Local Government Ombudsman Screws Up

Arguably not strictly down to NCC this but it is in connection with an NCC benefits decision so I think it is of interest.

Ask anybody who's had contact with them and they will tell you that the Local Government Ombudsman is a bag of shit. Even within the preposterously restricted boundaries they manage to set themselves for looking into complaints against councils they have a reputation for at best toothlessness and at worst outright bias. A true 'Watchpoodle' if you will.

It also turns out they are capable of being legally incompetent. On one of my random browsing sessions I found this decision on some complaints about Housing Benefit and DHP issues.

As far as the restricted boundaries I mention above are concerned, this paragraph on the DHP aspect sums it up nicely -

"The decision was based on the merits of the case. I am satisfied the Council carried out the correct process in deciding not to award a second DHP. It is not my role to comment on the merits of the decision itself."

Essentially, the Ombudsman is saying that as long as the procedure was followed, the fact that you may have been refused a DHP because of your penchant for wearing loud shirts in built up areas is none of their business. Yeah, you try explaining that too an ordinary Joe/Josie.

However more concerning is how the Ombudsman dealt with a complaint that NCC had wrongly suspended his benefit on two occasions. It kind of relates to those boundaries again -

"I did not investigate the complaint. Mr B complained that Mr B’s housing benefit was suspended on two occasions. He had the right to appeal to the social entitlement appeal tribunal over these decisions. I consider it would have been reasonable for him to exercise that right."

Oh dear. Can I refer m'learned friend to para 5 of the schedule to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regs

"5. No appeal shall lie against a decision under Part III of these Regulations of a relevant authority relating to–

(a) suspension of a payment of benefit or of a reduction;

..."

So, the Ombudsman refused to investigate an aspect of a complaint on the grounds that the complainant had a course of redress that he didn't, in fact, have at his disposal at all. That is a fundamental legal error and is totally unacceptable.

One wonders if this position was argued by NCC or whether the Ombudsman came up with it her/himself. If the former then NCC's HB staff need to have a word with themselves too (no change there) but either way, the Ombudsman's treatment of this complaint is way below standard.

A Response to my Formal Complaint

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I submitted (several) complaints to NCC about their rather silly legal letter they sent to me to try and stop me being a naughty boy.

It seems that it's third time lucky and not only that, the reply came from Jane Todd herself. There, I knew you'd be impressed by that. And here it is -

"Thank you for your letter of complaint dated 16 February 2010.

Having looked into the matter, I acknowledge that the Council received your original letter of complaint via our website on 20 December 2009 and also a reminder dated 5 February 2010. Unfortunately, the original letter was overlooked and the reminder was not forwarded to the relevant service area. I apologise for the fact that the Council did not acknowledge your correspondence and deal with your original complaint sooner.

I have now considered the contents of Jon Ludford-Thomas’ letter to you dated 17 December 2009 on behalf of the Council and which is copied in its entirety in your letter to Cllr Collins and me dated 16 February 2010.

I do not agree, as you state, that the sole intention of the letter was intimidation of you and an attempt to silence your criticism of the Council. I consider the letter was a legitimate request, politely made, by the Council, to remove from your website and not post further potentially distressing, personal, derogatory comments regarding certain councillors and employees of Nottingham City Council. It made no threat of legal action by either the Council or the individuals in question and did not seek to restrict you further other than desisting from making personal, derogatory comments. As such I cannot agree to your demand for an apology regarding the contents of the letter.

If you still feel that this decision is wrong you can have your case looked at independently. You can contact the Local Government Ombudsman and ask them to look into the details of your case. You can use the form I have enclosed otherwise the contact details for the Ombudsman are below..."

We haven't given the NCCLols Translation Service an airing for a while so I think this is an ideal opportunity. Here we go then -

"We threw away your earlier complaints. What did you expect?

And no we're not going to apologise. Instead we'll hide behind some nonsense fiction that we were acting in good faith. Nottingham City Council never apologises. Never. NEVER!!! Do you hear?

Here's the Ombudsman's details but only because we're obliged to give them to you, don't go thinking we're going soft."

What was I saying about it being a bit early for the 'Least Surprising News...' award?

The matter has already been sent to the Ombudsman so I'll have to update them with this most recent development. Can't say I'm over optimistic about them doing anything, in my experience the Ombudsman is less than keen to criticise Local Authorities when there's a nonsense fiction they can hide behind instead.