Local Government Ombudsmen Watchers - Recently Updated Pages

Links

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:01:41 CDT

Add your link here.
Please be courteous and add your link at the end of the appropriate section.

Websites

Ombudsman Watch
Dedicated to exposing unfair, unjust and biased local government ombudsmen.

Public Service Ombudsman Watchers
Dedicated to exposing unfair, unjust and biased public service ombudsmen.

Local Government Ombudsman Watchers Forum
A public forum open to anyone concerned about unjust and unfair and biased ombudsmen.

Scottish Ombudsman Watch

Dedicated to exposing the unfair, unjust and biased Scottish public service ombudsman.

Chezhardcastle
Dedicated to planning law and the failure of the ombudsman.

Let's Fix Britain
Planning and the failure of the ombudsman.

Croydoncouncil
Not Croydon council, an antidote to Croydon council.

LogicLaw
Principles of retribution, inflexible rules and compromises.

Rotten Borough
An antidote to local authority websites.

Rotten Council
Exposing council corruption in their planning departments.

The Bungalow
23 year fight against the unjust and unlawful actions of Dover District Council planning department.

Corrupt Camden Council

The website that CASP members have been trying to have removed
See the CASP link in the left hand side bar on the Corrupt Canden Council website.

Kings Lynn Council & the Local Government Ombudsman
The real work of the Local Government Ombudsman.

Blogs

Trevor R Nunn Ombudsman Watcher
16 year fight for justice against Cheshire County Council highway authority maladministration
and a 10 year battle with the York office of the local government ombudsman.

David Sneath
One man's view on how local government ombudsmen have changed.

Carol Woods
A blog about the York office of the local government ombudsman and Lancashire county council.

J Hughes
Stockport council school admission corruption and the York office of the local government ombudsman.

Dr Tony Ashton
A blog about planning problems and East Devon district council.

Potential Foster Carer
Corruption in Derby City council and the failure of the local government ombudsman.

Pablo
Ynys Mon (Anglesey) council maladministration and the failure of the local government ombudsman.

Local Government Ombudsman Corruption & Cover Ups
Exposing how the Local Government Ombudsman (Commission for Local Administration in England) cover up council maladministration, deliberately conceal evidence of maladministration, wilfully misrepresent facts, manipulate evidence, disregard their own published guidance on good administrative practice, and condone council malpractice.

Valuation Office Agency Cover Ups

Exposing how inept VOA staff neglect to correct errors in the Valuation List (Council Tax List), ignore their procedures, peddle lies and deceit, misrepresent facts, conceal mistakes, and disregard their statutory duty to maintain the Council Tax List (Valuation List).

Exposing how the Adjudicator conceals incriminating evidence, misrepresents facts, disregards the rules of natural justice, and condones the actions of incompetent VOA staff.

Housing Management in Camden Council
The real state of Camden Council

Personal Stories

Amy's Story
An 87 year old wheelchair bound old lady and the failure of the York office of the local government ombudsman.

Martin Brighton
Sheffiled City council maladministration and the failure of the local government ombudsman.

Therasa Ezekpo
Camden council maladministration and the failure of the London office of the local government ombudsman.

John McKenna
Camden council maladministration and the failure of the London office of the local government ombudsman.

Christine Williams
Camden council maladministration and the failure of the London office of the local government ombudsman.

Corrine O'Keefe
Manchester City council harassment and the failure of the York office of the local government ombudsman.

Gary Powell
Hounslow housing horror and the failure of the local government ombudsman.

Ron Hollyer
Waverley Borough Council. Local Government Ombudsman supports contravention of private rights

Discussion Forums

An Anglesey Town Council complain a local discussion forum is 'getting out of hand', and pull out of the forum. A new discussion group is born as a result.

ED BALLS AW Tanner

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:18:16 CST

An explicit account of a letter written to Rt.. Hon. Ed Balls Minister for Children 30 Nov 2008..

Despite the serious dysfunctional behaviour of Haringey re childcare, the government wants to hide evidence regarding this despotic regime. This council is in complete contempt re democracy, withholding evidence from police and the PPS in regard the death of a child in care! Holding back such evidence is not what parliament is all about!
Ministers should not pull the plug on transparency!

Your department claims that some Haringey incompetents will stay because they might be needed to give evidence in any future Haringey child neglect? People are afraid that some who should be kicked out - will remain? This 5th column of yours will soon be 'seen off' by the Stasi-style hounding operating within the council.

If you are concerned about the abuse and deaths of children in care, then you have to give serious consideration to the root cause - unfit unregulated councils!
Placid regulators like ombudsman, with friendly 'slap on wrist' judgments have done much to secure the entrenchment of the 'old pals act'

Many councils have become omnipotent, having been encouraged by LG Os to deal dismissively with complainants. Because of this the electorate with many a genuine grievance has become victims of deceitful council complaints procedures. This failure to regulate councils by normal public criticism has allowed the breakdown of the democratic process of accountability.

These restrictions put upon council critics have denied public scrutiny. This protection allowed unrestrained council miscreants to put themselves above the law? This has allowed dysfunctional, often contemptuous Town Hall monstrosities to grow within our midst protected by political agenda!
There is also concern that the atrocious harassment of critics may well continue using the usual public sector machinery. One hopes the Haringey whistleblower gets some recognition for her heroic fightback against revengeful council hounding.

It is appalling that MPs have sat in parliament espousing the virtues of councils, even giving them more power, when in reality councils are in more need of regulation than the discredited Banking system.

A claim has been made that 'IF' failures were found in the Haringey report, action would be taken? The electorate is now well aware of numerous failures, and are even more aware that the ministerial 'old pals act' is liable to kick in! Why is this eagerly awaited report being shrouded in political mystery? Are you trying to protect a minister or two?

One has to start seriously thinking as to what's wrong with councils?

Whilst Haringey were browbeating whistleblowers; paedophiles were known to have worked under the noses of lax social workers. Even more frightening, is that networking paedophiles can infiltrate council care homes at will; where senior council officials have been known to shrug of criticism regarding these abominations, threatening the honorable critics with disciplinary action?
We cannot put too much faith in councils or care officials! In a previous child abuse case, parents wrote to an official in charge of complaints; nothing was ever done? It transpired that the official in charge of complaints was a prolific child abuser! Obviously written complaints regarding child abuse were binned - that's how corrupt councils operate!

In another case re social worker abuse, children of innocent parents wrongly accused of 'satanic abuse', were put into care. A few years later a TV documentary did a 'follow up' on them, they were by then teenagers, still traumatised and broken as individuals
by this council/social worker crime. The teenagers showed much hatred towards these uncaring unregulated social workers.

Why were these barbaric acts by unregulated council employees allowed to continue for so long?
It was in this case that the victimised parents complained, then thuggish council officials slapped a gagging order upon them? One begins to realise just how many council despots are above the law!

Reputable social workers stay well clear of such appalling councils, honest reliable social workers would not seek work in Haringey, knowing that if they spoke out about incompetent management failure (almost guaranteed) they'd be hounded out!

It becomes apparent, because of the numerous abuse cases arising from severely dysfunctional councils, that childcare has become an insignificant part of a political system run by council officials. It becomes evident because of so much incompetence in this field, that continuing scandalous social work disasters are being picked up daily.

So much so, that Ofsted suggest that on average, one child known to be on the 'at risk' register dies from cruelty, neglect or abuse every week?

