|
An account of Public
Sector Complaints Procedures.
We are complaining about the corrupt way the Valuation Office
Agency handled a banding appeal. After 3 years of protesting to
them and pointing out their various fraudulent acts, they finally
admitted (2005) their organisation had "serious deficiencies" They
were somewhat understating the case.
From March 2003 the VOA was negligent, slipshod and aggressive.
Without any evidence/investigation they immediately took up a
belligerent stance against us.
The VOA's Mrs K wrote that our appeal was 'out of time' too late?
This was a lie. We contested this VOA decision and after waiting
six weeks for a reply, we realised we were being treated with
contempt. We complained about their incompetence in not answering
our letters. We had waited long enough and asked for a 'report'
(April 03). Mrs K replied (June 2003), that a Mrs Gupta
would be investigating our case, she would do a 'report' and would
be in touch. ( It was not until some 2 years later did we
discover that Mrs Gupta was never ever involved in our case).
Mrs Gupta had been fraudulently manufactured. She was a corrupt
VOA/Ms K invention. We as taxpaying 'clients' were being corruptly
handled!
(When we pushed this (2003) lie home in (2006), the Ombudsman in
her efforts to protect the VOA and at the same time trying to
destabilise our case, concocted a further lie by issuing a
statement, I quote; "They said (VOA) that 'report' was 'Agency
internal jargon' and conveyed to Mr and Mrs Tanner the impression
that they would receive a report.) The Ombudsman was claiming (3
years after the event) that the word "report" did not mean
"report" but something different like "internal office jargon". We
can prove this is a Complaint Procedures lie! The Ombudsman's
office was trying to play down the corrupt long term "Mrs Gupta
lie" in order to protect her public sector colleagues. The
Ombudsman wrote in her Parliamentary Ombudsman Report that 'she
saw no evidence of fraud or corruption'. She had closed her eyes
to the corrupt 'Gupta' invention!
WE HAVE EVIDENCE IN OUR POSSESSION THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR A REPORT
IN APRIL 2003. THE VOA/MS.K THEN RESPONDED TO OUR REQUEST AND IN
JUNE 2003, THE VOA/MS.K WROTE IN REPLY, "I HAVE READ AND NOTED
YOUR REMARKS, AND A REPORT HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS OFFICE. THE
REPORT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO MRS GUPTA".
( Mrs Gupta of course did NOT EXIST as far as our case was
concerned). (One is appalled that the Ombudsman supports this
public sector abomination by inventing 'porkies' to defend such an
indefensible case of public sector corruption!) We touch on
this Ombudsman deceit later on.
Ms K also claimed our appeal was invalid? Another lie! (16 months
later a Tribunal found that the Listing Officer, (Mrs K) should
have granted our appeal as valid?)
During this time however, (not realising the 'Gupta Report' was a
gross VOA lie) we found ourselves asking for copies of the non
existent Gupta report for many months Yet no one within the VOA
revealed to us this "Gupta report" was all a charade. The VOA was
hiding another of Mrs K's blunders? We were being treated to the
VOA's self-protective cover-up routine. We felt they were happy to
keep us quiet by telling lies and treating us with further
contempt.
Because we were persistent in following up our appeal, we were
appalled when Mrs K then sent us Notice of Withdrawal Forms and
asked us to sign them and return same, this was asking us to
withdraw our appeal. We would not sign, but that did not stop her
issuing more forms. More contempt!
She had made errors yet was asking us to withdraw? We viewed her
actions as being despotic, and felt we were being harassed by the
issuing of these forms. We had to write to the VOA asking them to
stop sending us these oppressive Withdrawal Forms.
By this time it became clear to us that it was not any more an
issue of our simple tax appeal to the VOA. It had by now, turned
into a more serious matter concerning the corrupt way our appeal
was being handled by the VOA!
My wife once rang Mrs K informing her I was hospitalised and
having an immediate operation and would not be attending a VTS
Tribunal the next day. Her immediate response was to inform my
wife that our appeal was 'invalid' and could I fax her as to why I
would not be attending the said Tribunal?. She was a very uncivil
servant.
We both appeared before a VTS Tribunal, I put my case and Mrs K
opposed it. The Tribunal found in our favour that the Listing
officer (Mrs K) should have allowed our appeal as being valid.
It had taken us 16 wasted months to nail this lie! However the
VOA then stunned us by claiming (30 Nov 2005) "that we would have
to repeat the whole process" We were in shock, we were worried
about the possibility of even more VOA chicanery.
Unfortunately at this time I was due to undergo 7 weeks of
radiotherapy for cancer. The worry of the cancer, the treatment
and the continuing struggle against the VOA and the complaint
procedures was all too much.
