List of Council's

[shc]

There is a growing list of Council's that have either rejected an LGO finding of maladministration and injustice and/or associated recommendations.. and / or regnaged on Local Settlements (currently about 5 per cent of Council's)..

Blackpool
Basildon
Cheshire
Chichester
Croydon
Derwentside
East Riding of Yorkshire
Ealing
Mid Suffolk
Newcastle under Lyme
Norfolk
Oldham
Oswestry
Portsmouth
Sefton
Southwark
Trafford
Tynedale
Vale Royal


are there any more documented cases.. ???

[shc]

http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/pdf/cscmins200808.pdf

West Norfolk

[shc]

http://online.dudley.gov.uk/news/fullrelease.asp?recid=191

Dudley ???

[shc]

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/csu/Cabinet/2005/21-03-05/Item%206%20-%20Local%20Government%20Ombudsman%20Rpts%20-%20%2021%20March%202005.doc

Westminster.. they made their service provider (private sector) responsible rather than assuming the responsibility themselves (there are several like this)

[shc]

Canterbury ?? awaiting decision

http://www2.canterbury.gov.uk/committee/mgDecisionDetails.asp?IId=10602&Opt=1

recommended by Officers that LGO recommendations should be rejected

[url]www2.canterbury.gov.uk/committee/mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=2560[/url]


LGO report

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/info.php?refnum=258

[shc]

So that the scale of the issue is understood..

out of 855 MI +M reports issued over the last 10 years to 'some' (about 200) Council's only 263 are actually acknowledged to exist... (i.e only 23 % of the total MI + M reports issued by the LGO are acknowledged to exist)

from the Council's own reporting periods.. (i.e. record retention) about 170 formal MI + M reports are missing (i.e there is a 20 per cent difference in their identification of MI + M and the LGO.. (for the same period).. this includes Council's that don't have any records so their figures show absolutely no variation with the LGO's

[shc]

To put it in an easily understood way..

out of about 200 Council's.. there is only ONE (PURBECK http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/) whose reporting of maladministration findings against them by the LGO actually match the LGO's own lists of their decisions.

[shc]

Updated following John Healey's written answer

Blackpool
Basildon *
Cheshire
Chichester
Croydon
Derwentside
Dudley
East Riding of Yorkshire *
Ealing
Eden
Mid Suffolk
Newark & Sherwood
Newcastle under Lyme
Norfolk
North Warwickshire
Oldham
Oswestry
Portsmouth
Rossendale
Salford
Sefton *
Southwark
Trafford *
Tynedale
Vale Royal
Walsall
West Norfolk

There are a few more but the list is currently about 7 per cent of all English Council's

[shc]

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

Scores on the doors are 142 Council's about that the LGO feels have not met MI reports... the list is much longer..

they don't have the data for local settlements..

[shc]

Since 1974 about 4 per cent of all complaints that have been determined (MI only) by the LGO have been rejected by the Council's.. These are just the ones acknowledged by the LGO to have been 'unsatisfactory'. The LGO has issued about 6897 MI reports of which they acknowledge about 277 were unsatisfactory..

Based on the minutes of Council's and the LGO's own stats.. it is likely that between 20 - 40 per cent of the LGO's MI reports (possibly higher) are rejected (either partly or in their entirity)..

The LGO has no idea what goes on with local settlements.. and having seen the pressure that some people granted these against Council's are put under.. it is not surprising.. that there are not that many comebacks..

Qoute from the LGO's current Risk Strategy..

The LGOs are relatively risk averse in relation to the processing of complaints and maintenance of their case records. The LGOs have no enforcement powers; compliance with their recommendations is highly dependent on the confidence of local authorities in the thoroughness and fairness of the investigative work. The public will only bring their complaints to the LGO (and their advisers recommend use of the service) if the service maintains its reputation for independence, quality and responsiveness to the needs of complainants.

[shc]

North Tyneside have admitted to rejecting an LGO decision..

Newark and sherwood have admitted to rejecting about 97 per cent of the LGO's findings.. there is no mention of this in the LGO's annual letter.

[Ann]

Castle Morpeth Borough Council

Request for Information Reference 527.

Further to your request for information, I am pleased to provide the information held by the council in response to your question below:-

a) how many findings of maladministration the local government ombudsman has made against your council over the last 10 years.

2.

b) how many findings of maladministration your council, either in full or in part, has refused to accept.

1.

c) how many findings of maladministration your council has accepted but refused to comply, either in full or in part, with the local government ombudsman's recommended remedy.

0.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l ... budsman_62

[shc]

Have just had back a reply from Audit Commission as they hold records as well as the LGO.

Their records appear to be different to the LGO's.. and they identify this as being due to the LGO changing their annual letters data.. and this seems to have supported the Council's getting good performance indicators (dropped apparently this year). This was picked up from the Luton FoI (and the AC's data seems to correspond with some of the Council's that have responded).

I have a list of all the different MI reports.. and if Council's have met the LGO's remedy and recommendations.. There are about five survey's that have been undertaken (including Ann's)... and they are all different..

