about a grant and the time she applied for one, the time period when this rule applied was extended from three to five years. But no-one appears to have explained this to Mrs Walker who, when she signed the application in January 1998, was an in-patient in a psychiatric ward. In June 1998, the grant was approved.

The result of this was that Ms Walker, who by then had power of attorney for her mother, arranged to sell the house in the erroneous belief that the old rules applied. Had those rules applied then the Council could have recovered none of the grant. Had the daughter known the truth she could have acted to delay the sale for another year, after which no recovery could have been made. In the event the grant conditions were breached and the Council insisted on a full repayment.

The Council did agree to review its existing policy on the repayment of grants and to identify possible improvements, but it is now obliged to consider this further report.

“I deplore the officers’ continued resistance to accepting my findings of fact, contrary to established case law.” said the Ombudsman, “I ask the Council to reconsider its position and waive the payment of this grant.”

Maybe Trafford has ceased to be part of the UK (along with several other Council's)..