|
My response to
the Local Government Ombudsman's provisional view
August 2007
Dear Mr. White,
Thank you for your letter of 16/07/07. My comments are given below and
make reference to the LGO Good Administrative Practice guidance Axioms
and running a complaints system.
Complaint against WCC: I have not seen the report from Mrs Johnson and
request a copy of this and my original complaint forms and
accompanying letters to yourself which were not included in my
returned file.
Provisional View: I am obviously disappointed
that you consider the investigation should be discontinued and comment
below on the relevant points. I also consider that your assessment
does not fully reflect the various aspects of the 2 parts my
complaint, particularly the second, and comment accordingly.
Chronology:
7: a) The PSO (the officer) states he
considered the quotes to be excessive based on knowledge of over 100
other grants. The Council has only recently published information (it
is now late 2007) stating they have dealt with c.100 HMO
properties and my application was in the first tranche in 2005. His
statement cannot be true and is another example of a misleading
statement being made. This was part of my complaint and has not been
addressed in your letter. Ref Axiom 31
b) I also refute the statement that the
officer asked me to obtain a 4th estimate. He phoned me and told me he
had appointed another contractor to do so which is confirmed by his
letter to the contractor of 29/11/05. This is another misleading
statement. Ref Axiom 31
c) The reason for pursuing another quote
was because 2 of the contractors were not known to the Council. This
was stated in my letter of 29/3/06 and confirmed in the PSO’s letter
of 9/2/06 to my agent where he states " we have spoken on
several occasions reference why the local authority wishes to obtain
an independent estimate if we are unaware of the contractor
estimating". The issue of value for money was not raised until the
response letter of 20/4/07 from another officer and thus was
not the reason for seeking the 4th quote. Indeed if that had been
raised, I would not have made the complaint I did. This aspect of my
complaint has not been addressed by the council or yourself and is
obviously crucial. Ref Axioms 4 and 35
9: I cannot comment on the additional figures
as I have no means of comparison. I have also provided a further quote
for the actual property from a council selected contractor of £3625
exc electrics (£5779 if my lowest electric quote is added). In
addition, if cost was the issue, the council could have insisted on
the cheapest electrical quote being used, saving £874/quote –15%.
I also reiterate that I have subsequently provided information on 4
other properties for which grants have been awarded which show similar
comparable figures to my own (These were all from the same
contractor - 1 of my original 3 quoters) These figures were
obviously assessed and accepted as value for money. This shows an
inconsistent means of determining the grant level resulting in
injustice. It appears fairness and consistency could only be achieved
if the contractor quoted on all properties without entering
them. Ref Axioms 4, 12 and 37
10: a) You state the quote from the
contractor made no mention that they did not enter the property
and hence the officer could not have been aware of this. I assume you
are suggesting if he was aware of this he should have taken account of
it. I refer to the letter of 26/1 /06 in your own Pt 12, which shows
he was made aware of this before the grant notice was issued. Ref
Axiom 12
11: This is minor and had obviously been
resolved prior to writing to you.
13: This has obviously been addressed prior to
writing you and I have appreciated the changes the Council have
subsequently made for future applicants. I note the Agenda item 7,
Housing Assistance Policy, in the latest information from the Council,
which states, "The contractors name will be part of the approval and
the ability to change will be strictly controlled".
14: The explanation is disingenuous. At the
subsequent visit carpets were lifted near the door in the hall, as
could have been done initially, and the presence of tenants caused no
such problem in my other property. I have provided other examples of
such misleading statements and this aspect has not been addressed. Ref
Axiom 31, 35
15:a) The aspect of the grant limit was
resolved prior to my complaint to you and thus was not part of my LGO
complaint. I do not consider that the aspects of my complaint of the
level of this grant award raised in my letter to Mrs. Hedley of
30/12/06 have been adequately addressed.