There has always been much cover up within councils, the Auditing Ofsted Office helped to give Haringey a clean bill of health; by some mysterious act it gave this seriously dysfunctional Haringey council a '3 star status' for good practice. (we now know Haringey force-fed Ofsted false figures - lies?) One hopes that Haringey's severe neglect of childcare along with its attendant cover-up culture is not considered 'good practice'?

Such collusive acts are designed to deceive the public into believing that incompetent corrupt councils are in good working order. Typical public sector deceit!
This political junketing '3 star status' gave this deceitful council an unwarranted uplift, doing more damage by maintaining despots in office.
Were these politically inspired '3 star' embellishments given to the highly protected council imbeciles, who could not spot a severely battered baby from 2 feet?

Stonewalling has become an art form within many councils. But when genuine up-front request for information regarding the death of Baby P was denied the police and the PPS, then one realised that such despotic denial of ones public duty by senior Haringey officials had become politically perverse. A child was tortured on their watch, they become unduly self-protective - hostile in denial where no one was to blame.
The abuse of public duty was complete!

How come this swashbuckling subversive mentality, forever in denial of transparency found itself in charge of child care?

After years of systematic failure one would have hoped the quality of social workers would, by now improved.
However, I have recently read an account by a qualified social worker regarding a group of social work students, I quote;
"in our two years at university, we had 6 sessions in childcare, child development and child protection and 42 sessions on Marxist theory .....Some of my former colleagues are senior managers or directors of social services, the sort pf people responsible for decision making in the Baby P's of this world".

A childcare curriculum within a seat of learning, where the protection of children should be foremost, was being muzzled by political theory. The proper study of childcare was being neglected in favour of political dogmas.
Childcare has evolved within many a lawless regime, often run by people quite unfit to work within childcare, many were like swashbuckling subversives. The care of children become enmeshed in devious 'inner politics' where their welfare become secondary! That's how corrupt councils operate!

Councils are largely run by incompetents, where avoidance of honest public service is highly developed and self-protective. Snooping has become the 'in thing'; where for instance wheelie-bin Inspectorate is most subversive! All this low-grade council chicanery has found its way into childcare.

It is quite an eye-opener, a definitive lesson in Town Hall corruption of facts, where fraud, incompetence and corruption big-time earns a '3star status gong' for good practice? I begin to see Orwell as a genius!

The continuing question causing the public so much annoyance is 'why are these guilty monsters not resigning'? The answer has to be "they are on a nice little earner"! Where else would you get paid so much for being so neglectful, and contributing so little to child protection?

It really says it all in regard to the public sectors 'cover up culture' - where everyone is guilty but no one is to blame, even exonerated for the most ghastly of failures!
Yours sincerely AW Tanner

Seex

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:28:30 CDT

This is a page specifically about Anne Seex, Local Government Ombudsman, and the York Office.

Her office covers the following area: London Borough of Tower Hamlets, City of Birmingham, Solihull MBC, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, Warwickshire and the North of England (except the cities of Lancaster, Manchester and York).

Background: Before becoming Local Government Ombudsman on the 27th October 2005, Anne Seex had been Chief Executive Officer of Norwich City Council for five years, joining from Lancaster City Council where she was Director of Community Services (1996 - 2000). She has over 25 years’ experience in local government, starting in a metropolitan borough, moving through a district council for a new town to work for 11 years in various roles in the Chief Executive’s Department at Manchester City Council (1985 - 1996).

Qualifications: Graduate from the Faculty and School of Law in public life, University of Manchester.

Memberships:

Outside interests:

Comment: Another Ombudsman that has never had a full time job outside of local government.

Can you fill in any gaps or provide dates?

Persistently Unreasonable Ombudsman.

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:32:50 CDT

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.

TANNER again

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:16:33 CST

The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street SW!
27th June 2007

I DO NOT DESERVE TO BE SO CORRUPTLY HANDLED

Dear Prime Minister

We seriously hope you are going to restore integrity and high standards within public administration, we wish you well! I am an 80 year old war pensioner, writing yet again re Ombudsman deceits. At the age of 16, I left school because I had a fierce hatred of the tyrant Adolph Hitler and his despotic crew.
I joined to do my bit in 1943. In the 1950`s I was fighting in Korea with the Gloucester Regiment, it was over-run by Chinese troops. A few of us managed to fight our way out! I was flown to a Military Hospital in Kure, Japan. Later I returned home.

My experiences have given me a sort of blood tie with soldiers, especially front - line soldiers. I once had an item printed in the Sunday Mail (10/03/91) "Wounds that are with you forever"! I was pleading that maimed soldiers should be given deserved war pension etc. Under no circumstances should fighting men be so corruptly treated as I have been by the contemptuous Parliamentary Ombudsman system.

I am not asking for special conditions; I just want to disclose the lack of democracy, justice and transparency, that many of us fought and died for!

Some 4 years ago I was mugged, set upon by a Governmental Agency,s corrupt public sector complaints procedure. During this time I was recovering from 3 serious operations and the dreaded MRSA. Then, having struggled to overcome MRSA and regain my health in order to fight the corrupt VOA, I discovered I had cancer
This meant dealing with (1) 7 weeks of radiotherapy and (2) a corrupt governmental complaint procedure that had the fraudulent backing of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. It proved all too much; I was forced to give up my appeal, partly "blown away" by the crooked VOA invention of the phantom "Mrs Gupta". I decided to disclose the corrupt way my case had been handled.

Because of our constant complaints the VOA proposed that a "proper investigation" would take place? It fraudulently proclaimed that the miscreant who had often treated us so corruptly, had acted with the "Best of Intentions" A typical public sector fraudulent cover-up? They later asked that we Draw a Line under their corrupt acts?
The Ombudsman once claimed she "saw no evidence of fraud or corruption"? Purposely failing to see the corrupt invention of "Mrs Gupta" etc.
Another time, being annoyed at our continued disclosures, the Ombudsman tried to ensnare us into taking part in a spurious "Customer SATISFACTION Survey" Being victims of such of such Ombudsman fraudulence. we objected to the word SATISFACTION and would not take part! Under the circumstances it was a fraudulent request!

Another fraudulent aspect of this 'survey' was that we were instructed to 'fill in a form' if we wanted to take part OR 'sign out' if we wanted to opt out? We asked if we have to ' sign out' of this spurious survey - who the had signed us in? It was getting all a bit scary like Orwell's Big Brother routine! We refused to sign and take part in this convoluted Ombudsman scam!
Despite our refusal to take part, the Ombudsman retaliated by setting upon us intrusive intimidating 'bullies'; whose evening telephone calls tried to force us, with much belligerence , to take part in her "survey"!

Despite our "written" objections" to this severely undemocratic Ombudsman's deceit, our protest did not stop her violating our human rights? My wife became frightened by these retaliatory evening phone calls! George Orwell indeed , a man who could spot a corrupt administrator from a mile off!
This wretched dereliction of duty by the Parliamentary Ombudsman discloses her lack of integrity. As when recently she publicly proclaimed her role as; " IF NOT QUITE A CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE" THEN AT LEAST A SERIOUS "ALLY OF THE PEOPLE"......even more 'porkies' is there no end?

I DO NOT DESERVE TO BE SO CORRUPTLY HANDLED!

