Petition to expose Trafford Council's failure to care for the Wright family's disabled daughter and their refusal to implement the Local Government Ombudsman's recommendations.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/justiceforcarly/

Wilma Wright's fight for justice has taken three long years and, thanks to Trafford Council, continues to this day. She asked for assistance in the care of her daughter, Carly, in June 2005 but, in spite of numerous requests, Trafford Council refused to provide adequate support.

In July 2005, Wilma Wright submitted a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), the body responsible for investigating Council maladministration. In July 2007, they found in her favour and recommended Trafford Council should pay £100,000 as compensation for their actions regarding Wilma and her daughter.

Unfortunately, the LGO has no powers to enforce financial or other penalties and Trafford Council have simply refused to make any such payment. Wilma Wright has many supporters, including Public Service Ombudsman Watchers [1]. We are all trying to raise public awareness of this case in an attempt to help Wilma secure the compensation she deserves.

The actions of Trafford Council are beneath contempt but, unfortunately, Wilma Wright's case is just the tip of a very large iceberg. Some 18,000 complaints about Councils are submitted to the LGO every year but the vast majority of these fail to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Out of every 10,000 complaints submitted to the LGO only 64 of them are reported as maladministration with injustice.

Lengthy procedures and excessive delays by Councils force many complainants to terminate their fight for justice. In most cases, correspondence between Councils and LGOs, and conversations upon which their decisions are based, are not transparent and cannot be challenged by the complainant. In a court of law, all parties are aware of the evidence and have the opportunity to dispute it where appropriate.

There is also the important question of impartiality, all LGOs and their deputies are ex Council employees. This could, in part, explain why it is very rare for LGOs to find in favour of a complainant and report a Council's actions as maladministration.

In the few cases where maladministration is discovered, a 'Local Settlement' is often agreed between the LGO and the Council. In these circumstances no maladministration is reported and the complainant has no other option but to accept this outcome.

Unless an urgent reform of the current system is undertaken, Councils will continue to maladministrate in the knowledge that LGOs are impotent and biased. Even on the extremely rare occasion that they are found guilty of maladministration a growing number of Councils, like Trafford, are ignoring LGO's recommendations with impunity.

Public Service Ombudsman Watchers

http://www.psow.co.uk/

21st August 2008

[1] Public Service Ombudsman Watchers is dedicated to exposing Public Service Ombudsmen to public scrutiny. Whilst we are involved with monitoring the effectiveness of all Public Service Ombudsmen, we are particularly concerned about the extremely low levels of maladministration reported by Local Government Ombudsmen. For example the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reports maladministration in about 68% of cases submitted. In contrast, Local Government Ombudsmen report maladministration in only 0.64% of complaints submitted.

OMBUDSMAN APOLOGISES TO FORMER MAYORS AFTER INVESTIGATION INTO LETTER ?CLANGER?

Two former Lord Mayors of Chester wrongly accused in an Ombudsman?s letter have received an unreserved apology. An inexplicably ?leaked? Letter of Enquiry concerning allegations of maladministration against Chester City Council made inaccurate claims against husband and wife Councillors Graham and Sue Proctor.

It maintained that the Proctors were ?out of order? because they had failed to object to a tree felling in a conservation area within the three week consultation period. But the couple ? who intervened in an attempt to protect the tree at the request of neighbours, when contractors turned up on site - had not even been told about the application.

In her reply, Deputy Ombusdman Beryl Bainbridge says that reference to the Proctors being ?out of order? was both ?inappropriate? and based on information later found to be ?factually incorrect?. The Deputy Ombudsman has apologised and admits that the letter should not have made any reference at all to Mrs Proctor because she is a County Councillor and not a member of the District Council.Today (Wednesday) County Councillor Proctor said: ?Justice has been done and I am delighted that we have received a full and unreserved apology.

?The report was leaked to the press and as a result we were attacked in letters from political opponents who based their criticism on references in a seven-week-old document which were completely incorrect,? said County Councillor Sue Proctor.?To make matters worse, Chester City Council Chief Executive Paul Durham had actually notified the Ombudsman of the report?s mistake some time before it was leaked to the press.

?All in all, we have been the victims of a ?clanger? which has had extremely unfair and unfortunate results.? ?This whole affair has been tremendously upsetting to both myself and my family,? said County Councillor Proctor, who returned from holiday to find the inaccurate report ?leaked? to the press. ?We had been judged and publicly attacked on the basis of incorrect information and without being given the chance to comment either to the Ombudsman?s investigator or Chester City Council.?

Chester City Council?s Chief Executive has subsequently confirmed that the Proctors had not received any prior notification from the City Council about the owner?s proposal to fell the tree.

?The initial view that the Proctors were ?out of order? was not based on an accurate understanding of the facts and, in my view, is inaccurate,? said Mr Durham. ?It was the City Council?s actions in respect of the proposal to fell the tree which was being investigated by the Ombudsman ? not the involvement of Councillors Graham and Sue Proctor.?

The following petition closes quite soon and needs your support. Please consider signing it without delay. Don't forget to tell your friends and family.

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the local government ombudsman truly independent and accountable by banning ex-council officials or anyone who has any contact with local government officials from making decisions about complaints, provide an independent of the LGO appeals process and make the LGO accountable to a government department and parliament. Make the local government ombudsman truly independent and accountable by banning ex-council officials or anyone who has any contact with local government officials from making decisions about complaints, provide an independent of the LGO appeals process and make the LGO accountable to a government department and parliament.'

Please click here to sign the petition and stop biased ex council staff from being able to determine your complaint in favour of their ex friends and colleagues.

The supremo criminal class being those who call themselves the 'coun-cil';

Where the rich and famous look after themselves and their money and the most they have to grumble about is cobble stones and 'unfair' taxes levied on their precious four wheel drives.

Where the vulnerable and poor are routinely preyed upon by the criminal class coun-cil in order to either steal their homes, steal their money, or steal their self respect and dignity.

Take for instance phones calls I had this afternoon with two very disaffected camden residents.

Report summary

Subject
Mrs Gordon had mental health difficulties and was not capable of managing her own affairs. Camden Council?s Community Mental Health Team was aware of this. Mrs Gordon had not paid her council tax. The Council?s Revenue team applied for a bankruptcy order, which was granted. They did not adequately record what checks they made and did not make any checks with the social care side of the Council, which would have shown that bankruptcy was not an appropriate recovery method in this case. The consequence was that the resolution of a separate legal case concerning Mrs Gordon?s financial affairs was delayed, and substantial ...

[Back to the top]

At last, someone who may be able to make a difference has been to visit. Bill Rammell MP has been to view the problem for himself. You will also notice that he has been removed from the list of those who have singularly failed to respond to my communications on he subject. (Apparently there has been some sort of email "glitch" ad he has not been receiving my correspondence). Now that we have established a DIRECT line of communication to him, perhaps things will improve.

The meeting was extremely constructive: Mr Rammell made it clear to us that there IS indeed a problem, and that he thinks it is not "right" that the council has taken so long to deal with it. He is going to take the matter up with the council on our behalf.

As he pointed out, he does not run the council but perhaps his intervention may put a rocket under that backsides of those who are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to do exactly that!

The public meeting was well attended - thanks to all who gave their time.

We have started the ball rolling on two petitions - one from the residents and a public one. Please support us!

[Back to the top]