The work of the Local Government Ombudsman - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents

2  The organisation and structure of the Local Government Ombudsman


9.  The Commission for Local Administration in England is an independent body funded by annual grant from the Government to support the activities of the Local Government Ombudsmen (LGO). The Commission's statutory functions are to enable the Ombudsmen to investigate complaints, in particular by allocating them staff, offices and facilities and to provide bodies within jurisdiction (primarily local authorities) with advice and guidance on good administrative practice. As noted, there are currently two Ombudsmen: Dr Jane Martin and Anne Seex. They are Crown appointments with individual authority to investigate and decide complaints and they have wide discretion to initiate investigations and decide complaints bearing in mind the most effective use of public funds. Their jurisdiction is currently allocated on geographical areas.[11]

10.  The LGO's mission is to "provide an independent means of redress to individuals for injustice caused by unfair treatment or service failure by local authorities, schools and care providers and use our learning to promote good public service administration and service improvement".[12] According to the LGO, it has four strategic objectives:

  • to provide a complaints handling service direct to the public which is accessible, responsive, consistent and cost-effective;
  • to ensure sound decisions and appropriate redress based on impartial, rigorous and proportionate investigations;
  • to use its knowledge of complaints to identify best practice and issues of wider public benefit, promote good public administration and service improvement, and influence public policy; and
  • to ensure proper stewardship of public funds through the proper use of resources and effective public accountability.[13]


11.  In its written submission the LGO explained how the current arrangements operated. The LGO Advice Team dealt with all initial contacts by phone, email, letter, or through the online complaint form. There were 95,000 contacts in 2010-11.[14] The advisers clarified complaints and directed complainants back to the body in jurisdiction, if the complaint had not completed its internal process, or other relevant bodies. Advisers forwarded complaints to one of the three offices depending on the location of the body complained about. Where appropriate, complaints were fast tracked to an investigator without referring back to the body in jurisdiction first, for example in urgent homelessness cases. All cases were dealt with by a dedicated investigator against time targets. Once an investigator had enough evidence of fault he or she would seek to remedy any injustice caused as soon as possible. The investigator sent a provisional decision to both parties for further comment before reaching a final decision.[15]

12.  The LGO's Advice Team received a total of 21,840 complaints and enquiries in 2010-11.[16] The LGO currently accepts around 11,000 cases per year for investigation.[17] The LGO explained that it often discontinued enquiries into a complaint "when we consider that a satisfactory response has been reached during the course of the investigation". These were called 'local settlements' until April 2011.[18] In its annual report for 2010-11 the LGO explained that for 2010-11 local settlements were agreed in 2,418 cases, that is 26.8% of all decisions (excluding outside jurisdiction complaints and adult social care complaints received since October 2010).[19]

13.  In cases where the LGO completed a council investigation and found maladministration causing injustice, it issued a report that included recommendations for a remedy for the complainant. In 2010-11 it issued reports on 29 complaints, compared with reports on 74 complaints in 2009-10. Education matters formed the largest proportion of reports issued (38% of all reports issued). Housing formed the second largest proportion (14%) on matters concerning homelessness, applications for disabled facilities grants and housing repairs. Planning and transport and highways formed the third biggest categories of reports issued (10%).[20] Table 1, taken from the LGO Annual Report for 2010-11 provides an analysis of outcomes of complaints (excluding adult social care and schools complaints),[21] though we note the figures do not exactly tally with those in the LGO's memorandum.[22]Table 1: Analysis of outcome of complaints 2010-11 (excluding adult social care and schools complaints)
Outcome No. of complaints % of total[23]
Local settlements2,215 26.34
Maladministration causing injustice (report issued) 250.30
Maladministration, no injustice (report issued) 00.00
No maladministration (report issued) 10.01
No or insufficient evidence of maladministration (without report) 4,01247.71
Ombudsman's discretion 2,15625.64
Outside jurisdiction 1,574-
Total 9,983

14.  Complainants dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint to the LGO are able to request an internal review of their complaint within a three month period. A senior member of staff at the Commission, who had no previous involvement in the complaint and did not line manage the investigator, carries out the review.[24]