b) The means of calculating this award were
different and information had not been provided to provide
transparency, much of what was available only being provided on your
involvement. Further information has now been provided following the
interview and after a delay of over 1 year from the meeting of 9/6/06
at which the Council agreed to provide it. This is a complaint in its
own right of failure to provide information and has not been
addressed. Ref Axiom 35
c) This latest information shows errors in
the process, which have not been identified. As I have not been given
the opportunity to comment I will do so here. The grant award is based
on the officer’s own calculations given in a sheet of estimated
expenses and a file note. The Council have also provided figures
previously on aspects for this calculation. The errors are:
- The allowance for floor boarding is indeterminately/inaccurately
calculated (see d)
- The total does not include an amount for upgrading 2 loft hatches
although the officer required this. This has been specified on other
properties and a figure of £100 +vat allowed /hatch (see quotes
provided)
- the allowance for doors is less than the estimate breakdown provided
by the Council
- the estimate breakdown for doors does not include a cost for locks
required by the officer
- the figures allowed for several of the items are consistently less
than allowed for in all the other quotes provided. The figures
obviously do not include any fitting costs and 1 item is at less than
the item cost as provided by the Council.
I therefore consider that the way this grant has been calculated is
inaccurate, incomplete and unjust. This aspect has not been addressed.
Ref Axiom 4, 9, 12, 35
d) A figure of£681+vat is given in the
estimated expense. A file note is now provided giving an estimate for
the first floor measured to be 35m2 at £7.00 then £245 +vat. The
actual area that was boarded is c48m2, an underestimate of 27%.
Costings for floor boarding previously provided by the Council stated
the figure used as £8-9 /m2 +vat, average sized room 12m2 and £108
/room. This latter calculation is in itself incorrect -I calculate
£120 @ £8.50/m2. The information provided is again contradictory and
inaccurate. Ref Axiom 4,9,12,22
e) The estimated expense total including
the £681, gives a total figure of £4748=vat=£5578.9 at 50% the grant
should be £2789.45, not the £2389.36 awarded. If the alternative
figure of £245 is used, the total should be £4312 +vat=£5066.6 at 50%
= £2533.3, again less than the figure awarded.
17:a) I note your view that obtaining a 4th
quote was not "utterly unreasonable" and that some discrepancies
cannot be explained. I consider this assessment does not address all
the aspects and evidence raised as follows.
Sequence of events and see 7c):
- 21/09/05 schedule produced naming the contractor as
contractor
- 29/11/05 the contractor instructed to prepare quote
- 12/12/05 my 3 quotes submitted
- ?? /12/ 05 SR informed 2/3 quotes unacceptable as unknown
contractors
- 09/02/06 unknown contractors confirmed in writing as reason for 4th
quote
- 29/03/06 SR complaint.
I do not consider the implications of the above, for which documented
evidence from the Council itself is available, have been addressed and
dismissal of evidence on the basis that the officer was unable to
explain it to be acceptable. I repeat that the above clearly shows the
reason for obtaining a 4th quote was not value for money which was
only raised subsequently in the Council’s response in April, some 4
months later. Ref Axiom 4, 25, 35
b) The councils procedures (Housing
Assistance Policy App C and recent Agenda item 7) and the procurement
code states "place an order against the lowest of 3 quotations". A
requirement for 4 quotes is not required till a contract value of
£25000. The procedures make no reference to officers pursuing courses
of action taken in these cases. This aspect has not been addressed.
Ref Axiom 4, 7, 9, 25
19: a) You state "I do not consider it is
inherently flawed for the Council to accept a quote from a contractor
who has not entered the property if the schedule of works is
sufficiently detailed" and give items included. You reference a plan
which is not to scale and list some specific items but not the major
points I raised previously ie "The full extent of the works are not
apparent from the outside of a property as the Council has stated, and
given the schedule issued which gives no reference to room sizes,
landing and corridor areas involved, door frames that require
modification, loft hatches that are to be boarded, etc." I do not
accept the schedule was sufficiently detailed to allow a reliable
quote to be made without a visit to the property. The point that the
quote was ultimately at the contractors risk is irrelevant in
determining whether work is fairly costed. Ref Axiom 4, 12
b) You state, "The Council’s role is to
assess the work has been fairly costed". I do not consider this has
been done in either case. The quote from the contractor is c.