We decided that under these stressful conditions we had to abandon
our appeal to the Tribunal as the next hearing dates clashed with
my cancer therapy.
We decided however we would continue to fight the 'corrupt
handling of our appeal!
At one stage the VOA said they did not think the actions taken
against us were deliberate? We thought this was a peculiar thing
to say, because Mrs K's actions against us were particularly
belligerent? She was too consistent in her acts against us to be
thought of as anything else, other than deliberate - too many VOA
errors to be thought of as 'accidents'. Also Ms K was not a
newcomer learning the job, so to speak, but a mature Listing
Officer who knew what she was doing - she knew the ropes.
Because of her aggression, we asked the VOA if 'other customers'
had complained about her actions, we were told in as many words
that she was untouchable and free from scrutiny - even from the
FOI act. We contacted the FOI agency for this information - our
letters went unanswered - this is still ongoing. (Sept 2006)
Because of our continuing complaints the VOA once told us they
were holding an 'internal investigation'. Its verdict was that our
main protagonist (Mrs K) had acted with the 'Best of
Intentions'. We protested strongly that this was a shameful
whitewash by the VOA 'investigator' and claimed she was too loyal,
too attached, too accommodating of her office colleague Mrs K etc.
The 'investigator' then did an about face and wrote that "Mrs
K's professional conduct and behaviour towards you and your wife
whilst handling your council tax affairs were less than
satisfactory"!!!
We were dumfounded that the VOA would have set up such a
diabolical cover-up investigation in the first instance? At a
later stage we asked the Ombudsman as to who was responsible for
setting-up this appalling VOA whitewashing deceit - no answer. We
realised then, that deceiving the public was part and parcel of
the VOA make-up.
Undeterred by their first 'dodgy' investigative verdict to deceive
us, the VOA then suggested that the Adjudicator could
'investigate' our case, but would use the insular VOA 'rule book'
as an agenda. We felt this was another ruse that would avoid much
needed transparency. This new proposed VOA 'narrow agenda' would
be completely undemocratic and would further affect our civil
liberties etc? We refused to become embroiled in a further VOA
investigative ambush?
The VOA had been caught out lying to us - and because we chased up
their lies - they tried at every twist and turn, with varying
deceits, to stop us going forward with our disclosures? Later, to
protect themselves even further, they wrote asking us to draw a
line under what had gone on. We felt betrayed by such public
sector arrogance. We ourselves have gone through life with honest
endeavour. To be asked to take part in a VOA cover-up for this
dysfunctional corrupt public sector regime that had gone out of
its way to make life difficult for us was pure governmental moral
decay.
Our belief is that such a self-protective request from a
governmental aggressor to a client/victim is beyond all ethical
reasoning in relation to natural justice. The degree of blasi
self-protectionism within this agency is alarming? We learned over
the years about the VOA agency's severe inner squalor.
We have been through the Parliamentary Ombudsman's procedure and
in reply to its final Report summary stated that we were shocked
they had not used the words 'corrupt' or 'fraudulent'
within the Ombudsman report? We pointed out other salient facts
that were omitted within the report, and suggested the lack of
punitive action was at the core of the problem. They offered us
£75, we refused it.
We claimed, that only when such fraudulent/corrupt governmental
Agencies are hit hard financially and their management made
accountable, will such management sit up and take note of their
departments 'loose cannons' and the abysmal public service they
proffer? The Parliamentary Ombudsman's ability to 'soft soap' such
fraud and corruption within its report, is a form of acquiescence
to what had gone on within this self- protective Valuation Office
Agency.
We have now entered into our 4th year (March 03 - Aug 06), we
wrote to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, about our
protest/struggles against the various Complaint Procedures. That
from start to finish we found, that they were more user friendly
towards the VOA and its civil servants, and somewhat weighted
against the honest complaining client. We now view these complaint
procedures as a sort of entrapment for any unwary complainant?
Thinking we had done with the VOA fiasco and the complaints
procedures by receiving the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Report, we
were shocked to learn from the Information Commissioners Office
that we should go return to the VOA. The ICO for some unknown
reason claimed 'we had not exhausted all the VOA investigative
channels open to us re: the FOI Act.' We had been combating
the VOA for over 3 years. We ask how had we not exhausted all the
channels? Although we thought this directive was wrong, and
wondered if we were being "hung out to dry", we had no
alternative but to pursue the old question "had others complained
about Mrs K"
We therefore asked the VOA again for information under the FOIA.