Because of our ghastly experiences, we have previously written to you claiming that there are NO up-front democratic public sector complaint procedures within Whitehall. We have learned as the man said; "That there are no mechanisms by which the Parliamentary Ombudsman can be scrutinised and be called to account".
We have found her position to be firmly entrenched within the public sectors cover-up culture, where she is more than likely to protect malevolent civil servants. She is however, not afraid of using 'jackboot' tactics against citizens who complain about public sector corruption!

Prime Minister, we hope you can understand at our being irate and forthright in our manner when disclosing the corrupt acts against us, if you are upset about our angst showing through, we apologise. Fighting governmental corruption is a tough uncompromising business especially when you're "trodden on" by various government agency`s "Old Pals Acts". We still have problems with the FOI boys.

Having helped fight against the despotic Adolph Hitler, I now find myself in my worn out 80's fighting another tyrant the Parliamentary Ombudsman and her crew of despots.
It would appear that nothing changes, except that Adolph never had us strung-up by the short and curlies as we are today by these deceitful cover-up public sector complaint procedures!

Yours sincerely

AW & I Tanner

cc to everyone interested in Ombudsman corruption; media Ministry of Justice, Universities, Students Unions Parliamentary Committees MPs Enc copies P O letters 27/09/, 6/10/06plus copy of our Fraudulent & Corrupt acts bestowed upon us by VOA & P.OMB office

Parliamentary Ombudsman
Millbank Tower 4th July 2007
Millbank SW1P 4QP

Your abuse of our human rights!

Dear Ann Abraham

After our disclosure of your deceits in our VOA corruption case, we feel you`ve trashed our case and put it into the "Disruptive Unreasonable Complaints bin" You have created an Artful dodger "get out" here! Because, when your fraudulence was challenged, you deceitfully closed our case down, in order to hide our revelations regarding public sector corruption with its cover-up culture!

You`ve abused our human rights by (1) refusing to admit the VOA was corrupt (2) that you deliberately added 'weight' to the fraudulent claims re 'internal jargon'. You purposely overlooked the corrupt invention of "Mrs Gupta" (3) That you dismissed the corrupt VOA investigation that found for the VOA miscreant, claiming her fraudulent acts were done withe "Best of Intentions"? That you fraudulently claimed you could not see any evidence of "fraud or corruption".

(4) That you tried to ensnare us into a spurious survey and when we objected to this fraudulence of having to sign a form to 'to get out of your nonsense survey' you then;
(5) set upon us your belligerent retaliatory mob that forcibly tried to make us take part in this 'survey'? All this after we had told you WE WANTED NO PART OF IT?

These retaliatory evening phone-calls frightened my wife, who then worried about a 'knock on the door'? This belligerence was typical of your jack booting approach, trying to frighten us. You took offence because we were proceeding with our claims re public sector corruption.

You are an Autocrat who astonishingly has received Whitehall immunity within the Mother of Parliament. Thus allowing you to become a tyrannical manipulator who is not afraid to put the "boot in".

We view you as a "malevolent manipulative administrator" undemocratically protected by costly lawyers, whereas I, a war pensioner corruptly handled by your office cannot afford one. This demonstrates how crony-ism has superceded the rule of law!

Soldiers are putting their lives on the line to maintain a fraudulent parliamentary system. They don`t like the fact that democracy is going to pot!
What I find so painful as a war pensioner, is that I am so corruptly handled by an unlawful Omnipotent Autocrat.

Your office, so ridiculously created within a supposedly democratic parliament, is a blight on so many of us that fought and died for this democracy! In my youth (16) I helped fight the tyrant Adolph Hitler and his crew of despots, now in my worn out 80`s, suffering from the effects of cancer, I have to fight a tyrannical despotic Ombudsman. Its George Orwell all over again! Your Jackboot treatment is most revealing. Megalomania?
We ask, who allowed this deceitful monstrous office to grow within Whitehall? certainly not war -vets who put their lives on the line for Democratic justice.

Yours sincerely
AW & I Tanner cc to all interested in corrupt public sector complaint procedures and Ombudsman inspired "frightening
evening phone-calls"?

Rt Hon Adam Ingram
Armed Forces Minister 30th June 2007
House of Commons SW!
www.psow,co.uk/awtannerpage.html
www.ombudsmanwatch.org

Dear Mr Ingram

Honorable soldiers v dishonourable Parliamentarians

Having written to you on previous occasions re the corrupt handling I received from the VOA and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I thought as a war pensioner I would have been given some helpful information. But No! Not one reply?
Many parliamentarians have turned a blind eye to Ombudsman deceits , are you interested/aware of these fraudulent acts against a war pensioner. Do you care?

Having complained about the cover-up culture and Ann Abraham`s input, she asked us to take part in a dubious Ombudsman Customer Satisfaction Survey? Considering we had been treated corruptly, the PO was disingenuous in using the word SATISFACTION! This was a fraudulent request by the PO.
Astoundingly we were asked to fill in a form? And, if we did not want to take part in this spurious survey it would be necessary for us to "sign out"? George Orwell? Big Brother?

Because we refused to comply, claiming we would not touch her dodgy survey with a barge -pole , she foisted upon us another PO abomination! We were harassed by 'evening phone-calls', asking us to take part in the PO's deceitful "satisfaction survey".

This Ombudsman RETALIATION frightened my wife! We protested - she indicated they "would not do it again" "that she had told them off" "that it was not her fault" With crocodile tears she apologised IF we had been inconvenienced or distressed? YOU COULD NOT MAKE IT UP!

Parliament has created a monstrous Ombudsman office run by a megalomaniac. This office should protect citizens against public sector deceits. Remember our crime _ I, a war pensioner dared to complain about public sector corruption?

Being a socialist Minister, you must be shocked by our disclosures that a severe autocrat has been created within our supposedly democratic Parliament.
Does Whitehall not have a safety-valve provision that allows the ousting of megalomaniacs abusing a supposedly democratic parliamentary office? The thrusting of so much power upon mere weak mortals is a recipe for disaster! Remember Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Pol Pot etc.
History tells us that power corrupts; especially where its misuse does not have to be accounted for?

Giving such free-wheeling power to any likely miscreant is a gigantic error!

I am sick of watching parliamentarians standing up with suitable solemnity when dead soldiers are mentioned in parliament; more so at the Cenotaph. They should hang their heads in shame!

The stupidity of sending ill-equipped soldiers into an un-winnable war shows Whitehall's gross contempt for our young men. Their phony 'gravitas' is no more than spin-laden cover-up for an undemocratic deceitful war!
Buts all`s well as another inspired cold comfort shrine is erected to placate the deaths of honourable young men and their grieving families! Yours sincerely AW & I Tanner 4 enc inc copyletter G Brown PM (27 June 07) cc everywhere

The continuing Whitehall's public sector 'old pals' protection racket:

The ICO Commissioner ..........................London N21 2PB
Mr Richard Thomas .................................August 3rd 2007
Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF
FS 50082420
Re: Valuation Office Agency

Re ICO's Decision Notice July 07. We are bewildered as to the governments extremely undemocratic well-honed costly defence of a public sector VOA miscreant who gave us so much angst! Her long-term belligerent errors indicated she was not a capable public servant -our interest was to keep her from abusing other members of the British public. The VOA's lack of accountability, allowed her to become an aggressive 'loose cannon' within the neglected and dysfunctional Southgate Office that had admitted 'serious deficiencies'!
The ICO's protective stance towards a fellow government agency, the discredited VOA, destroys the ICO's credibility in this supposed transparent investigation. We hoped for honest representation - from our experiences dealing with public sector 'investigations' - we should have known better!

