For the last few years public service ombudsmen have wanted the statutory power to work more closely together. The problem facing the present Government is how to integrate chalk and cheese.
The easiest issue for them to resolve is that of accountability, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is currently accountable whilst the Local Government Ombudsman still remains unaccountable; therefore, all they need to do is make the LGO accountable. If they had done that during 1974 they wouldn't now be faced the current problems. After all it was the Local Government Ombudsman's lack of accountability that has enabled Local Authorities to hijack the system over the last 20 years.
As a result this oversight the Government now have a number of more serious issues to resolve;
For example the Parliamentary Ombudsman currently finds maladministration in 67% of cases within their remit whilst the
Local Government Ombudsman find maladministration in only 28% of cases within their remit. Do the Government expect the Parliamentary Ombudsman to bury as much maladministration as the Local Government Ombudsman
or do they expect the Local Government Ombudsman to stop burying as much maladministration and fall into line with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Unless of course they want the public to believe that National Government
commits more than twice as much maladministration as Local Government.
Even that issue pales into insignificance when you compare the culture of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman. Read the Parliamentary Ombudsman's
press release about the six Principles of Good Administration
in which she urges public services and Government to get it right, be customer focused, and be open and accountable, acting fairly and proportionately, putting things right when they have gone wrong, and seeking continuous improvement. In fact a list of everything the Local Government Ombudsman doesn't do! More specific details about the six priclicples can be read
here.
However, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states "The Principles are statements of what I believe bodies within my jurisdiction should be doing to deliver a good service to the public. They provide a reference for good practice based on our experience of handling large numbers of complaints....... They reflect the sorts of tests that will be applied by the Ombudsman when determining whether or not maladministration or service failure has occurred."
So we now have the bizarre situation of the Parliamentary Ombudsman just about to merge with a body that she would have no alternative but to find guilty of maladministration if they were within her jurisdiction. Unless of course the Parliamentary Ombudsmen thinks that the Public Service Ombudsmen should be excluded from her 6 principles of good administrative practice!
Taking the Parliamentary Ombudsman's 6 principles one by one;
1) Be open and Accountable: It's public knowledge that the Local Government Ombudsman are not accountable but neither are they open. Just try asking them for a rationale behind their decisions, even their own staff are told not to be open and honest with complainants to reduce the number of people challenging their decisions.
2) Get it right: With 75% of complainants dissatisfied with the Local Government Ombudsman it would be difficult to present an argument suggesting that they were getting it right. In addition, how do they explain the anomaly between the amounts of maladministration they find as opposed to the Parliamentary Ombudsman? That alone is prima facia evidence that something has gone seriously wrong with the Local Government Ombudsman. In reality the Local Government Ombudsman has been getting it wrong for the last few years.
3) Be customer focused: Customers are less aware of the Local Government Ombudsman than they were a few years ago. Even their friend Dr Kirkham from the British and Irish Ombudsman's Association (BOIA) acknowledges the fact in his article. However, he fails to conclude that if the Local Government Ombudsmen spent less time focusing on the needs of their ex colleagues in Local Government and more time on a complainants needs they might start to get somewhere. Two of the maxims of marketing are, one dissatisfied customer persuades at least nine others not to do business with the organisation in question whilst a satisfied customer is the best ambassador an organisation could have.
4) Act fairly and proportionately: Local Government Ombudsmen do not act fairly or proportionately, they may assert they do but that's just spin (another dubious tactic they have introduced over the years), in reality they are heavily biased toward Local Authorities. The figures above prove that beyond a shadow of doubt.
5) Putting things right when they have gone wrong: Local Government Ombudsmen don't even like to admit they have got it wrong let alone do anything about it. One of their own staff is on record stating that they don't like to admit they make mistakes. Even when they are forced to correct a mistake they try and sweep it under the carpet and hide it from public scrutiny. [Now known as doing a Balchins.]
6) Seek continuous improvement: Local Government Ombudsmen have been on the slippery slope for the last twenty years. They have been too busy seeking more ways to stuff complainants and bury maladministration for their ex colleagues still in Local Government than seeking continual improvement for the benefit of everyone.
Local Government Ombudsmen have been in business for 32 years yet during 2006 some 40% of complaints submitted to them were not even within their remit to investigate (1974 Local Government Act Part III).
Just how many organisations do you know that have been in business for 32 years yet their potential customers don't even know what they can (or can't) do for them. It would appear that Local Government Ombudsmen have as much idea about marketing their service (raising public awareness) as they do about investigating complaints of maladministration, none at all! It's not rocket science after all, if this was a private sector business they would have been out of business years ago.
Unfortunately, it isn't so the poor old tax payer has to maintain this archaic and useless organisation to the tune of £11 million pounds a year.
The 2006 Local Government Ombudsman's annual report states that investigating complaints is their prime purpose yet during 2006 they only issued some 120 reports finding injustice caused through maladministration. That equates to about £92,000 per report, unless of course they are spending most of their budget on secondary issues, but If that's the case why are they spinning the line that investigating complaints is their prime purpose.
At least we are in for some exiting times as we watch the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Local Government Ombudsman trying to merge cultures. Taking all things into consideration, as well as the fact that there are three Local Government Ombudsman to one Parliamentary Ombudsman, our money is on the Parliamentary Ombudsman losing and becoming just as rotten as the Local Government Ombudsmen. Then what will she do with her six principles?
It only takes one rotten apple in the barrel to start the process! How long before all the members of the British and Irish Ombudsman's Association (BIOA) become just as tainted? Let's face it they could have done something to distance themselves from the problem a long time ago but didn't, so much for their integrity as a professional association!
[Back to the top]
|
|
|
|