1/3 below the average of the other quotes. This fact and the knowledge
that the contractor had not visited the property and the limitations
of the schedule, should have raised concerns over the validity of this
quote. Ref Axiom 12
20: I cannot comment on these figures, as I
have no means of determining comparability. I refer you to the
attached table, which shows direct comparisons with other grants
awarded.(All from 1 contractor).
22: I note that yet further explanations are
now given regarding "acceptability of contractors" and that this again
is at odds with information provided by the Council eg the procedures
provided to Mrs Hedley and where another officer states they
had spoken to the contractor to update the level of cover,
thereby belying the statements made here by the PSO. This concern was
raised in Pt m) of my letter of 30/12/06. Your view that you see no
reason for the council to check indemnity insurance does not address
the aspect I raised of why different criteria applied to different
contractors and if a contractor failed to meet criteria why was he
accepted and not removed from the list as the officer stated he would
be. This is a further example of Pt k: "consistency regarding reasons"
and covers several of the top 10 causes of maladministration given in
my letter of 30/12/06. This has not been addressed. Ref Axiom 4, 6, 7,
9, 31, 35, 36
23: I agree it is reasonable for the officer
to consult a professional and act on his advise. I do not, however,
consider this adequately represents and addresses the several points
of my complaint as was reiterated on P5 Pt4 of my letter of 30/12/06.
a) My original enquiry on this matter
related to policies and procedures and has never been answered. The
subsequent responses from the Council have resulted in this matter
being include in my complaint as stated in my letter of 30/12/06: " I
have proven the PSO has made inaccurate statements, implying that I
was lying, I (and I am not alone in this) and the company concerned
have been put to avoidable trouble in visiting the properties and
obtaining quotes for works stated to be acceptable then not accepted.
Further causes of maladministration and injustice". This has not been
addressed. Ref Axiom 31, 33, 35
b) In the file note recently provided the
PSO writes "I stated that this was accepted by ourselves in that the
client can meet the means of escape by alternative methods ie painting
the doors…" This confirms what I was told and belies the information
provided by the Chief Executive in his letter of 25/10/06
("officers are adamant this is not an acceptable treatment within HMO
properties"). Ref Axiom 31,35
24: I do not consider this information
adequately the seriousness of this aspect of my complaint. The
information regarding safety concerns, and 2 other issues, was
requested by the Chief Executive at our meeting so that he
could investigate the matters. In passing the information directly to
the officer complained of, he breached my confidence and trust . That
of itself amounts to maladministration. In my complaint I suggested
that this action had effectively gagged the source, which appears to
have happened as the source stated he had no complaints. Obviously he
would not have agreed to me raising the issue with the Chief
Executive in the first instance if he did not have concerns,
which are a lot wider and more serious than what other councils do.
You state it was reasonable for the Chief Executive to talk
to him about the allegations in order to investigate them, with which
I agree. The point is that there were no allegations at this stage and
as a result of the actions none were available and an investigation
could not therefore be made. My complaint was that this matter was not
handled appropriately for issues of public safety. The other aspects
raised appear not to have been investigated further either. Other
aspects, which also raised concerns of public safety, were raised by
the Councillor at her meeting with the Council of 24/4/06 and have
never been acknowledged and addressed. Ref Axiom 12, 22, 25
25: This matter was obviously resolved prior
to my complaint to you.
26: This matter is a trivial point and was not
part of my complaint. It arose in passing as the Chief Executive had
stated in his letter of 2/10/06 that the property requires a mandatory
license, which was not correct and had been agreed as such with his
staff.
