To All Concerned Indviduals, Parties, Allies and Ministers in UK, EU and Global World
This will impact on all disabled people, families and carers who complain about their care and social care and other professionals.
As I said the Disabled People's, Mental Health Survivors, NeuroDiversity, Independent and Inclusive Living, Wellness and Recovery, UN DisabilityConvention, Indymedia movements and networks and all other concerned individuals, parties and allies all need to 'join-forces' with Local Government OmbudsmanWatch to 'speak-out' out on this urgently.
The United Kingdom Disabled People's Council (formely BCODP) need to act on this information immediately, because it's disabled people and their 'behaviour' that will be targeted for continued 'Disablism' and 'Victimisation' by The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)
This will impact on all disabled people, families and carers who complain about their care and social care and other professionals.
As I said the Disabled People's, Mental Health Survivors, NeuroDiversity, Independent and Inclusive Living, Wellness and Recovery, UN DisabilityConvention, Indymedia movements and networks and all other concerned individuals, parties and allies all need to 'join-forces' with Local Government OmbudsmanWatch to 'speak-out' out on this urgently.
The United Kingdom Disabled People's Council (formely BCODP) need to act on this information immediately, because it's disabled people and their 'behaviour' that will be targeted for continued 'Disablism' and 'Victimisation' by The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) are not 'excluded' from the DDA 1995, DED Act 2005, as I was informed by the LGO, York Office, that they are, but when I checked up with the DRC they stated very clearly to me that the LGO and oall ther Ombudsman in the UK are all 'public-bodies' are under statutory duties within the DDA 1995 and DED 2005, so the LGO can't be
'exempt', so why is it they think they are?
I am asking Simone Aspies United Kingdom Disabled People's Council to also take urgent advice from the DRC and the Government on this urgent matter to reassure 'us' that all disabled will be fully protected from being 'excluded' in making any complaints and that disabled people will be able to
take disability discrimination cases against the local authorities and the LGO and other Omudsman if they are discriminated against.
As you are all fully informed that in my own case recently that HHJ Grenfell, Hull Combined Courts, stated that the LGO and all health and social care professionals can't be sued by disabled people, or any other member of the public for professional negligence and maladminstration, isability discrimination and basic human rights abuses.
This can't be right, can it?
So, are the LGO and all other Ombudsman and health and social care professionals and Council's, Health Trusts and other public bodies are all 'exempt' from being taken to Courts for failure of duty of care, professional negligence, disability discrimination and of course violations of basic human rights, under the Human Rights Act and ECHR 1950 ?
Please feel free to send this email throughout all your networks and get them to act upon this information very urgently alone, or with others.
Write, or send email to your MP.
I have done this (Graham Stuart, MP) and also emailed Anne McGuire, Minister for Disabled Peoples
Yours
Colin Revell, see LGO Watch News Release below....From : Local Government
Ombudsman Watch
Reply-To :
gjp@ombudsmanwatch.org
Sent : 01 February 2007 20:37:39
To : colrev@hotmail.co.uk
Subject : News Release: Ombudsman Green Light for Burying Complaints
LGOWatch News Release
Website:-
http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/
News release
Local Government Ombudsman issues advice to councils on how to silence 'difficult' complainants.
Purley, 1 February 2007.
The Government's controversial watchdog for local government in England, the Local Government Ombudsman, has just published (19 January 2007) a Guidance Note to local authorities that effectively gives councils official licence to ignore or marginalise complainants whom council officers decide to categorise as too tenacious in their efforts to achieve a fair and just outcome.
Councils will now, at their discretion, have official Ombudsman sanction to brand taxpayers as 'unreasonably persistent complainants' and impose draconian restrictions in terms of how the authority treats further communications, even following 'one or two isolated incidents' on the part
of the complainant. The Ombudsman lists examples of the kind of complainant behaviour that could merit such a sanction, which includes:
continuing to disagree with a council's claim that your complaint falls outside the remit of its complaints procedure;
continuing to assert a complaint against an officer that the council chooses to regard as groundless, and continuing to ask that a different officer deal with your case;
continuing to ask for a response to new material and evidence that the council has decided to categorise as trivial or irrelevant;
electronically recording a conversation or meeting without telling the council officer in advance, (presumably even if it is in order to obtain evidence of council wrongdoing that they would never record in writing);
daring to pursue a complaint with the council at the same time as with a Member of Parliament/ a councillor/ the authority's independent auditor/ the Standards Board/ local police/ solicitors/ the Ombudsman;
and refusing to accept the council's decision when you think it is wrong.
If a council decides it is convenient to brand a citizen who has dared to commit any of the above as an 'unreasonably persistent complainant,' then the Ombudsman gives the council licence simply to send an acknowledgement following any further correspondence from that individual, without heeding or acting on the content, or even to tell them that no further acknowledgement to communications will be sent.