15.  Under the Regulatory Reform (Collaboration etc. between Ombudsmen) Order 2007,[25] the LGO can conduct joint investigations with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. These complaints generally cover health and social care.[26]


16.  As the LGO explained in its written memorandum, the Commission employs 215 people (195.8 full-time equivalent), based in three offices in London, Coventry and York. Approximately half the workforce are complaint investigators. They deal with a varied caseload of complaints and have delegated authority to investigate and take decisions on behalf of the Ombudsmen. Each of the three offices has a number of teams of investigators (12 in total), each headed by an Assistant Ombudsman. In addition to general purpose teams dealing with local government complaints, there are specialist teams dealing with children's and schools related complaints, adult social care complaints, and (in York) planning and housing complaints.[27]

17.  There are currently three Deputy Ombudsmen, one in each office, and one Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary. The Commission's corporate and business activity is supported by a corporate services department of 31 people. The functions cover communications, human resources, finance, IT, legal, policy and research, property and facilities. The Advice Team which is based in Coventry has 19 staff, consisting of one supervisor and 18 advisers.[28]


18.  The Commission is funded by grant in aid. Its sponsor department and primary source of funding is the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), but it also receives funding from the Department of Health (DH) in respect of adult care and the Department for Education (DfE) to cover the schools complaints service. In 2011-12 the Commission's combined DCLG/DH Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) was £14.8 million and its DfE grant was £900,000.[29]

19.  The Commission's DCLG/DH DEL is being reduced by £1 million in 2012-13. At the time of our inquiry its DfE funding for 2012-13 had yet to be settled but was expected to be £500,000; this is the final year of the schools service following abolition legislation in 2010 (see paragraph 21 below); there will be no funding in 2013-14.[30]

20.  The LGO supplied us with a copy of its Transformation Plan (as at 29 September 2011),[31] which "addresses these reductions in funding with efficiency savings and changes in process, designed to minimise the impact on front line service delivery".[32] The Commission told us that it anticipated an overall staffing reduction of 20.3 posts over three years in addition to voluntary redundancies currently being considered, bringing its total staffing to 175.5 fte. It will also "rationalise its office space and senior management structure".[33] (We have considered staff figures further at paragraph 42 below.)


21.  The LGO's responsibilities have not remained static. From 1 October 2010 the jurisdiction of the LGO was extended to include all registered care providers in England, some 13,000 bodies operated by private or independent organisations. This change provided access to redress for all users of social care including those who fund their own care. In April 2010 the LGO also gained, as we have noted, jurisdiction over schools in relation to complaints about internal matters. This was introduced in fourteen local authority areas on a pilot basis. The Education Act 2011 repealed the LGO jurisdiction, restoring the Secretary of State's power to consider school complaints. The LGO school complaints service will end in July 2012 with all complaints about internal school matters, having to be completed by 31st March 2013. In addition, as a result of the Localism Act 2011, from April 2013 local authority tenants will take complaints about their landlord to the Independent Housing Ombudsman.[34]

Reorganisation and transformation

22.  Since the retirement of the former Chairman of the Commission, Sir Tony Redmond, in 2010, it appears to us that the LGO was in an unsettled position—what Dr Martin called a "period of uncertainty"[35]—awaiting the appointment of a permanent Chairman, subject to a strategic review and planning, like the rest of the public sector, for savings and reductions in expenditure. Dr Martin said that since 2010 there had been "an extra strain on us" and she paid tribute to the staff in the Commission for their work since 2010.[36] We echo the tribute and thanks Dr Martin has paid to staff at the Commission for their work since 2010. All the more so since, as the Ombudsmen pointed out to us, there has been an increase in the volume of enquiries and complaints:

In 2010-11 the LGO Advice Team dealt with 95,000 contacts, and received 21,840 complaints and enquiries, an increase of more than 21% from the previous year.