Conclusions
27:a) You accept the Councils statement that a 4th quote
was obtained as previous quotes were considered excessive which I
dispute as above.
b) You state I had the opportunity to use
this contractor to save money. I refute this entirely.
The contractor has failed to provide me with a quote, or allow the
Council to provide it. I thus have no means of establishing a contract
with this contractor. In addition following information provided by
the officer in his letter of 17/07/06, I contacted the contractor's
subcontractor to obtain a quote and was referred back to the
contractor. A total of 6 phone calls and an e-mail failed to
produce a reply. I repeat there is no way I had the opportunity to use
this contractor.
28: I accept your comment regarding the
delays. I do not however accept that your comments adequately cover
the following aspects of my complaint with this property.
a) The means of calculating the grant award
at my 2nd property is different to that of my first property
and appears now to be based on the officer’s own calculations. This
means of determining a grant is not included in the Councils
procedures as before and thus does not meet Axiom 4, 6, 7, 9, 37.
b) Production of quotes being the stated
procedure, I have provided other quotes from Council approved
contractors, which were higher than those submitted, and I have shown
the quote from my contractor (the only 1 of the 3 known to the
council) is comparable to others that have been accepted by the
Council. There seems no justification for the approach taken. The
council is inconsistent in its means of determining grant awards with
the result I am being treated unjustly. Ref Axiom 4, 12, 37
c) Regardless of the above, the
calculations made are inaccurate and incomplete and hence unjust. Ref
Axioms 9,12, 31, 35.
Outstanding points regarding my complaints which have not
been addressed in your letter
a) At this point I feel it relevant to
state that the initiation of my original complaint concerned the way
the council handled my grant application and has only subsequently
concerned the level of grant. It was a matter I should have considered
could have been dealt with comparatively easily with the information I
requested. The awful mess that has resulted not only in my 2nd
complaint to the council but my complaint to you has arisen due to the
way the council has handled this matter by failing to provide
information, address relevant matters, contradicting itself, providing
misleading incorrect and inaccurate statements, etc. Thus in my
complaint to you I raised the points on the form at b) and c)
concerning the way the complaint was handled and various discrepancies
and actions. These are a major part of my complaint and the most
concerning and I do not feel have been adequately addressed in your
investigation and letter.
b) I have provided much evidence previously
as in my letter of 30/12/06, and with further examples here,
demonstrating obfuscation, provision of mis-information and ongoing
production of new/irrelevant information that has occurred throughout
this case. Indeed, I have provided evidence of staff making several
untrue statements that have not been acknowledged or apparently
investigated. These aspects have not been addressed in your letter
although they appear to be contrary to several Axioms of Good Practice
and published causes of maladministration. I include exerts from my
letter of 30/12/06 again here.
Re letter from another officer of 27/10/06 and
subsequent enclosures.
a) & c) re " countrywide standard": this information is completely
contrary to that given by the Chief Executive at our meeting
and stated in his letter of 25/10/06 that there are no nationally
agreed standard nor even a common approach within Worcestershire. Who
is speaking the truth?
Re " criteria for joining this list": the Procedure for Accepting a
New Contractor is now provided as evidence of this. The existence of
criteria was referred to by another officer in his letter of
20/04/06, but not provided, and the same person then denied its
existence at the meeting of 9/06
i): I refute the claims that the meeting was at the instigation of
and chaired by the Councillor. I provide a copy of her e-mail of
26/04/06 that shows the meeting was at the Councils request and indeed
she did not even expect to be part of the meeting. In addition she has
provided a letter (enclosed) regarding her role and stating Council
staff chaired the meeting. The email of 15/8/06 is not "some notes
with actions agreed" as a result of the meeting, it was a response
from the Chief Executive to my email of 28/07/06 to him
stating I have not yet received satisfactory resolution to my
complaint. I consider that this shows that the Council executives have
again provided mis-information, which covers the fact they did not
keep adequate records of their meeting, nor undertake actions agreed
at the meeting, some of which are outstanding even now. I also
consider these actions show contempt for a democratically elected
representative, as well as myself, a further injustice in this case.
k): "consistency regarding reasons.."