It is, of course, in everyone's interest that genuinely obstructive and unreasonable complainants should not be able to waste council officers' time and energy. However, these latest Local Government Ombudsman guidelines are wholly unacceptable and represent a clear threat to our democratic way of life - in which the concerned citizen has always had a crucial role to play.
Rejecting a complaint on the grounds that the complainant has involved his local MP or councillors is to fly in the face of traditions of civic life and civic duty that have evolved in this country over many centuries. They evolved in that way for a very good reason, namely, to discourage abuse of
authority. Power, unfortunately, has a tendency to corrupt. If these insidious guidelines are not challenged, local authorities will have a new means of silencing those who ask difficult and searching questions And if such citizens are silenced, who will then challenge incompetence, cynicism,
and powerful vested interest? Can complacent and uncaring authority, brandishing its doctrine of restricted remit like some kind of badge of honour, be relied upon to do so? The only real beneficiaries of these new guidelines will be maladministration, misgovernance, and further civic
alienation.
In 2005, Mr and Mrs Balchin were awarded £100,000 compensation by Norfolk Council (and £100,000 by the Department of Transport) following a twenty year battle, after a plan to build a bypass 12 feet from their property led to them losing their £435,000 home, their business and their savings. They also both suffered ill health as a result of the stress of the case. Under the new Local Government Ombudsman guidelines, they would, no doubt, have been silenced many years ago - not least because they enlisted, among others, the help of their MP, Sir Michael Lord: apparently an infringement according to the LGO's new Guidance Note.
This LGO document serves to reinforce the growing impression that the Local Government Ombudsman is hand-in-glove with the local authorities it claims to monitor impartially. The consumer rights organisation Local Government Ombudsman Watch (LGOWatch) has exposed to public scrutiny the fact that all three Ombudsmen for England are former local authority CEOs, and that they find maladministration in less than 2% of the complaints they receive that are within jurisdiction. This is a far lower figure than that of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Given its far too cosy relationship with local government, it is hardly any surprise that the LGO is becoming increasingly challenged by dissatisfied consumers. In 2005, the three Local Government Ombudsmen were summoned to appear before the ODPM Parliamentary Select Committee and forced to respond to allegations of pro-council bias raised by LGOWatch and others. The Welsh
Ombudsman was similarly hauled before a Parliamentary Committee in the mid 90's.
LGOWatch exposed that, in the MORI polls of 1995 and 1999 commissioned by the Ombudsman's office itself, 73% of complainants described themselves as 'dissatisfied' with the outcome of their complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, including even approximately half of the tiny
percentage who had achieved a finding of maladministration. The result of this bad publicity: the MORI polls were immediately discontinued by the LGO, and replaced with a customer satisfaction survey carried out by a different market research company that omitted the embarrassing questions.
Read more.
Local Government Ombudsman Watch:- Campaigning for an Independent Local Government Complaints Commission that is committed to fairness, honesty and transparency, and is not staffed by former council officers and bosses.
Forward email
This email was sent to colrev@hotmail.co.uk, by gjp@ombudsmanwatch.org
'exempt', so why is it they think they are?
I am asking Simone Aspies United Kingdom Disabled People's Council to also take urgent advice from the DRC and the Government on this urgent matter to reassure 'us' that all disabled will be fully protected from being 'excluded' in making any complaints and that disabled people will be able to
take disability discrimination cases against the local authorities and the LGO and other Omudsman if they are discriminated against.
As you are all fully informed that in my own case recently that HHJ Grenfell, Hull Combined Courts, stated that the LGO and all health and social care professionals can't be sued by disabled people, or any other member of the public for professional negligence and maladminstration, isability discrimination and basic human rights abuses.
This can't be right, can it?
So, are the LGO and all other Ombudsman and health and social care professionals and Council's, Health Trusts and other public bodies are all 'exempt' from being taken to Courts for failure of duty of care, professional negligence, disability discrimination and of course violations of basic human rights, under the Human Rights Act and ECHR 1950 ?
Please feel free to send this email throughout all your networks and get them to act upon this information very urgently alone, or with others.
Write, or send email to your MP.
I have done this (Graham Stuart, MP) and also emailed Anne McGuire, Minister for Disabled Peoples
Yours
Colin Revell, see LGO Watch News Release below....From : Local Government
Ombudsman Watch
Reply-To :
gjp@ombudsmanwatch.org Sent : 01 February 2007 20:37:39
To :
colrev@hotmail.co.uk Subject : News Release: Ombudsman Green Light for Burying Complaints
LGOWatch News Release
Website:-
http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/ News release
Local Government Ombudsman issues advice to councils on how to silence 'difficult' complainants.