We aim to disclose that the VOA were neither "open nor accountable". Our criticisms were honest and valid; our aim was to help publicise the blunders one sees within the public sector caused by incompetent staff. Their protection by costly lawyers against criticism/complaints does little to promote honest endeavour within the public sector.

Our criticisms were not malicious as the ICO want to indicate, but showed our concern as to the squalid level of public service one has to endure, along with a powerful cover-up culture that emerges when it is challenged.
The ICO falsely claimed the VOA as having 'Openness & Accountability'
The ICO's defence of the VOA is biased!

This was not an up-front government transparent investigation! It has gone out of its way with a spurious attempt to indicate that the corrupt VOA was, at the time, an HONEST ACCOUNTABLE BODY. This goes against all the evidence.

Such manipulation of the facts by the ICO destroys the validity of this Decision Notice that, while it falsely gives the VOA credibility, attempts to besmirch our integrity with innuendo!
We became wary of the ICO who once while investigating the VOA on our behalf, produced an obvious untrustworthy "old pals" gem. It claimed that the fraudulent VOA had made an "Honest Oversight" ? "Old pals act" indeed.

In making deceitful references to the "openness and accountability"
of the VOA, the ICO are again in denial of the facts! The indolent VOA Executive was ignorant of the way we were being corruptly handled by its belligerent 'loose cannon'! Our mutual exchanges at the time, (copies given to the press and parliamentarians) show the VOA as deceitful, dysfunctional and fraudulent in trying to cover up its errors once they had been caught out.

For instance, having asked for months for a report on our (VOA) appeal, we were informed (June 2003) a Mrs Gupta would be doing a report and would be in touch. We waited and waited; we wrote and wrote over many months for copies of this promised report. ALL OUR LETTERS WENT UNANSWERED? We saw no evidence of 'openness an accountability' at this time?

It took us 18 months to discover that Mrs Gupta played no part in our appeal? It meant our appeal had not been initiated - it had been throttled - almost at birth. Despite our continued request for a report of its whereabouts - the VOA remained silent. This lack of government accountability towards a complainant is fraudulent! The VOA was in denial of serious maladministration!
In the 18 months we wrote and awaited copies of the GUPTA REPORT, no one at the VOA informed us it was all a big lie.
Only after we had assiduously pointed out and complained to the VOA Executive, did they agree with us that the Southgate Office had "Serious Deficiencies"
The VOA Executive had been remote, with a serious lack of control of staff.

OUR APPEAL HAD BEEN KILLED OFF BY LONG DRAWN OUT NON - ATTENTION! Yet the ICO claimed the VOA was "open & accountable"?

The VOA feebly claimed that the corrupt invention of the Gupta Report was due to inner misinterpretation of "Agency Internal Jargon"? You could not make it up! 'Open & Accountable indeed. Even the Parliamentary Ombudsman attempted to give this ridiculous VOA cover-up excuse some weight in order to get her public sector colleagues 'off the hook'.

The VOA then held a deceitful 'investigation' that purposefully exonerated the 'loose cannons' belligerence against us; its fraudulent decision was that she had acted with the 'Best of Intentions'? A cover up culture lacking in openness!

Unethically the VOA once asked us to to Draw-a-Line under its corrupt acts against us, they being intent in hiding their deceits?

Our case needs to be studied by academics interested in cleaning up these public sector complaint cesspit's of denial!
The British publics loss of faith in parliament grows day by day. Citizens are becoming aware of the constant low integrity levels within government departments, many of whom are almost capsizing because of the continued lawyers style protection of staff.

The ICO in a veiled a attack on our honesty, made detrimental quotes from a 'previous case' (para 36) ......"that a complaint made against an employee may lead to assumptions being made about the employees competence? However the complaint may be unsubstantiated or malicious"? (our Question marks)
This is a dishonest denunciation and interpretation of our struggle against the public sectors cover-up culture.
We ask as to the validity of these quoted 'previous case decisions'? Because these 'old pals act' decisions would not hold water in a proper court of law! We ask just how valid are these public sector 'previous decisions' that have been quoted to smear our case? Because of our experience within the public sectors cover-up routine, we feel strongly that these 'quoted previous decisions' could well be tainted and biased against most complainants!

WE DO NOT THINK THIS UNDERHANDED PRACTISE OF QUOTING FROM PREVIOUS DODGY PUBLIC SECTOR DECISIONS SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLE.
It smacks of biased lawyers pulling 'porkies' out of a hat in order to protect, at any cost, their culpable government colleagues? Further to the ICO's previous 'unsubstantiated or malicious' quote' we would like to investigate its authenticity, its honesty? Could we have the evidence?

We feel the burden of facing powerful iron grip force-fed public sector chicanery, where lawyers are producing even more unwarranted 'pork pies' in defence of miscreants. Is the Mother of Parliament smelling the stench coming from this public sector protection racket?

WE ARE CONCERNED BY THIS UNJUST ICO's ROBUST DEFENCE OF THE VOA AND ITS EMPLOYEES FRAUDULENCE, despite her numerous errors we ask;
(1) is the ICO claiming the deceitful employee was competent?

(2) Why is the ICO deviously implying that our claims over many years against the VOA, may be 'unsubstantiated and malicious'? This is another attempted 'put-down' of our case by the ICO, who despite its claims to represent the FOI are behaving more like the oppressive Spanish Inquisition against our case?

(3) We have to suffer this intended smearing simply because we continue to reveal the public sectors corrupt acts. The ICO are in denial of all the relevant correspondence. THE VOA WERE FRAUDULENT!

(4) A Tribunal, after our first 16 months of struggle against this dysfunctional careless VOA, quashed the early VOA deceitful acts against us. There was no evidence of VOA 'openness & accountability' during this long 16 month session of severe VOA negligence and fraud? There was of course plenty of devious VOA manoeuvres against our case.
However, there was no evidence of the VOA's Accountability as the ICO deceitfully suggests?

(5) The ICO has belittled our cause by its gross abuse of its power in showing unworthy protection of its public sector colleagues, a sort of despotic public sector family nepotism that goes on and on ad infinitum.

To my wife and myself, its all a bit like being crushed by government self-serving bodies using illegal undemocratic bulldozing tactics in order to protect the retaliatory status quo!

To make matters worse, and no doubt trying to kill off our resolve, we have been invited by the ICO to appeal to another public sector inspired 'investigative body'. We feel we are approaching a Machiavellian water-torture epic.

The ICO must be confident that the public sectors crooked 'cover-up' culture, with its strangulation techniques against complainants is secure from parliamentary gaze, thus escaping an honest Lord Nolan type scrutiny!

AW& I Tanner cc PM Chancellor, Committees, Mp's media etc

Information Commissioners Office..............London N21
Wycliffe House
Wilmslow Cheshire
Mr Richard Thomas

Fraudulent Valuation Office Agency etc. Aug 18th 2007

Dear Commissioner

Re ICO letter 13/08/07, it is back-pedalling in regard to its deceitful 'old pals' pro VOA Decision Notice that was foisted upon us. We have suffered over 4 years of public sector complaints procedure deceit, its cover-up culture is never ending.
There may have been in the distant past a few politicians and government officials who 'did not' set out to deceive the public - but not anymore!
Parliament needs to close down this corrupt system concerning public sector 'investigations' that are too often deceitful and biased, protecting the status quo from from which many malfunctioning government departments are virtually collapsing from purposely hidden incompetence, fraud and corruption. Unfit for purpose indeed!

