This page has been added to illustrate how you can add a page to the Council section for each council.

Camden was chosen because it is one of the worst councils in the country and deserves top billing.

Please edit this page (or add more sub pages) to add your information/letters about Camden Council or return to the Council page and add a new page for the council of your choice.

The following letter was published in the Camden New Journal and was brought to our attention by Camden Council Corrupt Borough a website dedicated to exposing the corrupt practices within Camden Borough Council. The reason why we are reproducing the letter here is because it illustrates the most common method used by Local Government Ombudsmen to bury maladministration for their friends and ex colleagues in Local Government. The so called local settlement is nothing of the sort, it's simply a method Local Government Ombudsmen use to terminate an investigation and bury maladministration.

A 'local settlement' is agreed between the Ombudsman and the Council, the complainant has no say in the matter. So for a paltry few pounds the Council is free to boast that the Ombudsman didn't find any maladministration and the Ombudsman is free to record the complaint as being 'locally settled'. That saves Local Government Ombudsmen from having to publish a report about council maladministration. Some 27% of cases are buried this way so it's no wonder Councils never improve, why should they? With a friendly Ombudsman burying maladministration they can appear whiter than white even if they are the most corrupt and incompetent council in the country.




I READ with interest JP McKenna's letter (Exploding the myth of the ombudsman, April 7). I, too, have experienced the disturbingly lenient manner with which the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) can treat maladministration within the councils they are required to investigate. I wondered whether I was just unlucky in the LGO officer allocated to my case.

However, on reading Mr McKenna's letter and visiting the website of the campaign group LGO-watch (I had not heard of them before seeing his letter in the CNJ), it is clear that my experience has been shared by others. I guess I was fortunate in that eventually I received some compensation, but by the end of the process I was less bothered about the money and more concerned that Camden Council’s conduct in dealing with my complaint should be exposed.

A council officer had been instructed by his manager not to answer particular questions of mine, a senior officer failed to disclose key facts in his report, information not helpful to the council was ignored, whilst other evidence was exaggerated to the point of absurdity. The impression gained was that Camden Council saw its role as defending itself against complaints rather than establishing the facts of the case in a fair and disinterested way.

I am a Camden Council tenant and am also self-employed. A council contract engineer failed to keep an agreed appointment and I needlessly last half a days work. I complained to the engineers directly and then formally to the council. It was a minor, low-level grievance. I was surprised when they did not uphold my complaint (at stage one) but I was informed I could appeal against the decision. The council, though, rejected my complaint at each stage of its time-consuming three-level complaints procedure. I viewed Camden’s pretence at objectivity as a sham.
The engineers and council were suggesting that no appointment had been made ( and presumably that I was not telling the truth). When I provided compelling on-the-record evidence, in the form of an itemised phone bill, Camden toughened the test of proof from that of ”balance of probability” to one of “beyond reasonable doubt”. I read the final, stage three, decision with incredulity.

Camden Council also made the quite bizarre claim that even if a council enquiry into its investigation showed that it had been misconducted (which it had), the decision would still stand! I was directed by the head of Camden’s Central Complaints Unit to the Local Government Ombudsman. This was the most worrying aspect of the whole business. When the LGO investigating officer requested the case papers from the council, Camden attempted to withhold precisely those document helpful to me. I wrote in these terms to the Ombudsman: “If Camden had deliberately tried to withhold material from the Ombudsman – even if ultimately unsuccessful – then there is clear public interest in this being exposed. This must be an extremely serious matter”. The investigating officer clearly did not agree.

The case was closed down by Ombudsman, a sum of compensation paid, and in the LGO statistics it will be styled a “local settlement”. This suggests a mutual resolution – it was not. Because the Ombudsman did not find “maladministration with injustice”, no formal determination was issued. This would have been published in the local press and the council’s conduct publicised. Indeed, even in the final Ombudsman's notification to me there is not a word of adverse comment against the council.


ERIC KRIEGER




Dear Sir or Madam,

My family also suffered the farce that is a 'Local Settlement', except in our case I was asked to attend the offices of the LGO in Millbank and four Camden Council officers attended. These were: Mr. Peter Swingler, Head of the Central Complaints Unit, Mr. Phill Sowter, Head of Social Services Complaints Unit, Mr. Jeremy Croxall, Head of Education Policy and Ms. Jo Lyons, Deputy Director of Education.

This is the first and only time so far that Camden Council have done this. Moreover, I would like you to see what the Ombudsman wrote about Camden Council and if this was not Maladministration with injustice towards a child, then I do not know what is.

The Ombudsman said: "The Council failed, in one case, to follow Government guidance about home tuition for a young person with school phobia, so that the young person received no education for about 18 months. There was confusion by the Local Education Authority about how to handle multiple complaints and indicate to the complainant how he might escalate his concerns. The Council offered to provide the young person with 18 months additional tuition but, when the placement broke down, it offered to pay the complainant £2,950. While this was a difficult complaint, we had concerns about the rigour of the Council's complaints process where a decision, which may prove unpopular within the Council, is appropriate."

When this story appeared in the local press the Council press spokesperson said that the LGO identified a problem and Camden were happy to help. I had a story printed the following week, which gave the true version of events.

Finally, the Ombudsman had this to say about Local Settlements in Camden: "The national average for local settlements is 25.8% of complaints I may pursue, so the Council's figure of 36% is higher than usual. Where I get relatively few complaints I would be reluctant to draw conclusions from such a figure. But it does seem that more complaints about your Council are justified than is common".

Moreover, this is the Council that boasts of its British Standards Institute recognition for the last six years and is seen as a 'model' authority by other Council's.

I hope this has been useful and if you need any further information, please let me know?

Regards

Mr. D.F. Gowers