Ref Axiom 4, 6, 7, 9, 31, 33
c) In my letter of
30/12/02, under b) 1., I question the status of the approved list and
show that it was effectively only possible to use 1 contractor as all
others appear unacceptable to the council for various reasons. This
aspect has not been addressed. Ref Axiom 4, 37
d) In my letter my letter of 30/12/06 I
objected to the council discrediting my information as below
"access was never made available": I resent this accusation deeply.
Access was provided to my 2nd property but, as stated
previously regarding my 1st property, I referred the
contractor to my agent who repeatedly contacted the contractor to
arrange access and who never replied. This is evidenced by his letter
to the contractor of 29/11/05 and his letter to the
officer of 26/1/06. I find these repeated attempts to discredit
my evidence insulting and unjust.
This has not been addressed. Other examples of this can be seen in the
documents. Ref Axiom 31, 33
e) On my complaint form to you I raised at
c), discrepancies in council communications, action, adherence to
procedures and I note that you state that your role includes looking
at Council procedures. Your letter makes no reference to this aspect
of my complaint and the document I prepared on "procedural
discrepancies". This gives many examples that Council staff are not
aware of and/or not following procedures and that staff have
consistently failed to respond to these points relating to policies
and procedures. Ref Axiom 4, 6, 7, 9, 26
f) On my complaint form to you I raised at
b) the inadequate handling of my complaint. This aspect has not been
addressed in your letter. In my letter of 30/12/06 under Outstanding
points.1 I give instances of the Chief Executive's failure to
adequately address my complaint and refer to other document supporting
this. The information provided shows failure to conduct an impartial
investigation and consulting his staff only and failing to pursue
factual inaccuracies and sources of verification available. Ref Axiom
12, 21, 22, 31, 35 and also Running a complaints system eg 20, 23, 40,
Appx 1 (2, 9, 15, 19, 21)
I trust
my comments provided, and the information referred to, will enable you
to reconsider and address my complaint in full. In addition to your
own published top 10 causes of maladministration given previously, I
consider the LGO Good Administrative Practice and the Axioms given in
that applicable in this case. I consider Axioms 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 21,
22, 26, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37 have all been breached at various
points and request your views on these.
In view of the points I have raised in this letter identifying that
many aspects of my complaint have not been addressed, crucial factual
evidence has been dismissed whereas resolved/ trivial points have been
included, I advise that I intend to use this letter as the basis of a
formal complaint to the Deputy Ombudsman. I am also aware of the grave
concerns of the LGO Watch campaign and intend to keep them informed of my
case and reserve the right to pursue matters in the House of Commons.
[Back to the top]
|
The Local Government Ombudsman's final decision letter
(My comments in black italics)
September 2007
Dear Me,
Complaint against Worcester City Council
Thank you for your letter of 18 August 2007. I
have enclosed copies of the complaint forms and letters you have sent.
You say that you would like to see a copy of the report from Mrs
Johnson. I have not referred to a report from Mrs Johnson in my letter
of 16 July 2007 and there is no such report on file, so I am not able
to send you a copy. (Mrs Johnson said she would be
producing one, so, if not, why did she visit and what did he use to
write his letters! I consider this withholding information)
Before I consider the issues you have raised in
response to my provisional view of 16 July 2007, I need to explain
that it is not my role to carry out a substitute housing grant
assessment. My role is not to substitute my judgement for that of the
Council’s professional officers. (The figures and
information were provided to show the officer's failures in the
process of generating the assessment of my 2nd grant as Mr White wrote
he investigated the way decisions were taken. What does he do?)