So the Council's don't know what has happened.. Their regulator the Audit Commission has been basing their assessments of Council's on false information (they identify has been supplied by the LGO).. and the LGO don't know what happens after they have made a decision.. This needs to be taken into consideration with the fact that the LGO's own survey's identify that once a consumer has been through an LGO investigation.. they want nothing more to do with the LGO..

... and the LGO despite being aware of this in 2006 decided not to inform the Secretary of State of the shambles through their triannual review...

[shc]

PS

Morpeth are not identified by the LGO as having rejected one of their decisions or a remedy (there are quite a few of Council's in this situation)..

[shc]

Wansbeck join the list

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l ... ment_omb_2

They had an MI report in 05/06 and identify that they rejected it.. The LGO does not identify this as being the case.. another York case..

[shc]

More Castle Morpeth

http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/info.php?ref ... &startnum=

The Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex, is “gravely concerned” that Castle Morpeth Borough Council did not comply with the law in failing to consider her report. In her report, she had found it unreasonably sought to enforce conditions for the construction of a self-built ‘timber/log kit’ home. She has therefore issued a further report today (10 December 2008) in which she says “The way that the Council has responded to my report only adds to the discredit it has brought on itself by the wholly unjustified and unreasonable way that it dealt with [the complainants]”.

The Council's are simply ignoring the LGO

[shc]

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

[shadow]

There is a strong Seex factor here, or at least a strong York office factor. As far as I am aware they also hold the record for the most disgruntled complainants so it's no surprise to find that they also hold the record for the most councils to ignore an Ombudsman's office. Basically the Local Government Ombudsman's York office is crap at what they do!.....or more correctly unaccountably crap at what they do! Look at the mess they made of Trevor's complaint. I know for a fact his case is going to come back to bite them on the arse big time because I am privileged enough to know what's coming. Then there's the Trafford Carly Wright case plus Sefton plus Jagger's case and many many more. It's time the merry band of incompetent York office staff were sent packing. The only saving grace is that they way she is going it won't be long before they have their Shoesmith moment. The facts speak for themselves: York office reports finding maladministration leading to injustice in only 0.34% of the complaints submitted to them. The York office is either institutionally incompetent or institutionally corrupt the choice is yours.

Thomas

[shadow]

More on Castle Morpeth

More like get stuffed Seex 2

DEFIANT members of a rural Northumberland council have voted for the second time in eight months to reject a highly critical report by a town hall watchdog.

Castle Morpeth Borough Council voted 18-7 to confirm its previous decision not to accept a ruling by the Local Government Ombudsman that it was guilty of maladministration in the case of a local couple who built their dream home.Earlier this year, Ombudsman Anne Seex ruled that Denise and Stuart Howard had suffered an injustice at the hands of the council – and recommended that they should be paid almost £6,000 in compensation.

Her report concluded that Mr and Mrs Howard had ‘unreasonably’ incurred extra costs, and suffered distress and trouble, over the council’s insistence on the type of materials to be used on their timber home in Hadston near Morpeth.

In April, the council refused to accept her recommendations – sparking a damning follow-up report in which Mrs Seex said she was ‘gravely concerned’ at the authority’s response, claiming it had added to the discredit already brought on itself.

Now – after discussing both reports by Mrs Seex – the council has again decided not to accept the finding of maladministration or pay the recommended compensation to Mr and Mrs Howard.

The Ombudsman has no power to force the council to follow her recommendations.

Yesterday, borough councillor Arnold Baker said the authority was happy to celebrate Ombudsmen’s findings in its favour, so should have the good grace to accept rulings which went against it.

“I believe the Government should now look again at the Ombudsman’s powers in the wake of this decision,” said Coun Baker.

In her follow-up report, Mrs Seex said: “The way that the council has responded to my report only adds to the discredit it has brought on itself by the wholly unjustified and unreasonable way that it dealt with the complainants.”

Last night, Castle Morpeth council leader Peter Jackson said although it had taken the issue extremely seriously, it did not accept the findings of maladministration.

He said: “The council admits that, with the benefit of hindsight, the contract could have been clearer by defining a specification for a timber log house. The council still believes, however, that the complainants had a choice as to whether they completed the purchase of the plot, together with its specifications, or not.

“The council does not agree the remedy of £5,440, together with £500. The complainants have built a house at a lower cost by using cladding rather than logs and the council has not taken, and does not plan to take, any action against them.”

Last night, a spokeswoman for the Ombudsman said: “Until we have received the council’s formal response to the reports we cannot comment.’’

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east ... -22516633/

Thomas

[shc]

The report is here:

http://82.109.175.26/CMISWebPublic/Meet ... ingID=1031

interestingly.. they seeks her here they seeks her there.. and managed to spell her name wrongly..

The matter has been re-opened again and following further investigation by an investigator is being conducted by the Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seeks

They effectively identify what they think of SEEX having the title Ombudsman

Usually Councils are willing to offer local settlements and therefore only in a minority of cases will it be necessary to complete an investigation and publish an adverse report. In this case the LGO believes that the complainant has suffered an injustice as a result of maladministration. It should be noted that the LGO recommendations are not binding on the Council.