The ICO claims in our case, against all the evidence, that the VOA were 'open and accountable'? This corrupt 'entrenched system of the mind' allows ombudsman types etc. to systematically 'put down' citizens claims throughout the country. For over 4 years the public sectors fraudulent 'cover up brigade' have tried to dismantle our continued struggle against the corrupt VOA and one of its miscreant staff. And to think our boys are fighting and dying to protect this public sector cesspit!

We do not accept the (ICO) excuses in relation to its protecting the VOA's fraudulence, and its veiled attack on our integrity as insinuated in the Decision Notice! ICO insinuates our claims/struggle as being 'unsubstantiated or malicious' such deceit fits in nicely with the ICO's absurd protection of the VOA's corrupts antics against us.

As a war pensioner, a front-line soldier, I have suffered appalling neglect of my human rights resulting from numerous public sector investigative deceits. Those of us who put our lives on the line, did not build a haven for corrupt officials, who misusing their power, can attack our integrity in old age. We sense that the corrupt 'put down' of citizen complainants is regarded as fair game - a bit of a public sector wheeze - our letters go unanswered or astray - often to the wrong department?

Despite your evasive tactics this ICO Decision Notice is biased against our case. The ICO's attempt to claim the corrupt VOA as being "Open & Accountable" simply destroys the ICO's impartiality!
You and your lawyer friends should resign! The general milking of the gravy train at the expense of citizens human rights we feel is a matter for the EU Courts!

After some four and a half years of pursuing our case against the VOA, we have learned that deliberate deception/sleaze have obscured the fraudulent mechanics of the public sectors cover up culture. Such deception is rife, even the Parliamentary Ombudsman amongst others, abused us with deceits such as retaliatory 'corrupt evening phone-calls ' that frightened my wife!
AW & I Tanner cc media MPs etc.

Whistle Blowers

trevornunn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:58:48 CST

This is a page on which Local Government Ombudsmen whistle blowers can anonymously leave information.

If you would prefer to send your information by e-mail rather than publishing it here please click here.

Hello, is it me you're looking for? To protect my anonymity I won't say which office I work[ed] for or what position I hold/held . All I will say is that you are closer to the truth than you know. Don't blame all the staff because the problems stem from senior management's policy of trying to resolve a complaint for the benefit of their friends and ex colleagues in local government rather than investigating, exposing and putting a stop to ongoing maladministration for the benefit of complainants. Please don't try and track me down.

A Nonymous. PS You may or may not hear from me again.

Survey Petition

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:13:04 CDT

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to order the Commission for Local Administration (Local Government Ombudsmen) to conduct a fully independent survey.

During their recent 2007 stakeholder satisfaction survey, Local Government Ombudsmen excluded a large number of stakeholders from the survey sample group to increase perceived stakeholder satisfaction with their service. As a result stakeholders have now lost all confidence in the Local Government Ombudsman's ability to conduct an unbiased survey or produce accurate statistics without government intervention.

Please feel free to add, amend or comment

Comments

I don't think we should make it as wordy as the first petition. Short sharp and to the point may be better.

Chronology

shadowlgo — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:28:06 CDT

Please feel free to add any dates you think are important.

1810 Sweden appoint Lars Augustin Mannerheim the first ever Ombudsman to ensure that laws and statutes were observed by public authorities.Although there was no formal requirement for an Ombudsman to be a lawyer in practice all but Lars Augustin Mannerheim have had legal training.The most extreme recourse allows an Ombudsman to act as a special prosecutor and bring charges against the official for malfeasance or some other irregularity. This very rarely happens, but the mere awareness of this possibility means a great deal for the Ombudsmen's authority.

1941 Sweden rescind the rule that an Ombudsman must be a man. (Thus paving the way for people like Tony Redmond and Jerry White to become Ombudsmen.)

1957 The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen was also given the power to monitor local government authorities.

1967 Parliamentary Ombudsman introduced in the UK.

1974 Local Government Ombudsmen introduced in the UK.

1989 Local Government Ombudsmen empowered to issue advice on good administrative practice in local government.

1985 Patricia Thomas appointed English Local Government Ombudsman (York office).

1992 Formation of Ombudsman Watch (Wales) by Jim McBrearty.

1993 Edward Osmotherly appointed English Local Government Ombudsman (London office).

1995 Jerry White appointed English Local Government Ombudsman (Coventry office).

1995 Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield recommended abolition of Local Government Ombudsmen.

2001 Edward Osmotherly retires after 8 years as a Local Government Ombudsman (London office)

2001 Tony Redmond appointed English Local Government Ombudsman (London office).

2003 Local Government Ombudsman Watch (LGOWatch) website started.

2005 Mr & Mrs Balchins are awarded £200,000 compensation. They suffered 14 years of unnecessary injustice because a Local Government Ombudsman wrongly decided not to investigate their complaint.

2005 Select committee investigation into the Role and Effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman.

2005 Patricia Thomas retires after 20 years as an English Local Government Ombudsman (York office).

2006 Local Government Ombudsman Watchers public forum started.

2006 Public Service Ombudsman Watchers (PSOW) website started.

2007 Local Government Ombudsman Watchers start this wiki website.

2007 With retirement of Elwyn Moseley the office of Welsh Ombudsman is rebranded as Public Services Ombudsman (Wales)

2007 Local Government Ombudsmen produce another biased stakeholder survey.

20?? Local Government Ombudsmen abolished. They were replaced with a fair, open, honest and truly independent Tribunal whose decisions can be appealed and enforced. Ex local authority staff were excluded from being Tribunal members or officers. Findings of maladministration jumped from 1.6% to 50% in the first year, and two university departments offering Ombudsman studies were closed down.

Letter

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:48:40 CDT

This page has been set up for supporters to draft a letter to publicisepetitions.

Letter to Tony Blair

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:23:45 CDT

The Prime Minister June 7 2007
10 Downing Street
London SW1

Dear Prime Minister

During the time we have been writing to you regarding fraud and corruption within the public sector, further alarming evidence is coming out of Whitehall relating to the low-quality performance and chicanery as shown by governmental staff.
I have as a war pensioner, complaining about corruption, been "trampled on" by the severely undemocratic Parliamentary Ombudsman, who purposely overlooked the corruption handed out to us by the Valuation Office Agency - Treasury dept?

We now find our worries about this Whitehall "disease" are increasing, where the disintegration of government departments seems to be the norm. John Reid's disclosure showed how decrepit government departments can be, that this submerged cesspool of deceit has been successfully hidden away from the public by Whitehall bureaucrats and parliamentarians over many years.
We are talking here about long-term dysfunctional government departments and civil servants! Its never ending! The recent inept official blunder concerning the Gurkha VC shows much bureaucratic unworldliness.

