Rob Shorrock

I have always thought of the Local Government Ombudsman as an utter waste of space, tax payers money and time, as well as being an utterly misplaced in a democratic system. Not suprising really given it is staffed totally by former council officers. In fact all the key senior officials used to be senior officers in local government. Do you see the problem? There is no real independence. This lack of diversity is effectively failing the public when dealing with complaints related to maladministration as the LGO rarely finds for the complainant.

There are a number of cases you can read about here where councils have just refused to accept the LGO recommendations. For example, the LGO recommended £100,000 compensation for the family of Carly Wright, a young woman with profound disabilities whose needs were neglected by the council when she was due to transfer from children's services to those for adults.

There is also a trend beginning to emerge of councils just refusing to honour (and honour is the important idea here) LGO recommendations when maladministration is found. Cash strapped councils know the LGO is toothless and can not enforce its recommendations. For citizens who are forced by council complaints procedures to eventually go to the LGO they face a dim prospect of getting any justice. In fact the record of the LGO is dire. They find maladminstration in only about 1.6% of cases. This statistically demonstrates a bias in favour of the local authority that is scandalous.

Campaigners are calling for reforms to make the powers and rulings of the Ombusman mandatory. For me there is a fundemantal problem with the whole set up. Is it right that the LGO is the conduit for redress? Or should there be a better system enshrined in law and the constitutions of every local authority? More importantly, how do these issues that ostensibly emanate from a democratic process get a full hearing and a final settlement through the democratic process?

The current alternative to the LGO is just not feasible for the vast majority of people; the courts and surcharging of officers and councillors. However, effective and democratic systems of redress could be built into the system that are accessible and meaningful and reflect the democratic process:

• First, abolish the LGO. Use the £11+ million this saves to do the following:
• A request system in complaints procedure of the council that the issue is explored by elected members in the relevant committee. (Under the current system, more often than not, many complaints never get seen by a representative cross-section of members)
• Trigger petitions would enable full debates at committee or full council meetings which would allow the citizen and their legal representatives to make the case, question and cross examine officers before decision. Similar to the planning committee process.
• A legal fund is established though a percentage of council tax and a grant from the above for independent legal advice and representation.
• An independent panel (on a jury system) is set up by the Dept of Local Government and Communities that will consider the evidence and make binding decisions on local authorities.