Your response to numbered paragraphs in my
provisional view
Points 7a, 9, 10a, 14, 15a to e, 19 a and b, 23 a
and b and 28 a, b and c of your letter of 18 August 2007 relate to the
officer’s professional judgement on the level of the grant. (They
do not!)
I accept that you disagree with the
level of grant you have been awarded. But, I have found no evidence of
administrative error in the way in which the officer reached his
professional judgement about the level of the grant payable, based on
the estimates from the contractor. So I do not intend to
pursue these points further. (These points do not
all relate to judgement on the level of grant -he is either wrong or
ignores the issues raised in these points completely. They include
giving misleading information, inconsistencies, not considering
relevant information, contradictions, inaccuracies, adequacy of
decisions - all related to the relevant Axioms from the LGO guidance
on Good Administrative Practice. The lack of understanding or perhaps
dismissal of evidence is unbelievable.)
(Nowhere does he mention the failure of the
officer's addition, contradictory and inaccurate calculations)
I understand from points 7a, 17 and 27 that you
disagree with the reasons given by the officer at interview for
obtaining the fourth quote. I accept that this is frustrating for you
and that the discrepancies cannot be explained. The property standards
officer’s letter of 9 February 2006 to your agent says that ‘the
authority wishes to obtain an independent estimate if the Council is
unaware of the contractors estimating’. However, I do not believe that
this is totally at odds with the officer’s explanation at interview
that he requested another quote due to the level of the three quotes
you obtained. I can understand that the officer had more than one
reason for requesting another quote and that receiving (in his
opinion) high quotes from companies he had not heard of would be valid
reasons for him to seek a fourth. (He again misses
the points raised big time and completely whitewashes the serious
implications that the officers actions at least showed a
predetermination to use this contractor. In previous correspondence,
with all the justifying evidence, I had written , "This again raises
the issue of a preferred contractor and construal of information
issued to bring about use of this contractor only.." To dismiss such
evidence as frustrating and that discrepancies cant be explained shows
a total failure to competently investigate the case in a full and
unbiased way. This is obviously the crux of the case and all the
subsequent gumpf has arisen as obfuscation, misinformation, ducking
and diving by all concerned to cover this up and avoid addressing the
central issue.)
I would also point out that in his letter of 17
July 2006 the officer advised you to consider obtaining further
estimates. (He ignores the fact I had done, these
were higher still and that unknown contractors were rejected) Clearly,
that was an opportunity to reduce the costs closer to the contractor's
estimate; and of course, accepting the contractor's estimate
remained open to you. (He
ignores my inability to obtain this estimate or have any
correspondence with the contractor, suspicious in its own right).
I note your comments on paragraph 22 about the
level of liability covered offered by the contractor. However, as you
did not use the contractor to carry out the work I do not
believe that the level of insurance cover it provided has caused you
an injustice. So, I do not intend to pursue this point. (He
again ignores and conveniently misconstrues the point - or perhaps he
cant see it? - that this is about different acceptance criteria being
applied to different contractors to the advantage of this particular
contractor, of course)
I have also noted your comments on paragraph 24.
However for the reasons given in my provisional view I find no
maladministration on this matter and do not intend to pursue it
further. ( Yet again the point had
been misconstrued and trivialised to an absurd degree in his
provisional response. My concerns about the Chief Executive
mishandling information on matters of public safety was
degenerated
to it being reasonable for the him to to talk to the officer
concerned, even though this resulted in the gagging of a source of
expert information.)
Outstanding points
I note the comments you have made in points a, b
and c, and that you believe several untrue statements have been made.
But I do not consider that you have been caused any outstanding
injustice from these matters to warrant pursuing them. (Does
anyone have any idea of what a pursuable injustice is?) I
note your dissatisfaction surrounding the approved list of
contractors. It is clear that there has been some confusion
surrounding the status of the list but the Council has now stated
clearly that the list is advisory and I accept this is the case. I do
not agree that it was only effectively possible to use one contractor
as you have provided examples of quotes in respect of properties from
several different contractors that have also been accepted. (This
is completely untrue. All the accepted quotes provided were from 1
contractor who was rejected for my application. Nowhere does he
address the issue that directly comparable quotes from my contractor
were accepted and grants awarded to other applicants.
