Memorandum from Carolyn Ryan (BOP 35)

 

1 Local Authorities have no effective internal check on their powers

 

1 (i) As local authorities want to avoid negative publicity or audit reports, there appears to be a practice of sham review of serious complaints, with the practice of "fobbing off" and then denial or counter-factual outcomes to complaints. At some authorities, even the process is clearly unfair and contravenes Article 6.1 ECHR, the right to a fair and impartial hearing. EG Rossendale DC has a procedure where there is no ultimate recourse to the elected members as the Complaints process stops at the Chief Executive. I have personal experience of this. If a complaint is made against the Chief Executive's judgement, the matter is passed to her Deputy. There is no serious chance of an impartial hearing from a subordinate and that this is allowed to occur is proof of the lack of strong governance of Local Authorities. Until there is an equally powerful external and objective Customer Complaints process to that of the Council's internal subjective one, the powers should not be increased as this will be bound to lead to more oppression of individuals

 

 

2 Citizens have no recourse to independent and impartial review of local government's decisions or use of powers ultra vires as the LGO is believed by many "victims" not to be impartial or objective and Judicial Review is well beyond the means of even professionally salaried citizens

 

2(i) The Local Government Ombudsman is widely believed to be biased in favour of the Local Authority and the tiny number of judgements in favour of appellants despite their strong cases is proof of this. The ECHR demands that Public Bodies give independent and impartial, fair public hearings. Case law has established that this must extend to the manner of appointment and to the freedom from "personal prejudice or bias ....excluding any legitimate doubt" Findlay v United Kingdom The Times 27 February 1997.

(ii) There are a large and growing body of people who have sought the LGO's advice and been on the receiving end of a very prejudiced reading of the facts and even deliberate misleading (in my own case the Assistant Ombudsman quoted case law in defence of the Local Authority that had in fact been held in favour of the appellant and against the Council). The LGO have been known to employ tactics of choosing not to investigate obvious maladministration as this makes even Judicial Review impossible - how can the judiciary review a non-decision?

(iii) Other than the LGO there is only expensive private litigation where the individual is pitted against the huge public resources of the State, or Judicial Review which is extremely expensive and daunting. There is a clear imbalance of power throughout the decision and complaint systems which must be addressed to regain public confidence. Any increase in the power of local government will be viewed as entirely the wrong move when what is needed are mechanisms that will check and force Local Government to be accountable to the individuals who are subject to it.

September 2008