In the same year, the investigative teams dealt with 11,249 complaints across a whole range of subjects, an increase of 7.5% from the previous year. Education and children's services formed the largest category of complaints, increasing by 15% from the previous year. Complaints about special educational needs also rose significantly. Adult social care complaints concerning councils increased by nearly 50%.[37]

23.  Although the removal of educational cases may relieve the LGO's work, the upward pressure in its remaining areas of work is likely to continue. As Brian Thompson from the University of Liverpool pointed out, it "seems likely, public expenditure cuts in local government [will] lead to an increase in complaints to the LGO" and he added that consequently "the LGO has to ensure that its efforts to work effectively and efficiently within a reduced budget do not impair the service it provides".[38]


24.  In these circumstances it makes sense, in our view, to carry out a review of the Commission's operations before proceeding with the appointment of a new Chairman. In April 2011 the Commission initiated an Independent Strategic Business Review,[39] which was carried out by Baroness Fritchie and Denby Rowland.[40] A summary of its conclusions and the LGO's response was published in September 2011. Among the main findings, which identified significant opportunities to make cost savings and quality improvements, were:

a)  reducing the space occupied in Millbank Tower in London and exiting the building by 2018 at the latest;

b)  reviewing whether "above average" support levels in corporate functions were strategically necessary or sustainable, and constraining the resources provided for basic administrative tasks;

c)  restructuring the Assistant Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman grades and relocating some investigators closer to the Advice Team;

d)  developing a coherent scheme for filtering incoming cases, including the use of risk-based assessment techniques, to reduce the number of cases passed for investigation;

e)  reducing the number of investigative staff in the organisation; and

f)  combining "frontend" and "backend" external-facing parts of the business, building on the recent initiative to produce themed publications, and identifying methods to ensure wide accessibility to LGO's insights.[41]

The Strategic Business Review stated that there were almost no recommendations that "the review would make differently if making a distinction between providing a 'full service' and an 'austerity mode'".[42]

25.  In our view the Review's findings raise two issues:

a)  whether the Commission is currently operating in an efficient manner; and

b)  what changes are to be made to the methods of operation of the LGO and how and when they are to be implemented.


26.  Dr Martin, made the point to us that Baroness Fritchie had been "at pains to say that this is not an organisation in need of repair but one that wants to do better".[43] The Review did, however, identify matters that need to be addressed, specifically:

  • that staff performance data suggested that the bottom 20% of performers handled some 10% of the case throughput, and their performance was considerably below the mean;
  • that some corporate functions had staffing levels that were difficult to justify; and
  • that a significant proportion of operational administrative support (20%) was to provide basic administrative and office support activities.[44]

27.  When we put the detailed findings of the review to Dr Martin, we found her response revealing:

we were absolutely holding ourselves up to scrutiny as an organisation—that was what we wanted to do. We knew that we had to deliver better value for money and cost reductions. We saw this [Review] as an opportunity to look at the way in which we do business.

[...] As a result of it, we put together a transformation plan, and we are cutting staff and taking out costs throughout the organisation.[45]

Addressing the output of the poorest performers could reduce costs significantly while having a disproportionately smaller impact on throughput capacity. We conclude that the Strategic Business Review has indentified inefficiencies in the current operation of the LGO which if addressed properly should result in savings.

28.  As we have noted, the Review made proposals which went beyond improvements to the existing methods of operation and would change the LGO's methods of operation. Dr Martin told us that:

by 2015, we are going to reduce the overall staffing complement by 23.5 posts, which will bring it down to 175.5 full-time equivalent posts. We will reduce the senior management team and the management cadre.[46]

We will be reducing down to fewer investigative teams, and we will also be reallocating some of our investigative staff into what we are calling an assessment unit.[47]

29.  We detected a degree of circumspection, however, in the LGO's response to aspects of the Review.

30.  First, only a summary of the Review was published and when we asked Dr Martin for the justification for this approach, she responded that "we wanted to show the response of the commission to what the review was recommending"[48] and when pressed:

Because we felt that it was more helpful to our staff, the public and the sponsor Department to have the strategic review with the commission's response. It was a strategic review commissioned by the commission. We asked for it to be done and we set the terms of reference, but we wanted it to be an objective, independent piece of work, and we are satisfied that it was. We wanted, as I have said, to publish our response to the recommendation, so that was the approach we took.[49]

Subsequently, the LGO supplied us with a copy of the Review.

