Local Government Ombudsman

CCL- DCLG 30th April 2012

The DCLG Inquiry into the Local Government Ombudsman

Additional Updates for the Evidence Given by Guy Crivello on 23rd April 2012

1. Item 1: The Inquiry was reminded on the 23rd April 2012 that my organisation Care for Community Living had a current case before the LGO. That information was correct when I left my office on the morning of the 23rd April (my solicitor had written to confirm this) and it was correct to the best of my knowledge when I went into the inquiry.

However, it now transpires that the LGO had closed off the case that day (23rd April) and had sent her confirmation of this to our solicitors at just before 1600 that day (1538) and thereafter, my solicitors forwarded the notice to my mail box at 1554. I understand that the LGO was aware I was giving evidence at 1600 and that her very specific timing was intentional since the LGO has noted in her contact:

"I have therefore arranged for this response and my final decision to be delivered to you at around 4.00 p.m."

I was not aware of this last minute update when I went into the Inquiry on the 23rd; had I been so I would of course have informed the DCLG representative (Glen) prior to the start of the meeting.

Therefore, it is now necessary for me to note for the record that when the Inquiry started at 1600 on the 23rd April 2012, my organisation no longer had a pending case with the LGO, as the Inquiry was originally told.

I do not know if the matter is important to the Inquiry but for my own part I did feel constrained by the need to avoid referencing specific examples from what I believed at the time was still a ‘live’ case.

Had the LGO given my organisation any reasonable notice (e.g. even 24hrs) that she intended to close the current case off before the Inquiry sat, I could certainly have provided the panel with more specific and helpful evidence on the day, particularly with regard to the articulation and exampling of the key systemic issues that my evidence referred to (e.g. the Legislative Framework and Statutory / Non Statutory issues).

To be clear, we had been asking the LGO for an update on the position of cases with her that were awaiting a final decision for almost 4 months without any response at all from the LGO. In light of this, I believe the LGO’s timing of her contact of the 23rd April and her failure to give any reasonable notice of her intention in respect of a consideration she knew would affect the scope of a witnesses’ evidence – i.e. closing off the live cases and freeing up the evidence therein for use, before the Inquiry sat - was both unhelpful to this witness and to the needs and aims of this Inquiry.

2. Item 2: Having referred in my evidence of the 23rd April 2012 to the information displayed on the LGO web site, I must now note for the record that that the LGO’s web site has been updated since then on at least one occasion 25 April 2012 and in respect of the areas my evidence referred to – i.e. the Legal Framework.

Clearly, my evidence could not take account of any changes that have been made since.

3. Summary: I have noted the above to keep to the high standard set by the DCLG for the treatment of evidence for Select Committees and to ensure that everything that I know is passed on to the DCLG and the Inquiry.

I should however be clear that the above information does not, as far as I can tell, require me to withdraw or correct any of the evidence that was given in writing or any of my evidence given to the Committee on the 23rd April 2012.

Guy Crivello – Care for Community Living 30th May 2012