We now learn that taxpayers are/were paying close to £50m a year to civil servants who are idle - not occupied with a job? Its estimated that at some time, over 600 staff across several ministerial departments in Whitehall were on the payroll - but did not work?
Such subversive mismanagement/maladministration would be aided and abetted by the entrenched cover-up culture to be found within the public sector lairs. This long term sleaze, where the very idea of giving the public an honest service becomes a dirty notion.
ALL THIS SUBVERSION OF PUBLIC DUTY BEING UPHELD BY THE POWERFUL OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE AND OTHERS PULLING STRINGS IN FAVOUR OF BUREAUCRATS,

One begins to see how a Machiavellian system of deceit came into existence. One sees how the discreditable Ombudsman ideal became twisted, deceiving honest citizen complainants in order to protect public sector miscreants. Such protection leads to a cesspit of public deceit - where plague-like bias eventually becomes the norm!
AND THATS WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY, with a severely incompetent and worse civil service and a bedraggled Mother of Parliament.

This entire charade goes on under the noses of elected Members of Parliament?

As indicated before such protection of government and local government staff has led over the years to an abysmal state of public service where sleaze has largely taken over. Untold thousands of citizens complaints against the public sector have, over the years been fobbed off by the Ombudsman system - this deceit against the public has helped to formulate much of the "inner squalor" that we find today within many government agencies and Local Authorities.

We find this "idle workforce" squalor within the public sector to be indicative of the overall predicament of having:
(1) a cover-up culture that keeps the appalling status quo.
(2) a lousy public sector workforce.
(3) a lousy incompetent management.
(4) political heads of departments who have over the years closed their eyes to such a morass of public sector incompetence etc. We claim that such acquiescence has allowed the formation of gross negligence of public duty that we suffer today.

WHO, WE ASK HAS THE POLITICAL BOTTLE TO CLEAN IT UP?

We are upset to learn that all the departments we approached

for help or advice; such as the Department of Constitutional affairs, now the Ministry of Justice had more than their fair share of 'idle loafers'. We were often told our complaint "had been noted". We replied that this soft soap contemptuous "brush off" was not good enough when public sector corruption was at stake!

More about civil servants and their lack of accountability; we have been waiting for some time for the ICO to sort out our Freedom of Information queries, we wondered what was holding things up?
We investigated and found the ICO were having staff "SICK NOTE" problems, where at one stage it seems there was something of an epidemic, so bad, that not enough people had turned up to count how many were off sick?

We are still awaiting an FOI answer to our problems and are sincerely hoping the public sectors "SICK NOTE SYNDROME" will soon pass! Hopefully forever!

We have another another public sector problem. and that is with the Chancellor of the Exchequers Valuation Office Agency that treated us with severe corruption/contempt. This agency amongst other fraudulent acts, corruptly invented phantom staff to deal with our problem, we later learned the 'phantom' did not exist - obviously our problem/appeal was never dealt with. This was severe corruption of duty, eventually protected to the hilt by the discredited VOA and the Ombudsman's office, this ritual being par for course.

In order to clear up our constant concerns about their corrupt acts, the VOA in order to placate/deceive us, erroneously claimed they would hold a "proper" investigation about our concerns. The VOA then declared that the member of its staff who had corruptly invented the "phantom", and who had acted fraudulently against us in other ways - had acted with the "Best of Intentions"?? Wow!

This was a corrupt decision by a government agency set to destabilise our honest democratic appeal against public sector corruption by telling even more "porkies"

The biased Parliamentary Ombudsman incidentally declared she saw no evidence of fraud or corruption on this "Deceitful Phantom Invention" etc. All part of the bureaucratic "OLD PALS ACT"!

One can see what a powerful influence such a dodgy ombudsman's decision can have on public morale - where fraudsters, liars and cheats are allowed to continue working within the public sector allowing a sub-culture of deceit to flourish!

This quagmire of deceit within Whitehall concerns us,. Furthermore this dishonest crew within the VOA is now being allowed to "INSPECT OUR HOMES"

We have claimed that the Chancellors "dodgy apparatchiks" are not trustworthy enough for such a delicate job?

IT IS SAID THEY HAVE SPENT THE LAST TWO YEARS SECRETLY TAKING SOME 1.4MILLION PHOTOS OF OUR SACRED PLACES!

One needs to be afraid that such information is in the hands of the VOA, a corrupt government agency that has shown itself to be devoid of honest public duty. That these same faceless untrustworthy Whitehall bureaucrats are to be allowed to KNOCK ON THE DOOR, push into our homes for an ever-closer government inspection - even checking our booze consumption? What next?

One can only be amazed at the political foresight of GEORGE ORWELL and his detestation of politicians and their cohorts, where critics of the fraudulent public sector like ourselves, can be "illegally leaned on" by the the Parliamentary Ombudsman. And Not One Parliamentarian Lifting A Finger?

As a war pensioner I can see the sincere honesty that one associated with the "Mother of Parliament" and the "Cenotaph" is being eroded away by parliamentary and public sector melt-down.

Prime Minister we have to repeat what we wrote to the Chancellor Mr Gordon Brown, "that there is NO democratic even-handed Whitehall machinery in existence to combat the blatant public sector complaint procedure deceit"
The Parliamentary Ombudsman's involvement is something of a democratic shameful nightmare! However we are determined to spread the word.

Lastly I want you to know that I, a war pensioner, have done 'my bit' for this country, feel that I, like many others, have been cheated out of our civil liberties etc by the constant cover-up culture. This includes the Ombudsman's deceit, bias and collusion along with a quagmire of numerous entrenched public sectors "old pals acts".

Yours sincerely

AW & I Tanner see; www.psow.co.uk/awtannerpage.html

Copies to all media, Gordon Brown, D Cameron MPs Parliamentary Committees Ms Harman Minister for Justice. Universities & student unions and many others interested in public sector and Whitehall corruption. Ombudsmanwatch, Daily politics etc (24)

Letter to Gordon Brown

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:05:13 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

TANNER June 2007

Anonymous — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:49:00 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Tanner

shadowlgo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:44:17 CDT

I have been complaining for some 4 years about the way we (my wife and I) have been corruptly handled by the Valuation Office Agency aided and abetted by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

I intend to post letters sent to Whitehall, often refering to the public sectors incompetence fraud and corruption, and to show to the public how civil servants are often protected by a well honed cover-up regime/industry!

Open LETTER TO GORDON BROWN 25th May 07

I have recently written to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, indicating that I considered myself to be a whistle-blower in relation to the public sectors corrupt complaint procedures, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman's cover-up involvement with the corrupt VOA.

We have found that the Ombudsman's protection of public sector staff is merely protecting the abominable status quo, namely a pathetic workforce. I am reminded of the respected Dept. of Economics, Bristol University, who wrote of the public sectors "Poorly qualified workers". No wonder John Reid found them 'unfit for purpose'!

Such unqualified protection by ombudsman and others allows the continuing proliferation of severe incompetents that eventually leads to a severe dysfunction of public service as found within the Home Office. Gross humiliation to all Brits!

The same blind ombudsman protection of incompetent staff was given to your very own VOA, the same staff incidentally that you want to push into our homes to snoop around! I would suggest they be unqualified to address the British public in an honest manner? We have evidence of their fraudulent behaviour.

Despite your departments reluctance to take note of these corrupt acts (we received no answers) it will be well aware of the corrupt handling of my case by your VOA. Your staff will be aware that I am a war pensioner lately trampled on by corrupt ombudsman insidious retaliatory evening telephone calls etc.