31.  We found the LGO's reasoning for not publishing the 2011 Strategic Business Review in full unconvincing. We heard no good reason why the Review and summary were not published simultaneously. Staff at the LGO are understandably concerned about the future of the organisation and their jobs and can reasonably expect their senior managers to provide full information. Publishing a summary without the Review risks fuelling a perception that senior management are holding back unpalatable news and undermining staff morale.

32.  Second, we considered how and when the Strategic Business Review would be implemented. When the summary was published in September 2011, the LGO attached a four paragraph response.[50] The final paragraph of the response stated:

We have noted the review has concluded that 27% cost savings may be possible by 2015. We need to validate the basis for these calculations as we consider the detailed review recommendations which will be incorporated into a transformation plan for Commission approval in September. This will then form the business case for funding to DCLG from 2012-15. Building on the findings of the review, this business case will confirm the level of resource needed to fulfil our statutory functions and strategic objectives in the light of citizens' reasonable expectations of our role.[51]

33.  In oral evidence Ms Seex supplied more information on the point:

Our transformation plan sets up an assessment process that will be run by a small number of staff who are currently investigators. [...] [T]he purpose of concentrating that assessment of complaints into a smaller number of hands, with team leaders working with the staff, is that we as ombudsmen will be able to work more effectively with a smaller group of people and to give regular guidance on the principles and values to be applied on which complaints are selected for investigation and which are not.

By separating out the assessment process—people might not like the decision not to investigate their complaint, but they will hear it quickly and swiftly—we will not be mixing up long-term, complex investigations with the faster decisions out of an assessment. That will mean that the investigators get a complaint, and it will be clear why we have decided to investigate and what we expect the public value to be achieved by that investigation, in addition to remedying the individual justice for the citizen who has brought the complaint. We do not know what the outcome of that will be, because we have never done it before. We believe that being able to concentrate on those two processes distinctly will give faster decisions and more effective investigations.[52]

In a supplementary written memorandum the LGO gave more information about its Transformation Plan and supplied a copy.[53]

34.  We welcome the LGO's intention, in line with the Strategic Business Review, to set up an assessment process that will be run by a small number of experienced staff who will concentrate on assessing enquiries and complaints but it was not made clear how and when any alteration would be made. We therefore have concerns about the execution of the change.


35.  Central to the transformation of the LGO will be the restructuring of the senior management. The Secretary of State wrote to us on 24 April to explain that he had concluded that the way forward, in parallel to the appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, was the recruitment of a:

Chief Operating Officer who will assume the roles of Chief Executive and Accounting Officer for the Commission, both roles previously undertaken by the Chairman. This will leave the Chairman free to focus on the strategic direction of the Commission and her quasi-judicial Ombudsman role, while the Chief Operating Officer handles the day-to-day running of the Commission.[54]

36.  Until the Chief Operating Officer is in post, the Commission will not fully emerge from the interim arrangements that have been in place since 2010. We request that in responding to our Report the Government and the LGO set out the arrangements and timetable for appointing the new Chief Operating Officer as well as setting out his or her responsibilities.


37.  The Secretary of State explained that the restructuring of the top management was:

a first step to radically transforming the Commission, making it more streamlined, cost-effective, and above all being more customer-focused, championing the rights of redress for local residents. This view of the future Commission reflects the future roles of the Ombudsman which we identified in our Open Public Services White Paper, and underpins the budgets (£13.859m for 2012-13; £12.879m for 2013-14; £11.9m for 2014-15) which we recently confirmed for the Commission for the remainder of this Comprehensive Spending Review period.[55]

