Persistently Unreasonable Ombudsman.This is a featured page

This page has been added to allow Ombudsman Watchers to develop their own definition of a Persistently Unreasonable Ombudsman. Once the definition is complete it will be published on one of the websites.

Please click on edit and add your thoughts under this introduction.

What defines an ombudsman as persistently unreasonable?

  • An ombudsman who persistently refuses to give you the reasoning behind their decisions. They often use this tactic to make it more difficult for a complainant to contest their decision.
  • An ombudsman who persistently refuses to look at evidence that would prove your complaint. They often use this tactic to hide what would otherwise be an absurd decision.
  • An ombudsman who persistently tires to bury your clear an unequivocal cases of maladministration. Local settlements are nothing more than a tactic to bury maladministration. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with two parties settling a case but local settlements are not agreed between the two parties, they are agreed between an ombudsman and an authority for only one reason, to bury a clear case of maladministration.
  • An ombudsman who spends months persistently trying to de-construct your complainant rather than writing a report exposing council maladministration. Ever wondered why your case is taking the ombudsman so long to investigate? The longer they take the more difficult it is for them to de-construct your case so they can minimise, if not bury altogether, a act of maladministration by an authority.
  • An ombudsman who always believes anything that a council tell them. They often use this tactic to hide what would otherwise be an absurd decision. They don't actually believe the authority they just turn a blind eye to their lies.
  • An ombudsman who persistently decides the outcome of complaints and then sets about manipulating the evidence to support their decisions. This is a very common tactic because it makes the job of an unaccountable ombudsman so easy.

  • The term local government in front of the word ombudsman. Many Ombudsman try to do a reasonable job, Local Government Ombudsmen do not, all they are interested in is burying maladministration for local authorities.

  • An ombudsman who reads all your information and then hones it down to three points you don't agree with. These then become set in stone and anything else is ignored. You are then told that you can submit "new evidence". But how can you when everything has been submitted but ignored (included breach of the Mental Health Act) the case is then closed because all the evidence is there but they won't consider it because it just might look a teeny bit like maladministration and we can't let someone from the Council be in trouble can we? Ok someone I care about might have died but we can't let a Social worker lose his job can we? This is a very common tactic called de-constructing the complaint. The Ombudsman differentiates a complaint and then looks at small points in isolation. Most of these are thendiscounted for one trivial reason or another. What the Ombudsman tries to do is remove any part of the complaint that they couldn't reconcile with a finding of no maladministration. What started out as a massive boulder of a complaint becomes a small pebble of a complaint which is then trivialised and buried.

  • An ombudsman who issues a report finding maladministration, and identifying breach of statutory duty by a local Council, but who then frames his recommendations in such a way as not only to permit the original maladministration to continue, but to get more firmly set in concrete - with the benefit of large sums of UK and EEC funding. An Ombudsman who, having set this mischievous nonsense in train, then refuses to answer any further correspondence from concerned members of the public.






Posted Anonymously Latest page update: made by Anonymous , Apr 18 2008, 4:32 AM EDT (about this update About This Update Posted Anonymously Edited anonymously

81 words added

view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: idiots irrelevant ombudman persistent perverse stupid unreasonable vague (edit keyword tags)
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)

There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.