We had first asked for this information in Feb 2005. We could
not understand why the ICO was not pursuing these VOA avenues
themselves! Having waited for some time for a positive reply
from the VOA, we learned that the Commons Constitution Affairs
Committee was criticising government departments for holding up
FOIA information by excessive red tape. We wrote to the
CCAC explaining we had been waiting some months for a FOIA
decision from the VOA.
We informed the VOA about the CCAC condemnations and also quoted
Lord Falconer's statement when formulating the FOIA, he referred
to it "as making information publicly accessible". "a presumption
of openness" bringing "greater accountability and a radical change
between citizen and government". We then claimed of the VOA
Executive Officer: " You as a civil servant obviously disagree
with the Lord Chancellor". This at last brought a response
Having finished the procedures with the VOA and having received
the Ombudsman Report, we felt our problems were somewhat eased.
During this time we had been in touch with the ICO re; Ms K.
The ICO however, confounded us by claiming the VOA had made an
"honest oversight" in withholding the FOI information. Here
was evidence of one public sector agency trying to protect
another.
We told the ICO in no uncertain terms that we had suffered from
too many VOA 'oversights' over the last 3 years. We let the
ICO know we were unhappy with its Ombudsman style "slap on
wrist judgement" designed to placate the VOA's 'serious errors
and worse'. We further claimed that the ICO had shown a
remarkable lack of jurisprudence in giving what we considered
to be unworthy friendly considerations towards our protagonists
the VOA. After all it was us who asked the ICO to investigate the
deceitful VOA's handling of our case?
We have been overwhelmed by this entrenched public sector cover-up
culture - we want the public to be made aware of what we see as,
the entrenched self-protective public sector cover-up industry as
afforded to civil servants.
On the 10th July 2006 the VOA gave us a long legal account as to
why they were not able to provide us with the information we
sought through the FOIAct re Mrs K. We replied amongst other
criticisms that: "It is a crime that this government agency,
guilty of fraudulent acts against a complaining client, can
protect itself from public scrutiny by engineering and enmeshing
itself in a costly legalised defensive barbed-wire entanglement".
Such a gold plated "Al Caponish style" public sector protection
racket, is an inducement for loose cannons to free-wheel out of
control" etc. we added.. "This powerful legal protection that
you have en-massed is unwarranted, considering your supposed duty,
is first above all else, to provide a public service and not a
Machiavellian employee fortress" etc.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman had given us a 'soft soap' decision
re; the ICO's neglect in answering our letters etc. We had
occasion to write two severely critical letters to her in June
2006. In one of these letters, in frustration at the cover-up
culture we had encountered, we claimed; "the public deserved its
own style of Ombudsman service, that had no affiliations with the
public sector" etc.
We must have annoyed the Ombudsman Ann Abraham, who foisted upon
us ANOTHER un-called for Ombudsman Report (July 06). She was
trying to destabilise us, crush our case with 'porkies' we
asked why do we have to endure another Ombudsman Report - is
this not breaking the rules? We had not asked our MP to initiate
another Ombudsman report! (The proper procedure!) We had to
explain to her that we had already received an authentic Ombudsman
Report in March 2006, the Ombudsman James Barker concluded his
report as follows.."I do not see that there is anything
further the Ombudsman's continuing intervention could do for you".
The real reason for this latest report from Ann Abraham was that
she tried to destabilise our case by "manufacturing" evidence.
She was trying to claim that the word report as used in
2003 was internal jargon and did not mean report at all! We
claimed she had invented the "internal jargon excuse" and that
this excuse had a dodgy public sector ring about it. We can
prove she is wrong!
However, we claimed that her 'internal jargon lie' had only
been invented in (2006) as an excuse, and been gleefully taken up
by the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Office with great relish, to
undermine our case against the VOA. (see our letter 30th July
2006) It is interesting to note that no other investigator
throughout the years had picked up on this "office jargon wheeze"
circa 2003?
In her latest un-called for Ombudsman's Report, Ann Abraham was
dismissive of all our claims against the VOA. She wrote "I have
seen no evidence that the Agency Enfield staff were fraudulent or
corrupt". We quote just one piece of fraudulent/corrupt action
she turns a blind eye to. It concerns the 'VOA's corrupt Gupta
report': In 2003 we asked for a report concerning our appeal.
In response to our asking for this report Mrs K informed us (4
June 2003) " the report has been allocated to Mrs Gupta. Once
Mrs Gupta has finished her research on your property, she will
write to you".