38.  With the confirmation of the resources it will have up to 2014-15 the Commission can plan for the next three years. The year on year reduction in its resources provides an impetus to the Commission to carry out a significant, if not radical, transformation of its operations. Having considered the evidence we received from the Commission we are not clear, however, whether it has reached this conclusion. For example, as we have noted, the Review recommended the use of a form of assessment to "filter in" cases for further consideration[56] and it commented on the LGO's initial handling of complaints and suggested that it should "devote more resources to enable assessment and filtering of incoming complaints"[57] and pointed out that:

Some other Ombudsmen employ a form of filtering to incoming complaints, and some are starting to see a substantial impact on reducing the number of complaints passed forward for a fuller investigation. The benefits of this practice are two-fold: avoiding carrying out full-scale investigations where this is inappropriate, and avoiding setting inappropriate expectations of an outcome that creates a disbenefit when not met later. [...]

The experience from the Republic of Ireland and the Scottish Ombudsman suggest a target of resolving up to 70% of complaints within jurisdiction at an assessment stage is feasible.[58]

39.  When we asked Ms Seex about the disparity between the Irish and Scottish target and the LGO's record (30%) she replied that they had "adopted a clear separation between assessment and investigation. That is what we are proposing to do, but we have not done it yet".[59] When we pressed, she said that the change had been "forced by economic circumstances" on the Irish ombudsman and that the Ombudsman in Scotland had "been agile and focused on achieving value for money and good practice", while conceding that "we could have been better and faster at doing this".[60] We note that the Transformation Plan is predicated on the basis of projected new complaints rising to 13,600[61] in 2014-15 and that it indicates that investigation teams would handle around 7,600 substantive complaints per year.[62] We were left with the impression that while the LGO intended to introduce a new system to filter incoming complaints, we saw no detailed assessment of the likely level of impact on cases falling within the categories such as 'local settlement' or full investigative report or on the effort to be expended per case in the categories set out in Table 1 above.


40.  Our misgivings were not eased after we had concluded taking oral evidence when the British and Irish Ombudsman Association wrote to us to emphasise that independence was "a critical feature of a true ombudsman scheme". The Association expressed concern about the Secretary of State's letter of 24 April to us:

that this gives the impression that the LGO may be subject to excessive pressure to reform with the main aim of achieving significant budget reductions. The potential for harm to actual independence and the perception of it is clear.

The Commission [...] as the governing body for the LGO Scheme, is the appropriate authority to recommend appropriate resource levels and oversee change. We understand that the Commission initiated an independent strategic business review and developed a transformation plan for the LGO Scheme during 2011 in preparation for the DCLG budget review later that year.[63]

41.  The Association is right to be vigilant to protect the independence of the Commission but that independence cannot mean that its operational and administrative arrangements are protected from scrutiny or from the reduction in resources from the taxpayer. The Strategic Business Review initiated by the LGO itself identified inefficiencies and made proposals for changes. Some of these changes have already been made by the Irish and Scottish Ombudsmen and we are not aware that their independence has been compromised, certainly the Local Government Ombudsmen did not make this point to us. In our view, Parliament can legitimately and reasonably call the Commission to account, to explain how it plans to implement its own Review within its budget and to ensure that the Commission operates transparently and efficiently.


42.  The LGO's Transformation Plan produced in September 2011 has supplied us with some of the information we were seeking as well as providing the overall framework but we found it difficult to reconcile some of its figures with those in the memoranda we received from the Commission—for example, the Commission told us that it employed 195.8 fte[64] but the Plan says there were 235 fte at 31 July 2011.[65] Of more concern was the absence of milestones against which to measure progress and a clear picture of how the LGO would be operating in 2015. The Transformation Plan contains neither a high level plan along the lines of that set out in section 9 of the Strategic Business Review showing a timetable for the implementation of recommendations nor a business case model.[66] In responding to our Report we ask the Commission to explain which of the findings in the Strategic Business Review it intends to implement in full and in part with a timetable for implementation for each.