Purley, 1 February 2007.
The Government's controversial watchdog for local government in England, the Local Government Ombudsman, has just published (19 January 2007) a Guidance Note to local authorities that effectively gives councils official licence to ignore or marginalise complainants whom council officers decide to categorise as too tenacious in their efforts to achieve a fair and just outcome.
Councils will now, at their discretion, have official Ombudsman sanction to brand taxpayers as 'unreasonably persistent complainants' and impose draconian restrictions in terms of how the authority treats further communications, even following 'one or two isolated incidents' on the part
of the complainant. The Ombudsman lists examples of the kind of complainant behaviour that could merit such a sanction, which includes:
continuing to disagree with a council's claim that your complaint falls outside the remit of its complaints procedure;
continuing to assert a complaint against an officer that the council chooses to regard as groundless, and continuing to ask that a different officer deal with your case;
continuing to ask for a response to new material and evidence that the council has decided to categorise as trivial or irrelevant;
electronically recording a conversation or meeting without telling the council officer in advance, (presumably even if it is in order to obtain evidence of council wrongdoing that they would never record in writing);
daring to pursue a complaint with the council at the same time as with a Member of Parliament/ a councillor/ the authority's independent auditor/ the Standards Board/ local police/ solicitors/ the Ombudsman;
and refusing to accept the council's decision when you think it is wrong.
If a council decides it is convenient to brand a citizen who has dared to commit any of the above as an 'unreasonably persistent complainant,' then the Ombudsman gives the council licence simply to send an acknowledgement following any further correspondence from that individual, without heeding or acting on the content, or even to tell them that no further acknowledgement to communications will be sent.
It is, of course, in everyone's interest that genuinely obstructive and unreasonable complainants should not be able to waste council officers' time and energy. However, these latest Local Government Ombudsman guidelines are wholly unacceptable and represent a clear threat to our democratic way of life - in which the concerned citizen has always had a crucial role to play.
Rejecting a complaint on the grounds that the complainant has involved his local MP or councillors is to fly in the face of traditions of civic life and civic duty that have evolved in this country over many centuries. They evolved in that way for a very good reason, namely, to discourage abuse of
authority. Power, unfortunately, has a tendency to corrupt. If these insidious guidelines are not challenged, local authorities will have a new means of silencing those who ask difficult and searching questions And if such citizens are silenced, who will then challenge incompetence, cynicism,
and powerful vested interest? Can complacent and uncaring authority, brandishing its doctrine of restricted remit like some kind of badge of honour, be relied upon to do so? The only real beneficiaries of these new guidelines will be maladministration, misgovernance, and further civic
alienation.
In 2005, Mr and Mrs Balchin were awarded £100,000 compensation by Norfolk Council (and £100,000 by the Department of Transport) following a twenty year battle, after a plan to build a bypass 12 feet from their property led to them losing their £435,000 home, their business and their savings. They also both suffered ill health as a result of the stress of the case. Under the new Local Government Ombudsman guidelines, they would, no doubt, have been silenced many years ago - not least because they enlisted, among others, the help of their MP, Sir Michael Lord: apparently an infringement according to the LGO's new Guidance Note.
This LGO document serves to reinforce the growing impression that the Local Government Ombudsman is hand-in-glove with the local authorities it claims to monitor impartially. The consumer rights organisation Local Government Ombudsman Watch (LGOWatch) has exposed to public scrutiny the fact that all three Ombudsmen for England are former local authority CEOs, and that they find maladministration in less than 2% of the complaints they receive that are within jurisdiction. This is a far lower figure than that of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Given its far too cosy relationship with local government, it is hardly any surprise that the LGO is becoming increasingly challenged by dissatisfied consumers. In 2005, the three Local Government Ombudsmen were summoned to appear before the ODPM Parliamentary Select Committee and forced to respond to allegations of pro-council bias raised by LGOWatch and others. The Welsh
Ombudsman was similarly hauled before a Parliamentary Committee in the mid 90's.
LGOWatch exposed that, in the MORI polls of 1995 and 1999 commissioned by the Ombudsman's office itself, 73% of complainants described themselves as 'dissatisfied' with the outcome of their complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, including even approximately half of the tiny
percentage who had achieved a finding of maladministration. The result of this bad publicity: the MORI polls were immediately discontinued by the LGO, and replaced with a customer satisfaction survey carried out by a different market research company that omitted the embarrassing questions.
Read more.
Local Government Ombudsman Watch:- Campaigning for an Independent Local Government Complaints Commission that is committed to fairness, honesty and transparency, and is not staffed by former council officers and bosses.
Forward email
This email was sent to
colrev@hotmail.co.uk, by gjp@ombudsmanwatch.org 
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following comment