To give you an idea how remarkable this finding of MALADMINISTRATION is . . (Last Page)
In 2004/2005 NO CASES OF MALADMINISTRATION were found against Croydon Council. Yet there were 137 cases investigated by The Ombudsman . . . believe me they do not accept a case that they can find any reason whatsoever to throw out at the first hurdle . . . .if your case is being investigated by The Ombudsman . . you’ve got a case . . . they wouldn’t take it otherwise . . the fact that they may over ride it, belittle it, water it down later, drag it out for months and months more . . . (mine took a ridiculous YEAR). . . . doesn’t make it less of a case. For instance of the 137 cases they did accept in that year . . . (there were probably thousands made) . . . . 14 were what is euphemistically called “settled locally” . . . . what this actually means is that . . as in my case . . . . . a trivial fine (in all only 5 complainants were paid out a sum between them of £2671 which works out at £535 each) is imposed by The Local Government Ombudsman . .
So Croydon Council cough up the sort of money they spend on an evenings Director entertaining. . then they give an apology because they are told to . . . and that is the last of the matter as far as these people are concerned . . . . UNLESS YOU HAVE 8 PAGE 1 GOOGLE and MSN web sites that is . . . then it is a bit more difficult to keep it quiet . . . do a search on . . Maladministration Croydon . . . with practically any search engine and you will see what I mean. . .
It is most likely that my case will be called a “Local Settlement” so doesn’t need reporting. . . . (could be wrong though. . . . but doesn’t look like it . . I’ve looked and it’s not been ‘reported’)
NO IT ISN’T A SETTLEMENT . . . £350 for all the trouble and heartache we have had to go through . . . never mind that our property is still in jeopardy is an insult and a disgrace. . . NOT A SETTLEMENT AT ALL. . . . . . . . . A SETTLEMENT by definition is when both sides agree.
What should be done is that decent awards should be made and those subtracted from the Chief Executives Salary . . that might get things moving instead of the deliberate prevarication that Croydon Council employ. Instead of paying him the 9th highest salary for being CEO of the 14th worst Council (complaints wise) His salary should be set on how many complaints are received, or at least settled quickly and FAIRLY.
In 2004/2005 NO CASES OF MALADMINISTRATION were found against Croydon Council. Yet there were 137 cases investigated by The Ombudsman . . . believe me they do not accept a case that they can find any reason whatsoever to throw out at the first hurdle . . . .if your case is being investigated by The Ombudsman . . you’ve got a case . . . they wouldn’t take it otherwise . . the fact that they may over ride it, belittle it, water it down later, drag it out for months and months more . . . (mine took a ridiculous YEAR). . . . doesn’t make it less of a case. For instance of the 137 cases they did accept in that year . . . (there were probably thousands made) . . . . 14 were what is euphemistically called “settled locally” . . . . what this actually means is that . . as in my case . . . . . a trivial fine (in all only 5 complainants were paid out a sum between them of £2671 which works out at £535 each) is imposed by The Local Government Ombudsman . .
So Croydon Council cough up the sort of money they spend on an evenings Director entertaining. . then they give an apology because they are told to . . . and that is the last of the matter as far as these people are concerned . . . . UNLESS YOU HAVE 8 PAGE 1 GOOGLE and MSN web sites that is . . . then it is a bit more difficult to keep it quiet . . . do a search on . . Maladministration Croydon . . . with practically any search engine and you will see what I mean. . .
It is most likely that my case will be called a “Local Settlement” so doesn’t need reporting. . . . (could be wrong though. . . . but doesn’t look like it . . I’ve looked and it’s not been ‘reported’)
NO IT ISN’T A SETTLEMENT . . . £350 for all the trouble and heartache we have had to go through . . . never mind that our property is still in jeopardy is an insult and a disgrace. . . NOT A SETTLEMENT AT ALL. . . . . . . . . A SETTLEMENT by definition is when both sides agree.
What should be done is that decent awards should be made and those subtracted from the Chief Executives Salary . . that might get things moving instead of the deliberate prevarication that Croydon Council employ. Instead of paying him the 9th highest salary for being CEO of the 14th worst Council (complaints wise) His salary should be set on how many complaints are received, or at least settled quickly and FAIRLY.
Speaking of which . . . to be fair . . . David Wechsler has apologised NOW and has PROMISED to get his Planning Officers to answer my further questions relating to my dispute with them . . . We shall see. . . . . BUT DO READ ON.
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR “LOCAL SETTLEMENT” IN LAW.
Misfeasance and 'local settlements' - by Trevor R Nunn
The Local Government Ombudsman was set up by Statute in 1974. This gave him the statutory right to
investigate, (or at their discretion, not investigate,) complaints of maladministration against local authorities.
However, I have always believed the LGO exceeded their statutory powers by introducing and using `Local
Settlements'. The current Government Review is the final confirmation that I am right, and this is my story.
I believe the LGO have been extremely lucky over the last thirty years that no individual or organisation such as Ombudsmanwatch has questioned their power to settle a case. I have never, knowingly, suffered a Local Settlement, so I do not have first-hand experience of challenging one. However, I know of many others who have been disgusted by the treatment dished out by the LGO under the excuse of a Local Settlement.