43.  According to the narrative in the Local Government Ombudsman's annual accounts, "the Chairman and the Accounting Officer meet at regular intervals with the Deputy Director Local Democracy in the DCLG and members of his team to discuss business planning, overall performance, resource management and funding, risk management and any matters of concern raised in audit reports [...] these meetings have been held monthly".[67] The Secretary of State of State in his letter of 24 April confirmed that the Commission was "now working closely with my officials to bring about [the] transformation programme" and he expected that the whole transformation, including relocations, will be substantially completed during the remainder of this Spending Review period".[68] In responding to our Report we recommend that the Government explain how it will monitor the implementation of the reorganisation at the Commission.

Open Public Services White Paper: Choice

44.  The LGO pointed out that the Open Public Services White Paper[69] published in July 2011 highlighted the Ombudsmen as having a role in upholding people's right to choice.[70] This appears to mean that they should focus more on the consumer and securing the best services rather than simply providing redress. The LGO has responded to the White Paper and is engaged, alongside other public service ombudsmen, in early discussions with the Cabinet Office.[71] Brian Thompson from the University of Liverpool questioned this repositioning: "it is the role of ombudsmen to be independent and impartial handlers of complaints about the quality of the services rather than to champion the promotion of a choice of service providers which [...] is a matter for regulation".[72]

45.  We note that the Open Public Services White Paper was published in July 2011, that is before the Strategic Business Review was completed. In our view the Commission faces a formidable task in carrying out the reorganisation arising from the Review and that developing a role in upholding the right to choice risks diverting it from its main work to 2015: the handling of complaints and implementing the reorganisation.

The Grant Memorandum

46.  In the LGO's 2010-11 annual accounts the Accounting Officer expressed concern that:

throughout the 12 months from April 2010 the Commission did not have a Grant Memorandum in place that reflected the changes occasioned by the change to Grant-in-Aid that had taken place in 2008/09. [...] it created some uncertainty over whether the Commission had a proper understanding of the requirements of its sponsor Department.[73]

In addition, he said that the Audit Committee expressed concern on several occasions over the lack of progress on implementing management actions prompted by internal audit recommendations. The Committee recognised that a significant number of these actions related to governance issues and were dependent upon DCLG making the necessary progress on their side.[74]

47.  We raised these concerns with the LGO when she gave oral evidence on 30 April. Dr Martin agreed that it had been "more than disappointing that the grant memorandum has not been superseded by a framework document, which is what was intended".[75] In a supplementary memorandum the Commission indicated that, it had "actively tried to agree a Grant Memorandum to supersede the one agreed in 1999" and that it had been proposed that the Commission escalate "its concerns to the most senior levels in the Department in order to try and resolve this issue".[76] While the lack of progress in updating the 1999 Grant Memorandum may arise from the state of uncertainty since 2010, we consider it unacceptable that the LGO should not be clear about its relationship with, and responsibilities to, DCLG. We would go further to say that it is of particular importance in such a period that the relationship and responsibilities should be comprehensively and accurately defined. They can then be revised when the situation changes. We recommend that as a matter of urgency the Government finalise the arrangements for updating and superseding the 1999 Grant Memorandum.

Commission staff survey

48.  When the Ombudsmen gave oral evidence we were concerned that the period since 2010 and in all likelihood the period ahead may be difficult for staff at the Commission and we asked whether the Commission, as was common practice in other public bodies, carried out a staff survey. We were surprised when Ms Seex told us that one had not been carried out at least in the last five or six years. She accepted that it would be "good practice" to carry one out.[77] We recommend that the Commission institute an annual, independent staff survey and that it publish the results.

11   Ev 39 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 2.2 Back

12   Ev 40 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 2.4 Back

13   As above Back

14   Ev 41 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 3.6 Back

15   Ev 40 [Local Government Ombudsman], paras 3.2-3.3 Back

16   LGO, Annual Report 1011: Delivering Public Value, p 17 Back

17   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review, July 2011, para 95; see also para 49 below. Back

18   Local settlement was a term used by the LGO to describe the outcome of a complaint where, during the course of its consideration of the complaint, the organisation concerned took, or agreed to take, some action that the Ombudsman considered was a satisfactory response to the complaint and the investigation was discontinued. This could occur, for example, in any of the following circumstances:

· a council on its own initiative said that there was fault that caused injustice, and proposed a remedy which the Ombudsman accepted is satisfactory;

· an organisation accepted the suggestion by the Ombudsman that there was fault which caused injustice, and agreed a remedy which the Ombudsman accepted is satisfactory;

· an organisation and the person complaining themselves agreed upon a course of action and the Ombudsman saw no reason to suggest any different outcome.