In 2003 we asked several times for a copy of the Gupta report. For
instance on the 12th Aug 2003, I wrote to Mrs K and asked: "Since
June I am awaiting a promised report from Mrs Gupta - what has
happened to her?" We wrote again and again over many months - the
VOA was showing us further contempt by refusing to answer our
letters? We realised they were covering up for the blundering Ms
K. The scale of contempt shown towards amounts to corruption!
(1) What makes matters even worse is, it was not until some 2
years later did we discover that Mrs Gupta had not been involved
with our case - never ever? The Ombudsman is dismissive of this
corrupt contempt towards us!
(2) We had been deceived by this fraudulent/corrupt VOA claim that
Mrs Gupta was doing a report?
(3) The VOA had hidden this fraudulent information from us.
(4) They had belittled us by allowing us to rather stupidly
continue to ask for copies of this non-existent report over many
months, without "letting on" it was all a corrupt/fraudulent VOA/Mrs.K
stunt! We believe this is corruption of duty! We were humiliated
when we discovered we were asking for copies of a report that did
not exist.
Despite all this severe VOA maladministration /fraudulent deceit,
we are seriously dismayed at the Ombudsman's unjust protective
stance of the VOA's actions against us.
We had received an authentic Parliamentary Ombudsman's Report in
March 2006 from a Mr James Barker, he concluded his report as
follows, "I do not see that there is anything further the
Ombudsman's continuing intervention could do for you".
4 MONTHS LATER, BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO INTERVENE AND SUBJECT US
TO FABRICATIONS - THE OMBUDSMAN FALSELY CLAIMED THAT MR BARKERS
AUTHENTIC REPORT WAS A MERE 'DRAFT'!
THE REASON THE OMBUDSMAN CREATED ANOTHER 'REPORT' WAS THAT IT
ENABLED HER TO DECEITFULLY CIRCUMNAVIGATE THE VOA'S "MRS GUPTA'S
REPORT LIE".
The only way the Ombudsman could do that, was by usurping Mr
Baker's report and claiming it was only a "draft". This enabled
her to write another devious attacking Ombudsman Report containing
the dreaded Ombudsman "porkies"
The Ombudsman had by SUBTERFUGE invented the "Internal Jargon
lie", hoping to get the VOA off the hook.
We repeat the Ombudsman claim: "SHE HAS SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
AGENCY'S ENFIELD OFFICE OR ITS STAFF WERE FRAUDULENT OR
CORRUPT"???? We have claimed this Ombudsman is not fit for office!
Whilst an honest Ombudsman service is much needed, ours has fallen
by the wayside, it lacks full commitment to honesty, lacks
integrity and impartiality.
The Home Office, Immigration Service, Inland Revenue, Local
Council, Police etc., all have more than their fair share of
severe incompetents, fraud and corruption. Ombudsman by and large
pays lip service to these gross public sector maladministration.
This severe lack of public duty enables the fruition of an
enormous dung-heap of rotten public sector verbiage, allowed by
the Ombudsman's intransigence to over-spill, choke and at times
deliberately submerge much transparency and democracy within the
public sector. It is an insidious situation that gives much
protection to, and allows many individuals and departments to
become lawless and play god. The Ombudsman's infamous "slap on
wrist" judgement often lets public service miscreants 'off the
hook' allowing them to continue in office.
There appears to be a substantial thread of injudicious deceit and
worse flowing through the public sector complaint procedures.
Scandalous stories involving numerous government departments
continue to arise, showing them as either corrupt, fraudulent,
severely incompetent or indeed a combination of all three.
Such a rotten lawless dung - heap for instance, allows barbaric
acts to be perpetrated, where unlawful Social Workers falsely
accuse innocent families of satanic abuse etc. Innocent children
are taken away with the unlawful backing of our police force.
Social Workers are only too aware, that under this historic public
sector cover-up system they and the police are virtually
untouchable.
The immoral manipulation within the public sector never seems to
end. When innocent parents, who have suffered the trauma of having
their children taken away from them, decide to complain, it is not
unknown that upstart council officers, abusing their power,
instruct their legal departments (who comply without a murmur) to
issue and threaten these innocent parents with unlawful "gagging
orders". Such public sector 'thuggery' goes unpunished.
We can only view these gross public sector barbaric criminal
actions against innocent members of the public, as also being
crimes against the state! Its quite immoral that such iniquities
are funded by tax-paying complainants.
We feel that years of 'jackbooting' hundreds of thousands of
complainants into touch by various complaint procedure deceits and
Ombudsman manipulations, is a danger to public order and a threat
to the survival of the state! These gross entrenched actions, by
these "couldn't care less" perpetrators of fraudulent Complaints
Procedures; we feel is tantamount to sedition.
The public needs an Ombudsman type service devoid of public
sector affiliations.
AW Tanner (Jim)
[Back to the top]
|