[shadow]

Funny you should highlight the spelling of her name. We get quite a few hits on the psow website, from the Arab World in particular. They are always seeking seex but I don't think they are looking for Anne Seex in particular, I just think sex got turned into seex and they ended up on the wrong website. I could be wrong someone may be trying to track her down to buy her. Having read on the website that she gives us the hump they may think she is a camel.

Thomas

[lilian]

meoww Thomas

[lilian]

Maybe we could flog the LGO off to the arabs? I'll start the bidding at one camels t*rd .....

Look what you've started Thomas This the season to be jolly lalalalalaaa-lalalala

[shc]

The Norwich link to Seex and the Housing scandal is starting to surface..

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/sto ... 3A27%3A953

As officers put in the preparatory work ahead of the inspection, there is already nervousness at the higher levels of City Hall about what the report will uncover, with the suggestion being that inspectors will vindicate the tenants' concerns and expose a raft of problems.

Auditors have already unearthed errors linked to how the council handled its finances, with links to the housing department - including not knowing how many council homes it has, the inaccurate additions of £19m to its housing revenue account, and a misclassification of a £1.6m housing benefit overpayment.

Doubtless SEEX will be identified... as one of those responsible.. for the mess.. it has been identified as existing for about ten years (started at about the same time as SEEX was appointed as CEO)..

"Last night, Pauline Walton, chairman of the Norwich Leaseholders' Association, said tenants groups had repeatedly tried to raise a raft of housing concerns for more than 10 years, only to be given the brush off by officials and politicians.

I have worked with a succession of public servants in Norwich City Council, the latest of whom was Kristine Reeves," she said. "In our one meeting, as in so many others going before, we raised the same leaseholder and housing policy issues we have tried to address for the last 10 years - and we hoped once again that we might work together to make a difference.

"So far, our genuine and persistent attempts to engage on concerns over the council's competence and financial management have been met with, variously, a wall of silence, serial monologue, accusations, imputations and even political manoeuvring at executive level.

"The inevitable result is that our issues never get resolved and the council carries on undeterred."

[shadow]

The Arabian Seex Kitten is well and truly in the frame because she started at Norwich City Council in 2000 and left in 2005.

Thomas

[Mrs Norton]

Please can you add Luton Borough Council to this list now.

[Crazy C]

I have just recieved.

Job description and pay scale fior Mrs Seek. I will publish fully later,

Pay

Ombudsman £ 125,000
Investigator £ 39,933
Team Leader £ 20,000

Apparantly the ombudsman ( Seex ) is are employed by another goverment grouping that i have never heard of, will be back with more detail later

[shadow]

George

Before you re-invent the wheel please be aware that we already know all this information and the organisation they work for.

Thomas

[shadow]

PS This is not the thread to discuss this issue in any case.

[shc]

New thread started.. GEORGE

http://www.amv3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1056

[shc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7798070.stm

No papers tommorrow.. and Norwich have produced their report.. not yet on their web site

is understood that in addition £4,000 was paid to each eldery person evicted.. and that there was at least one death thought to have been related to the acts of the Council

[shadow]

Excellent video.

I think she is a future LGO in the making.

Thomas

[ke]

Thanks Stuart,
A gem of a video that sums up Local Government and its Local Government Ombudsman Proxy. A mediocrity (probably on about £200k a year who would not last a day in a competitive environment), as Chief Executive, who is unaware of what is going on in her own Authority, will not accept responsibility, or accountibility, when this serious fraud is exposed (yes fraud it is) and does not know whether she is going to resign or not, now the fraud has been exposed. With such obvious lack of talent, ability and decisiveness, this abundance of attributes makes her an ideal Local Government Ombudsman of the future, as Thomas says; I would like to bet that the LGO talent spotters already have her on their list!

[shc]

Laura McGillivray was brought in to replace Anne SEEX.. so it is the case that the LGO talent spotters have her on their list..

Ms McGillvray only has a basic of £121,000 (there are probably other benefits included in her employment package..).. as there do seem to be at Norwich

Eastern Daily Press 29 June 2005

Norwich City Council was last night accused of fostering a culture of exclusion after it emerged that members are resorting to the Freedom of Information Act to obtain basic facts about the authority.

Opposition leader Steve Morphew revealed that he had fired off a request to ask for a list of names of staff to help with constituency work because repeated requests for it had got nowhere and council lawyers advised him to use the Freedom of Information Act instead.

Mr Morphew said he had resorted to the Act - which came into effect on January 1 - because the authority was dragging its feet on supplying a list of workers.

EDP today
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/sto ... 3A46%3A557

Last night in a television interview Ms McGillivray was asked three times whether she would fall on her sword over the homes-for-staff scandal, answering each time that she could not comment.

But the under fire council boss was given the full backing of council leader Steve Morphew who said there was “absolutely no question” of her quitting.

“She has done and is doing a first class job for this city council,” he said. “As far as I am concerned there is absolutely no question whatsoever of her resigning of confidence in her being in question. These problems do happen in organisations. It's not practical to be up to speed with every single decision that's made.

[shc]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/nort ... gh_council

Someone is asking questions of North Tyneside

The questions are interesting as North Tyneside rejected an Seex reccomendation