Local settlements in future are to be described as 'Discontinued investigation: injustice remedied' (LGO, Annual Report 1011: Delivering Public Value, p 44). Back

19   LGO, Annual Report 1011: Delivering Public Value, p 23; see also LGO 17 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 3.13, which appears to give a different figure. Back

20   LGO, Annual Report 1011: Delivering Public Value, pp 23-24 Back

21   LGO, Annual Report 1011: Delivering Public Value, p 21 Back

22   Ev 41-52 [Local Government Ombudsman], paras 3.13, 4.13 Back

23   Excludes those outside jurisdiction Back

24   Ev 41 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 3.4 Back

25   SI 2007/1889 Back

26   Ev 40 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 2.5 Back

27   Ev 44 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 5.6 Back

28   Ev 44 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 5.7 Back

29   Ev 44 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 5.8  Back

30   Ev 44 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 5.9 Back

31   A transformation plan for the Local Government Ombudsman 2011-2015, LGO, 29 September 2011 Back

32   Ev 44 [Local Government Ombudsman], para 5.10 Back

33   As above Back

34   Ev 40 [Local Government Ombudsman], paras 2.6-2.8 Back

35   Q 75 Back

36   Q 76 Back

37   Ev 40, paras 3.6-3.8; see also Annual report 2011: delivering public value, p 14. Back

38   Ev 33, para 22 Back

39   Ev 45, commentary on Q 75; see also Q 77. Back

40   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review, July 2011, para 5 Back

41   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review: Summary Statement, September 2011, pp 8-9 Back

42   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review, July 2011, para 159 Back

43   Q 77; this view was echoed in the Foreword to the Strategic Business Review by Baroness Fritchie (LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review, July 2011, p 3). Back

44   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review: Summary Statement, September 2011, p 5 and Q 91 Back

45   Q 91 Back

46   Q 92 Back

47   As above Back

48   Q 87 Back

49   Q 88 Back

50   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review: Summary Statement, September 2011, pp 10-11 Back

51   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review: Summary Statement, September 2011, p 11 Back

52   Q 96 Back

53   Ev 50 and A transformation plan for the Local Government Ombudsman 2011-2015, LGO, 29 September 2011 Back

54   Ev w29 Back

55   Ev w29-w30 Back

56   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review, July 2011, p 26 Back

57   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review: Summary Statement, September 2011, p 6 Back

58   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review: Summary Statement, September 2011, p 7; LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review, July 2011, sections 5.4-5.5 Back

59   Q 99 Back

60   Qq 101-02 Back

61   The LGO currently accepts around 11,000 cases per year for investigation-see para 12 above. Back

62   A transformation plan for the Local Government Ombudsman 2011-2015, LGO, 29 September 2011, pp 59 and 14 Back

63   Ev w27 Back

64   Ev 44, para 5.6; see also para 16 and following above. Back

65   A transformation plan for the Local Government Ombudsman 2011-2015, LGO, 29 September 2011, Annex 2; a footnote indicates that this figure includes agency posts and contractors. Back

66   LGO, Commission for Local Administration in England: Strategic Business Review, July 2011, pp 43-47 Back

67   Local Government Ombudsman, Annual Accounts 2010/11, 19 July 2011, para 14 Back

68   Ev w30 Back

69   Open Public Services White Paper, Cm 8145, July 2011 Back

70   Ev 40, para 2.9 Back

71   As above Back

72   Ev 32, para 15; see also Q 42. Back

73   LGO, Annual Accounts 2010/11, 19 July 2011, p 22 Back

74   LGO, Annual Accounts 2010/11, 19 July 2011, pp 22-23 Back

75   Q 81 Back

76   Ev 50 Back

77   Q 155 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 17 July 2012