His comprehension of the information provided is pitiful, or
deliberately misconstrued ?)
I note that there was confusion between you, your
agent the contractor and the Council over access for the
contractor to your property and that you disagree that access was
never made available. But, I do not conclude that this can, in
itself, have caused injustice to you, given the subsequent events. (All
the evidence and points raised have again been fudged as a confusion
and dismissed as not causing an injustice. The information obviously
showed this could not be a realistic quote but was regardless used to
determine the level of grant awarded).
(And what about the 2nd
property??? The one where the officer did his own "calculations"
- not even a mention. I don' t consider from this reply that he is
even aware that there were 2 separate complaints, even though they
were submitted separately and this had been pointed out previously.
Yet again the level of comprehension and understanding appears
despicable - even when it has been laid out point by point and all the
relevant letters/documents/ information etc has been referred to to
make it as easy and clear as possible).
I understand that you were dissatisfied with the
Council’s investigation of your complaint. This was the reason you
referred your complaint to me. (How simple can you
get? -perhaps the reasons for complaining should be looked at, I even
pointed out the failures to follow the LGO document on running a
complaint system with no comment! What is it for?) I have
now investigated the administrative errors you claim caused you an
injustice. I have found no evidence of administrative error that has
caused you injustice which the Council has not already remedied.
(Just what are administrative errors then? If not
following the LGO's own guidance to councils on Good Administrative
Practice with a the list of all the Axioms breached , what are? and
why doesn't it even merit a mention anywhere in his letters? And what
is injustice? Causing financial loss obviously doesn't count, never
mind ?) There were delays by the Council in approving the
grant but its proposal to increase the grant payable to you to that
which you would have received if the delay had not occurred is a
satisfactory remedy to that delay. (He again raise
a minor point that was resolved prior to my complaint to him).
Accordingly, for the reasons given here and in my
letter of 16 July 2007 I will now discontinue my investigation.
The law requires me to inform the Council of the
decision on your complaint, and so I am sending a copy of this letter
to the Council’s Chief Executive. (I
think he should have a copy of my letter/s too as I doubt he is aware
of most of what was going on and can look - or not- at the evidence
himself. Mr White's letter gives no hint of the misinformation I and
the Chief Executive himself was supplied at times)
Yours sincerely
J R White
Local Government Ombudsman
( I could go on listing the
inadequacies of this reply, but you have the gist..!!!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Your
Perusal
Summary
from the LGO's Good
Administrative Practice guidance on good practice
The experience of the Ombudsmen in investigating allegations of
maladministration has built up a significant body of knowledge about
good and bad practice. This guidance note sets out some of the
important conclusions which can be drawn from the Ombudsmen ís
investigations and observations. The note is intended to assist
councils in the promotion of good administrative practice and the
achievement of high standards for their customers.
The note is not about any particular service. It is about good
administrative practice generally and is relevant to all services. The
document sets out 42 principles or axioms of good administration,
together with some explanatory comments and illustrations. The 42
axioms are grouped under eight headings and are:
The
Law
1.
Understand what the law requires the council to do and fulfil those requirements.
2.
Ensure that all staff working in any particular area of activity
understand and fulfil the legal requirements relevant to that area of
activity.
Policy
3.
Formulate policies which set out the general approach for each area
Policy of activity and the criteria which are used in decision making.
4.
Ensure that criteria are
clear and relevant and can be applied objectively so that decisions
are not made on an inconsistent ad hoc or subjective basis.
5.
Communicate relevant
policies and rules to customers.
6.
Ensure that all staff understand council policies relevant to their
area of work.
