R Ellis to Anne Seex, LGO, 31st March 2008

Dear Mrs. Seex.

The public perception of the whole raison d'être of the Ombudsman's Office is that it is to protect the public against the excesses practiced by public servants who misuse or abuse their powers. Your Mrs. [Investigator] appears to believe the exact opposite.

I was not surprised by Mrs. [Investigator]'s refusal to investigate my complaints about Sefton Council (letter dated 17/03/2008). From my very first contact with her attitude has been to act as defender and advocate on their behalf.

I give some examples. (1) In her letter dated 18/02/2008 she quotes the Council as claiming that I refused to go the stage two of their Complaints procedure. It her confidant at the Council did indeed make such a claim than they were lying. I have made no such refusal.

She goes on to claim that I had confirmed this to her. This is not true. I expressed my doubts about the independence of such a procedure and Mrs. [Investigator] claimed that it was in fact truly 'independent'. I then said I would go through it. (See my letter dated 08~02/2008)

If you read my letter to Mrs. [Investigator] dated the 17/03/2008 you will be able to make your own judgement about the 'independent' procedure Mrs. [Investigator] advocates. Nevertheless her claim that I told her I refused to use it is simply untrue and she should not have made it.

(2) Mrs. [Investigator] claimed that I did not complain to an elected councillor within twelve months. Presumably she was quoting another lie from Sefton Council. She made this false claim which she has had to withdraw (without apology) without any reference to me. I have asked her twice why she did this. I received a rather testy response by email but no explanation as to why she would make such an assumption. Perhaps you will ask her the same question and pass her answer on to me.

I have written that I was not surprised. However I am very concerned and I believe you should share that concern.

The third paragraph of Mrs. [Investigator]'s letter of the 17/03/2008 is a masterpiece of misdirection. I made it very clear that I did not ask Mrs. [Investigator] to investigate on my behalf and the implication that I am somehow looking for some compensation is insulting and impertinent. Her remark that 'The Council obviously took your concerns seriously etc etc..' is a bad joke. The Council took my concerns seriously when it became obvious that I could expose the falsification of documents and other misdemeanours and was about to involve the Land Registry. They knew their conduct would not stand up to close examination.

I made it clear from my first letter (16/12/2007) that I was acting in what I believe to be the public interest and for Mrs. [Investigator] to pretend otherwise is at the least disingenuous.

I will now pick now words very carefully.

I have presented Mrs. [Investigator] with positive proof that Mrs. [D] falsified an important document. She (Mrs. D) did this with intent to deceive.

I have presented Mrs. [Investigator] with positive proof that Mrs. [E] deliberately neglected her duty to investigate wrongdoing by a council employee. A corollary of this is that Mrs. [E] has abused her position by threatening legal action in an attempt to prevent Mrs.[D]'s falsification becoming public knowledge.

You will note I use the word 'proof' not 'evidence' Sefton Council have never denied that Mrs. [D] altered the document in question. They have simply refused to provide an explanation. This is because they the truth would incriminate both Mrs. [D] and her employers and they are unable to concoct a convincing lie.

Sefton's Chief Executive Graham Haywood acknowledges that Mrs. [E] had a duty to investigate Mrs. [D]'s conduct. He also admits that she has refused to carry out that duty. His excuse for her refusal is so flimsy it is almost laughable. The real reason is the same as in the preceding paragraph.

It follows therefore that Mrs. [E] by threatening me with legal action for pursuing Mrs. [D]'s falsification when she should have been investigating that falsification is guilty of abusing her position as [P].

I have presented Mrs. [Investigator] with very compelling evidence that Mr. [J] does not preside over properly constituted meetings of the '[C]' but simply makes his decisions without consultation. This means that people that are supposed to sit on this panel but in fact simply rubber stamp his decisions are taking money under false pretences.

There you have it. Mrs. [Investigator] has been presented with an open and shut case proving malpractice on the part of Sefton Council. She has been asked to pursue that case in the public interest. She has used every possible excuse to avoid carrying out her duty to do so. Why she has done so is a matter for her conscience and perhaps her superiors. If she refuses to take action in a case as flagrant as this one what would it take?

Almost from the start Sefton Council have urged me to contact the Ombudsman. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. If this is what usually happens when Mrs. [Investigator] deals with complaints their attitude that the Ombudsman is a paper tiger is understandable.

The net result of Mrs. [Investigator]'s peculiar conduct is that Mrs. [D] can continue to falsify important documents. Mrs. [E] can continue to turn a blind eye to employee's transgressions and continue to misuse her position to threaten anyone who dares to question those transgressions with legal action (paid for with public money). Mr. [J] can continue to run kangaroo courts. Sefton Council employees can continue to accept money for work they have not done in the sure and certain knowledge that the Ombudsman's representative will use any excuse not to investigate. Mrs. [Investigator]'s excuses for not investigating do not hold water.

I hope you will now insist that this case is reopened and Sefton Council's conduct is subjected to hard and unflinching examination. If you share Mrs. [Investigator]'s attitude please inform me as soon as possible so that I can decide on my next actions.

Yours sincerely

R Ellis