As a very young man I volunteered to fight Adolph Hitler and his decrepit political crew. Only to find that now, as a war pensioner in my eighties, suffering the effects of cancer; I have to fight an overwhelmingly powerful undemocratic Ombudsman and her decrepit crew, in order to disclose much public sector corruption! We are also suffering a long "hanging out to dry routine" by the FOI squad, who in one mad "old pals" collusive moment claimed the VOA had made an "HONEST OVERSIGHT"?

Is this how old soldiers of the realm should be treated? Like other veterans and front-line soldiers I put my life on the line!
Is this what's in store for our present front-line men? Will they be kicked onto an undemocratic dung-heap of a political complaints system created by the Parliamentary Ombudsman's self-protective skulduggery?
I have a strong attachment to front-line soldiers - I remember asking that war pensions be raised, meagre war pensions at the time made life difficult.

The point of going on about soldiers is quite simple; It must be terribly frustrating and embarrassing for them to know that while they are fighting to install democracy in Iraq - putting their lives at risk - British MPs and others are desperately trying to scupper the democratic Freedom Of Information Act?
Are the gallant efforts of our armed-forces fighting for democracy going to be forgotten/enmeshed within Whitehall's political gobbledygook, where people-power (that includes soldiers) has been knowingly usurped by an "artful dodger" style Ombudsman service. Mistaken political prerogatives indeed!

Today, my wife and I are saddled with a corrupt ombudsman decision that has denied us our human rights! I find it difficult to square up the situation where one fights for ones country and then becomes subjected to public sector corruption!

We have strenuously struggled to to inform parliamentarians and others supposedly interested in checking fraud and corruption within the parliamentary system. The most obvious answer one comes up with is this: "That the entrenched cover-up culture within the public sector complaints procedure, is apparently approved by parliament!
The Ombudsman and her misplaced prerogative powers have to end - she and her office are a disgrace to parliament. Another system is needed - but it must be divorced from any further political or local government chicanery!

We have in our old age, been determined to fight hard against the fraudulent public sector complaint procedures - our eyes have been opened to even more governmental deceits, where we have come to realise, with some dread, the power of the pubic sectors Machiavellian collusive cover-up system
WE HAVE WORKED HARD TO SHOW HOW DECREPIT MUCH OF IT IS

We have contacted over many years, the Prime Minister and you as Chancellor of the Exchequer on numerous occasions, also the Lord Chancellor re FOI problem, various Committees such as the Public Administrative Commttee that appeared peeved we should feel so critical of the fraudulent ombudsman service? Also the Committee for Standards in Public Life who, without any investigation of the facts, fell over backwards in declaring for the Ombudsman; blindly claiming that she( Ann Abraham) would have come to her decision only after studying our case?

Is this what cronyism is all about? Standards in Public Life indeed?

We constantly informed the Common Constitutional Affairs Committee, also The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Adam Ingram MP, We were at one stage even fobbed off to the Communities and Local Government Agency. What?
There was even a Whitehall farce where our letters were sent astray?

We also contacted other joined-up democratic bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Justice, Liberty, Democratic Audit, Universities and many Student Unions. Also newspapers such as The Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail. The Independent and the BB Cs Daily Politics. All aware of public sector corruption!

It's nice to see the concern for our soldiers on active service. Every week parliamentarians are making all the correct sad responses to the latest dead soldiers and their families. It would be nice to think that their sacrifices ensured a clean democratic public sector within Whitehall, where the corrupt ombudsman system as we know it can be outlawed! Parliamentarians have known for some time that the Ombudsman only holds office "During Good Behaviour" Why no action taken?

Yours sincerely

AW & I Tanner cc to all interested in governmental corruption!

Open letters

shadowlgo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:43:16 CDT

This section has been added to allow members of the public to publish their open letters.

As long as your open letters have something to do with Public Service Ombudsmen then this is the place to publish them.

Instructions: (It may be easier if you print these instruction for future reference.)

Click on add new page. (You should find that on the right [bottom of the page toolbox].)

This first page is going to be the first of your personal pages on this site.

Firstly you need to give your new page a name (You can call the page anything you want but it may be easier for people to navigate if you use your name. (Example: Smith)

After that you can add/edit information to the page you have just created. (You can upload pictures if you wish and also link to other websites or web pages). If you are only going to publish one letter you could also add this on you first page, however, if you intend adding numerous open letters then it would be easier to navigate if you add extra sub pages. If that is the case why not use the first page to tell people about yourself and the background to the open letters about Public Service Ombudsmen.

When you are ready just click on save (above) to save your page. Don't worry to much at this stage because you can add or edit your page at any time. All you need is access to the Internet.

Once you have your initial page set up it's easy to add extra sub pages to it.

Visit your home page and click on add new page. (Again you could call your page anything you want but it may make it easier to navigate if you hint at the page content in the title. Example: Letter to Brown 01/06/07)

Then all you need to do is copy and past your letter or other documents and save the page.

Use the controls at the top to format and layout your letter. (These are the same as most word processor functions.)

You can then visit any of your pages at any time and make any changes you want.

Don't forget to use different fonts and sizes for emphasis (Pictures also break up the monotony of a page full of text.]

And Wetpaint have just added a colour option.

Always remember you can edit or change anything at any time.

Views and Opinions

shadowlgo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:37:24 CDT

About Public Service Ombudsmen in general.

Each Ombudsman has their own page for more specific information.

All three current English Ombudsmen are ex local authority Chief Executive Officers, they spent most, if not all, their adult working life in local government and as a result are die hard local government aficionados.

Jerry White - Anne Seex - Tony Redmond

Having ex local authority Chief Executive Officers as Ombudsmen is akin to having convicted criminals as judges. That may explain why the current Local Government Ombudsmen find less than half as much maladministration as Ann Abraham the Parliamentary Ombudsmen.

Following devolution The Scottish and Welsh Local Government Ombudsmen are now known as
Public Service Ombudsmen.

Alice Brown - Adam Peat

The English Local Government Ombudsmen and Parliamentary Ombudsman are also about to be renamed

Public Service Ombudsmen

As a result we are also include the current Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham.

Ann Abraham

A quote from Adam Peat Public Sector Ombudsman for Wales

' I think that it is commonplace that corruption breeds best where you have a small group of people in charge of an organisation for a very long time indeed'.

Adam, does that include Ombudsmen?

Have you got what it takes to be a Local Government (Public Service) Ombudsman?

Take this simple on line test.

Questions

shadowlgo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:32:15 CDT

Please feel free to add/edit a question or provide an answer.

1) Why are Local Government Ombudsmen functionally incompetent?

Because most of the investigators just haven't got the skills necessary to do the job.

2) What can we do about persistently unreasonable Local Government Ombudsmen?

We don't have to do anything, they are doing it for us.

3) Why are Local Government Ombudsman always biased in favour of local authorities?

Local Authorities have the money and muscle to take the Ombudsman on, the poor old complainant hasn't. No contest.

4) Should local authority chief executive officers be able to get a job as a Local Government Ombudsman?

No, the current Ombudsmen prove the point.

5) Why are Local Government Ombudsmen unaccountable?

They couldn't function as they do if they were accountable.

6) Why are Local Government Ombudsmen not required to have recent legal experience.

Because most Chief Executive Officers don't have any.

7) Why is a Local Government Ombudsman's decision so hard to understand and so difficult for them to justify?