Decisions
7. Ensure that the council does what
its own policy or established practice requires.
8. Consider any special
circumstances of each case as well as the council's policy so as to
determine whether there are exceptional reasons which justify a
decision more favourable to the individual customer than what the
policy would normally provide.
9.
Ensure that decisions are not
taken which are inconsistent with established policies of the council
or other relevant plans or guidelines unless there are adequate and
relevant grounds for doing so.
10. Have regard to relevant codes
of practice and government circulars; and follow the advice contained
in them unless there are justifiable reasons not to do so.
11. Ensure that irrelevant
considerations are not taken into account in making a decision.
12. Ensure that adequate
consideration is given to all relevant and material factors
in making a decision..
13. Give proper consideration to the views of relevant parties in
making a decision.
14. Use the powers of the council only
for their proper purpose and not in order to achieve some other
purpose.
15. Ensure that decisions are not made
or action taken prematurely.
16. Give reasons for an adverse
decision and record them in writing for the customer concerned.
17. Ensure that any necessary
decisions or actions are taken as circumstances require and within a
reasonable time.
18. If a decision is being taken under
delegated powers, ensure that there is proper and sufficient authority
for this to be done and that use of delegated powers is appropriate in
the circumstances.
Action prior
to decision taking
19. Carry out a sufficient
investigation so as to establish all the relevant and material facts..
20. Seek appropriate specialist advice as necessary.
21. Consult any individuals or
organisations who might reasonably consider that they would be
adversely and significantly affected by a proposed action.
22. Detect major errors which
materially affect an issue under consideration.
23. Give adequate consideration to the
reasonable courses of action which are open to the council in any
particular circumstances.
24. Ensure that a committee is
provided with a report when circumstances require and that the report
is materially accurate and covers all the relevant points.
Administrative
processes
25. Ensure that the correct action is
taken both to implement decisions when they are made and generally in
the conduct of the council's business.
26. Have adequate systems and written procedures for staff to follow in
dealing with particular areas of activity.
27.
Have a system for ensuring proper
liaison and co-operation between different departments, different
sections of a department, or different areas in the authority.
28.
Compile and maintain adequate
records.
29. Monitor progress and carry out
regular appraisals of how an issue or problem is being dealt with.
30. Seek to resolve difficulties or
disagreements by negotiations in the first instance but take formal
action when it is clear that informal attempts at resolution are not
working.
Customer
relations
31
.Avoid making misleading or
inaccurate statements to customers.
32. Formulate undertakings with care
and discharge any responsibilities towards customers which arise from
them..
33. Reply to letters and other enquiries and do so courteously and
within a reasonable period; and have a system for ensuring that
appropriate action is taken on every occasion.
34.
Keep customers regularly informed
about the progress of matters which are of concern to them.
35. Provide adequate and accurate
information, explanation and advice to customers on issues of concern
to them.
Impartiality and fairness
36. Ensure that the body taking a
decision on a formal appeal from a Impartiality and fairness
dissatisfied customer does not include any person previously concerned
with the case or who has a personal or otherwise significant interest
in the outcome.
37. Avoid unfair discrimination
against particular individuals, groups or sections of society.
38. Maintain a proper balance between
any adverse effects which a decision may have on the rights or
interests of individuals and the purpose which the council is
pursuing.
39.
Where an individual is adversely
affected by a decision, or the decision is otherwise one which the
individual potentially might wish to challenge, inform him or her of
any rights of appeal or avenues for pursuing a complaint.
40. Ensure that members and officers
are fully aware of the requirements for declaring an interest where
appropriate and the reasons for doing so.
Complaints
41.
Have a simple, well-publicised complaints system and operate it
effectively.
42.
Take remedial action when faults are identified, both to provide
redress for the individuals concerned and to prevent recurrence of the
problem in the future.
To read the document in full please click
here
To read the document you may need Adobe Reader. You can download it
here
[Back
to the top]
|