Tactics

Please click here to tell us about the devious tactics Public Service Ombudsmen have used on you.

Please click on the tactic summary

1. The 'significant/material' injustice trick. Or how ombudsmen reduce the number of valid complaints they investigate.

2. The linguistic gymnastics trick. Or how the Ombudsmen have extended their powers to include local settlements.

3. Delay, delay, delay. Or how Ombudsmen reduce the number of valid complaints they investigate by introducing delay.

4. The mulberry bush. Or how Ombudsmen take you for another spin around the block hoping you will get tired and give up.

5. Natural Justice. Or how Ombudsmen ignore it.

6. Fallacious arguments.

Tactics

1. The 'significant/material' injustice trick
   
   The Ombudsman is empowered by statute to investigate complaints from members of the public who claim to have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration. However, over the last few years the Ombudsman has started to introduce other words into their unique interpretation of the 1974 Act. Words such as material and significant are now used to make it even more difficult for a complainant to meet the criteria for an investigation of their complaint. As a result the Ombudsman will now only investigate a complaint when the Ombudsman considers the complainant has suffered significant injustice.
   
   However, here is what Crossman, Leader or the House of Commons had to say on the matter: "We have not tried to define injustice by using such terms as `loss or damage'. These may have legal overtones which could be held to exclude one thing which I am particularly anxious shall remain, the sense of outrage aroused by unfair or incompetent administration, even where the complainant has suffered no actual loss. We intend that the outraged citizen shall have the right to an investigation, even where he has suffered no loss or damage in the legal sense of those terms, but is simply a good citizen who has nothing to lose and wishes to clear up a sense of outrage and indignation at what he believes to be a maladministration."
   
   Furthermore, if you read the case reports over the last thirty years you can quite clearly see that the LGO have raised the bar and it is now much more difficult to prove you have suffered the level of injustice necessary to warrant an investigation.
   We find it rather ironic that an organisation, set up in 1974 to investigate complaints from members of the public, who claim to have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration, now spend more time and effort doing the opposite of what the Government intended and Crossman expected.
   
   The 1974 Local Government Act does not include any such qualifying words. Therefore, the Ombudsmen have fettered themselves by the introduction of such qualifying words and are now refusing to do their public duty and investigate complaints of injustice suffered through maladministration. This is what Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, had to say on the matter in HTV Ltd v Price Commission (1976) "A public body which is entrusted by Parliament with the exercise of powers for the public good cannot fetter itself in the exercise of them. It cannot be estopped from doing its public duty."
   
   [Back to the top]






2. Linguistic gymnastics.
   
   The Local Government Ombudsmen derive their powers from the 1974 Local Government Act. The act clearly states that the Ombudsmen's purpose is to investigate complaints from members of the public who claim to have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration. The Ombudsman also has the statutory discretion to terminate an investigation. However after they have found maladministration the investigation is over and the act states they must issue a report.
   
   However, when the Ombudsman identifies maladministration they deviously use the words 'administrative fault' instead of the term maladministration. That allows them to accommodate the council should the council ask for the case to be locally settled. If that happens the Ombudsman accepts a paltry sum on behalf of the complainant and that is the end of the matter. The Ombudsman states that they found 'administrative fault' but the case was locally settled.
   
   Should the council refuse to locally settle the complaint the Ombudsman then call 'administrative fault' by it's true name, maladministration and issue a formal report. In essence, the Local Government Ombudsmen's have unlawfully extended their statutory powers to include local settlements. They try to hide the fact by using linguistic gymnastics to put a thin veneer of apparent lawfulness over their illegal acts.
   
   [Back to the top]






3. Delay, delay, delay.
   
   The Local Government Ombudsman routinely uses delay as a tactic to block or at least significantly delay valid complaints of maladministration. They use a number of different methods to ensure that the complainant is exhausted by the complaints procedure before they have exhausted the complaints procedure. There are exceptions to the rule. A few people, such as the Balchins, have the tenacity to persevere and eventually obtain the justice they so richly deserve. One of our favourite arguments is how can the Local Government Ombudsman claim be effective if it takes years for them to resolve a complaint.
   
   However, hundreds if not thousands of complainants just give up every year adding to the substantial number of valid complaints that unfortunately bite the dust.
   
   Here are just a few of the ways the Local Government Ombudsman introduce unnecessary delay into their proceedings. There are many more but the following should at least provide an illustration of the depths an Ombudsman will sink in order to help their friends and ex colleagues in the council. They give the councils 12 weeks to answer a letter before they start chasing it. They just ignore your correspondence altogether. They ask for information that they already have in their possession. They ask for clarification on points that a five year old would be able to understand, putting the complainant to the time and trouble of providing further explanation. And every time they ask the council to respond to your comments it adds another 12 week delay just waiting for their reply. [Back to the top]






4. The mulberry bush.
   
   Once more round the mulberry bush. This is a very versatile tactic and is often used when Ombudsmen run out of other ways to block your complaint. If there has been adverse publicity or threat of a Judicial Reviews they offer to review or look at your complaint again, this usually involves other members of staff getting involved forcing you to start at the beginning again. However, whilst you are going round the mulberry bush for the second time they will still use the same devious tricks that failed to derail your complaint the first time.
   
   In the Balchins case they used the 'once more round the mulberry bush' tactic to hide the fact that they were the cause of 14 years of suffering by Mr and Mrs Balchin. They frequently use the mulberry bush offer to block/derail Judicial Reviews.
   
   [Back to the top]






5. Natural Justice.
   
   Ombudsmen often ignore the rules of natural justice, one of the most common is their refusal to give the full reasoning behind their decisions. On occasions they also wrongly refuse to give the complainant a copy of the evidence that influenced their decision. They also ignore evidence when it suits them or jump to hasty conclusions before getting the full facts. All those tactics are in breach of the rules of natural justice. This is what Lord Russell had to say about Parliament's intent regarding Acts of parliament in Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1976)
   
   ".. for it is to be implied, unless the contrary appears, that Parliament does not authorise by the Act the exercise of powers in breach of the principles of natural justice, and that Parliament does by the Act require, in particular procedures, compliance with those principles."
   
   There is no express provision in the 1974 Local Government Act part III for the Ombudsman to ignore the rules of natural justice, so as far as Lord Russell is concerned the Ombudsman should follow the rules of natural justice.
   
   [Back to the top]






6. Fallacious arguments.
   
   Public Service Ombudsmen use so many fallacious arguments it would take too long to assemble a complete list. As a result we decided to upload a book on the subject for you to read. You will find that the book lists all the fallacious arguments that the Ombudsmen use. Once you have identified the particular fallacious arguments the Ombudsman is using you will be better informed to counter it. One of the best ways we have found is to point out to the Ombudsman how and why their argument is fallacious. You could even refer them to the Fallacy Recognition Handbook by Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere.
   
   [Back to the top]