Because they view an investigation as a means of proving what they have already decided rather than reaching a decision after they have fully investigated.

petition 2

shadowlgo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:26:30 CDT

This page has been added to allow supporters to develop additional petitions

Petition number one is now up and running (ends 10th October 2007). What we need to do now is start developing more petitions so they can quickly follow on from the first one. (Or even run concurrently?) Obviously some of them will have to take into account the Government's response to the first petition but that doesn't stop us making preparations.

Some of the issues that we could address in additional petitions are, Please add your thoughts to the list below.

No ex authority staff to hold a senior position within the Local Government Ombudsman's office.
Local settlements to be agreed between all parties.
When maladministration is found it should be reported as such even if the case is settled.
All evidence and documentation to be made available to both parties.
The rules of natural justice need to be observed.
Findings of the Local Government Ombudsman should be open to a proper appeal and not limited to a judicial review.
All remedies should be legally enforceable.
Punitive damages should be available for serious offences.
Local Authority Legal Advisers to owe duty of care to both Ombudsman and complainant.
Local Authority to be required to carry insurance for its legal advisers and not self insure.
Ombudsman to be required to identify officer negligence and/or misfeasance as forming part of maladministration and to provide route to compensation.
Review of adoption of European Convention of Human Rights by both Local Government Ombudsman and Local Authorities to be initiated by Human Rights Commission (to be formed for England and Wales Oct 2007). Performance Indicator to be included in Audit Commission 'tool kit'.
Determination if Secretary of State and Local Government meet their ECHR Article 13 Obligations due to existence of Local Government Ombudsman.
Head of Paid Service as defined by LGHA, 1989 to be made personally responsible for all decisions reached by a local authority based on provision of flawed legal advice by a local authority solicitor (contract and/or direct employee) and for all findings of maladministration and/or local settlements.
Removal of MP filter to Parliamentary Ombudsman - to identify that elected politicians do not control the executive, and bring national government into line with local government.
Mrs T to be nominated for an honour for bringing the issues raised by the Local Government Ombudsman to the attention of Downing Street.

Please add or amend the suggested wording for petition number 2 below

Please add or amend the suggested wording for petition number 3 below

Please add or amend the suggested wording for petition number 4 below

Please add or amend the suggested wording for petition number 4 below

E petition

shadowlgo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:25:41 CDT

The petition is now on-line.
Please add your name to the petition now.

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

This page was about Local Government Ombudsman Watchers submitting a petition/petitions to the Government.

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

Anyone can submit a petition to the above website. This page has been set up to allow everyone and anyone to help get the wording right for one or more Ombudsman Watcher's petitions.

Suggested petition wording:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to implement Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield's 1995 recommendations and abolish Local Government Ombudsmen.

Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield recommended abolition of the LGO because they were an unnecessary institution whose work could best be carried out by other bodies. His report was subverted by the interference of the then LGO and its allies. Since then the LGO has demonstrably failed to improve the system, and continues to exclude the public interest from their remit. Irrefutable evidence of its dishonesty and bias has been gathered by LGOWatch since 2003. The LGO is counter-productive to effective management in local government and a blight on the human rights of citizens looking to this publicly funded institution to act in good faith. On the rare occasions when it is found, the intervention of the LGO tends to entrench maladministration rather than put a stop to it. The continuance of this office is not in the public interest.

The petition has now been submitted to the e-gov petition website.
All petitions have to be verified and the process can take up to 5 working days.

This page has now been locked. Thomas

Home

shadowlgo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:22:50 CDT

Local Government
Ombudsman
Watchers
[Public Service Ombudsman Watchers (UK)]

(wiki website)

[ Wiki: A wiki allows a visitor to the site to edit the content of the site from their own computer. Visitors can also create new content and change the organization of existing content. The simplest wiki programs allow editing of text and hyperlinks only. More advanced wikis make it possible to add or change images, tables, and certain interactive components such as games.]

This site allows everyone to contribute information about UK Public Service Ombudsmen

If you want to get rid of deaf, dumb and blind Local Government Ombudsmen and replace them with an open and honest system then add your name to the LGO watchers e.gov petition now!

Click here

At the moment this home page is the only page that is locked and cannot be edited. Please check out the other sections from the Navigation sidebar (top left). You can add to or edit any of these.

You can start a new section, a new page to an existing section, add or edit information already on an existing page or just leave a comment. Hopefully the site will develop into a useful resource for anyone interested in Public Service Ombudsmen. You can even add images or videos if you want to enhance your contribution.

It will help people navigate the site and find the information they want if you start a new section and/or page to introduce a brand new topic. Just click on 'add new page' in the left hand sidebar from the section you want to add the page to. A few sections have been added to start people off. To add a new section click on 'add new page' from the this one.

Don't forget even a small piece of information about Public Service Ombudsmen may be very useful to others.

Let's build a website by Ombudsman Watchers for Ombudsman Watchers.

Please keep your additions factual and please don't use inappropriate or offensive language.

Local Government Ombudsmen - What are they good for?

Letter to Tony Blair May 17th 07

Anonymous — Wed, 30 May 2007 14:52:29 CDT

The Prime Ministers Office May 17th 2007
10 Downing Street London SW1

Dear Prime Minister

I thank you very much for your thanks on receiving my recent letter to Richard Thomas, Informatiom Commissioners Office. I consider myself a whistleblower!

The FOI Act was inspirational, something that looked like opening up the door to UK democracy. However, in retrospect one can now see how the idea of 'democratic freedom' is frightening Whitehall - especially politicians? I'm afraid for the FOI.

An active FOI act might have meant that numerous 'unfit for purpose' civil servants could have been shunted into permanent 'gardening leave'
Such a much needed breakthrough would have helped free-up much citizens revulsion at the public sectors monolithic self-protection racket, where severe fraudulent incompetents are guaranteed a 'free ride for life' with gold plated pensions!

Is there a 'gong' that could be awarded to whistleblowers who endeavour to open up public sector corruption and incompetence etc? A tin one would do shaped like a sheriffs badge - I would wear one with pride! Imprisoned whistleblowers deserve their own memorial - like the Cenotaph - imprisoned for disclosing deceit!

It is said that whistleblowers complaining about the public sector are normally heroes, who because of revulsion of what they have discovered, become determined to disclose fraud , corruption and severe incompetence - a sort of free public service!

I myself became embroiled mugged, set upon by government agency corruption. Their corrupt acts, helped along by the ombudsman, made me realise that we live in an age of eroded civil liberties.

As you know, I have been trampled on by the Parliamentary Ombudsman who was protecting the status quo - and who seems to have been appointed by the Queen.

I wish I could have foreseen this when I was a front-line soldier. I would have become an immediate conscientious objector. "I'm sorry Sergeant I cannot go on, I can see into the future where In old age, I'm being corruptly targeted by a despotic Ombudsman whose revenge evening telephone calls are frightening my wife"
"Corporal "Shoot this man for disobeying an order in the front -line"!

Fighting for democracy should give a special lift to the soul - a sort of pride! However, having faced a soul destroying corrupt governmental public sector complaints system, one realises fighting/dying for democracy has been in vain. Was fighting/dying for ones country nothing more than pure political schmaltz/deceit?
Surely we aren't destined to be governed by unelected corrupt officials like ombudsman forever?

I have previously mentioned my outrage as I stood at the Cenotaph trying to equate honourable dead soldiers with dishonourable Nazi style civil servants! Howzat?

Yours sincerely

AW & I Tanner cc R.Hon.G Brown MP Lord Falconer Committees ICO etc