If you exclude their statutory powers the LGO, like any other authority, have no more powers than you or I. The 1974 Statute makes no mention of Local Settlements at all. In a civil case it has always been the prerogative of the two sides to reach an agreement to settle a case before judgment is given. By definition the `agreement to settle' must be mutual, otherwise either one of the parties could go on with the case. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as both parties agree. As a typical example, when I took a company to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal, it was obvious during the early part of the hearing that the company was going to lose. During the lunch break I was made an offer I couldn't refuse. (A lot of money, not a horse's head in the bed kind of offer.) I accepted their offer, withdrew my complaint of unfair dismissal, and went home to with a big fat cheque. However, the point is that I could have refused to settle and continued with the case: the choice was mine.
Unfortunately, the LGO version of a settlement is quite different. The LGO, rather than the complainant, makes the deal with the Council, and then decides to accept it no matter what the complainant wants. I acknowledge that in some cases the complainant is happy with the settlement, but in many they are not, but the LGO nonetheless refuses to continue with the investigation. The point is that they facilitate a Local Settlement and then use that as a reason to discontinue a valid complaint of maladministration, without the agreement of the complainant. That is misfeasance, because they quite simply they do not have the statutory power to do that. They can investigate, and find (or not find) maladministration, or they can refuse to investigate for any number of reasons.
The normal process (if the LGO decides to investigate) is that, during the investigation, the LGO finds
maladministration, and before the report is written, the Council make an offer to the LGO to Locally Settle the case. The LGO then `discontinues the investigation' and classes the case as Locally Settled. That is misfeasance for the simple reason that the Ombudsman has only one statutory option should maladministration be identified. That is to issue a report.
The LGO is sneaky. They do have the statutory power to end an investigation for any reason, so what they
suggest is that the investigation has been terminated because a case has been locally settled. However, once maladministration has been identified (and it would have to be for a Council to offer a settlement) the
investigation is over: there is nothing to terminate. They only have one lawful option and that is to produce a report. They cannot travel back in time and ignore the maladministration, suggest that they are still
investigating, and then use their statutory power to terminate the investigation.
In essence it is similar to a court case. During a trial, it is open to both parties to reach an agreement to settle a case. However, once the Judge has decided that the defendant is guilty, whatever else happens, the Judge has to deliver the Judgement. He can't say, hang on a moment, I did find the defendant guilty but he has now offered a settlement, so now I am going to tear up the guilty verdict, find him not guilty, and accept the settlement on behalf of the plaintiff.
So how could you define a `Settlement'? There is only one definition that springs to mind: it is clearly an
alternative method of resolving a dispute (ADR). It is also quite clear that such settlements are mediated by the LGO. We all know the LGO only has the powers to investigate, or not investigate. They do not have the statutory power to use Alternative Dispute Resolution. If you don't believe me, look at the Regulatory Reform Order. The Government wants to give the LGO ADR powers. Why would the Government give the LGO powers if they already have them? There is only one answer to that question: the LGO currently does not have the powers to settle a case.
If I am right, and I confident that I am, then every single `Locally Settled' case that did not have the agreement of the complainant, is an act of misfeasance by the LGO. As a result, anyone who has been forced to accept a `Local Settlement' has the legal right for their case to be reviewed. I hope you appreciate that a complainant could also claim substantial damages from the LGO for misfeasance. When you realise that the damages could run into £millions, you can understand why the Government want to close this black hole. Hence the RRO.
The RRO has been on the cards for the last six or seven years, so you have to ask yourself, why now? I believe that the LGO and the Government are concerned about the growing membership of LGOWatch and have realised that one of these days, someone somewhere is going to put two and two together. Furthermore, they may well close the stable door after the horse has bolted, but that does not stop a claim for misfeasance that originated prior to that date.
If I was in America, I would suggest that all the complainants who have had to accept a `Locally Settled' case instead of an investigation leading to a finding of maladministration, take a class action legal case against the LGO. In America there are many more Lawyers willing to take a `Pro Bono' or `No Win, No Fee' case. With the potential damages from the LGO alone running into millions, let alone any spin-off benefits from reopening a complainant's case against the Councils I am sure there would be plenty of lawyers interested without a complainant having to risk any of their own money.
The LGO Jerry White is right when he states his role is to investigate complaints of injustice arising out of
maladministration; he is also right when he states that the objective is to secure a remedy appropriate to the injustice. In addition he is also right when he states that they should try and put the person back in the position where they would have been before the maladministration occurred. He is partially right when he states that the Local Government Act gives the Ombudsman the power to decide whether to issue a report or not. He is also right when he states that he has the discretion to discontinue an investigation.
However, here is where the clever bit comes in: if he has found maladministration, then he must issue a report. He has no discretion in this. By definition, if he has accepted a settlement which he thinks puts you back in the position where you would have been before maladministration, then he must accept that maladministration has taken place. What the LGO do, though, is to ignore the fact they have found maladministration, pretend they are still investigating, and then use their discretionary power to discontinue the investigation. So in essence they have forced you to settle for the injustice you have suffered through maladministration without formally finding maladministration. That, I believe, is misfeasance. A statutory organisation cannot extend their express powers by such underhand means. They do not have any express statutory powers to settle a case. If maladministration is found, they should issue a report. It is an LGO fiddle that has been going on for long enough.
Please read the 1974 Act. There is no mention in it of local settlement at all. However, look at how many times it mentions investigate/maladministration etc. Do you not find it at all unusual that an LGO has express statutory powers for 1.6% of their work yet there is no mention at all of Local Settlements which account for some 29% of their work? If the Government felt the need to give an organisation the express statutory power to investigate, do you not think that they would have also included the express statutory power to settle a case if it was going to be used 20 times more than a report of maladministration?
The LGO is essentially stating that he is using Alternative Dispute Resolution, something he has not yet got the statutory powers to do. It is also interesting that the Government are about to remove that problem by giving the LGO the express statutory powers to settle a case, something they would not have to do if the LGO already had those powers.
All the LGO wants to do is bury maladministration for the benefit of a council: not to give the complainant the justice they so deserve.
Trevor R Nunn, October 2005
investigate, (or at their discretion, not investigate,) complaints of maladministration against local authorities.
However, I have always believed the LGO exceeded their statutory powers by introducing and using `Local
Settlements'. The current Government Review is the final confirmation that I am right, and this is my story.
I believe the LGO have been extremely lucky over the last thirty years that no individual or organisation such as Ombudsmanwatch has questioned their power to settle a case. I have never, knowingly, suffered a Local Settlement, so I do not have first-
If you exclude their statutory powers the LGO, like any other authority, have no more powers than you or I. The 1974 Statute makes no mention of Local Settlements at all. In a civil case it has always been the prerogative of the two sides to reach an agreement to settle a case before judgment is given. By definition the `agreement to settle' must be mutual, otherwise either one of the parties could go on with the case. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as both parties agree. As a typical example, when I took a company to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal, it was obvious during the early part of the hearing that the company was going to lose. During the lunch break I was made an offer I couldn't refuse. (A lot of money, not a horse's head in the bed kind of offer.) I accepted their offer, withdrew my complaint of unfair dismissal, and went home to with a big fat cheque. However, the point is that I could have refused to settle and continued with the case: the choice was mine.
Unfortunately, the LGO version of a settlement is quite different. The LGO, rather than the complainant, makes the deal with the Council, and then decides to accept it no matter what the complainant wants. I acknowledge that in some cases the complainant is happy with the settlement, but in many they are not, but the LGO nonetheless refuses to continue with the investigation. The point is that they facilitate a Local Settlement and then use that as a reason to discontinue a valid complaint of maladministration, without the agreement of the complainant. That is misfeasance, because they quite simply they do not have the statutory power to do that. They can investigate, and find (or not find) maladministration, or they can refuse to investigate for any number of reasons.
The normal process (if the LGO decides to investigate) is that, during the investigation, the LGO finds
maladministration, and before the report is written, the Council make an offer to the LGO to Locally Settle the case. The LGO then `discontinues the investigation' and classes the case as Locally Settled. That is misfeasance for the simple reason that the Ombudsman has only one statutory option should maladministration be identified. That is to issue a report.
The LGO is sneaky. They do have the statutory power to end an investigation for any reason, so what they
suggest is that the investigation has been terminated because a case has been locally settled. However, once maladministration has been identified (and it would have to be for a Council to offer a settlement) the
investigation is over: there is nothing to terminate. They only have one lawful option and that is to produce a report. They cannot travel back in time and ignore the maladministration, suggest that they are still
investigating, and then use their statutory power to terminate the investigation.
In essence it is similar to a court case. During a trial, it is open to both parties to reach an agreement to settle a case. However, once the Judge has decided that the defendant is guilty, whatever else happens, the Judge has to deliver the Judgement. He can't say, hang on a moment, I did find the defendant guilty but he has now offered a settlement, so now I am going to tear up the guilty verdict, find him not guilty, and accept the settlement on behalf of the plaintiff.
So how could you define a `Settlement'? There is only one definition that springs to mind: it is clearly an
alternative method of resolving a dispute (ADR). It is also quite clear that such settlements are mediated by the LGO. We all know the LGO only has the powers to investigate, or not investigate. They do not have the statutory power to use Alternative Dispute Resolution. If you don't believe me, look at the Regulatory Reform Order. The Government wants to give the LGO ADR powers. Why would the Government give the LGO powers if they already have them? There is only one answer to that question: the LGO currently does not have the powers to settle a case.
If I am right, and I confident that I am, then every single `Locally Settled' case that did not have the agreement of the complainant, is an act of misfeasance by the LGO. As a result, anyone who has been forced to accept a `Local Settlement' has the legal right for their case to be reviewed. I hope you appreciate that a complainant could also claim substantial damages from the LGO for misfeasance. When you realise that the damages could run into £millions, you can understand why the Government want to close this black hole. Hence the RRO.
The RRO has been on the cards for the last six or seven years, so you have to ask yourself, why now? I believe that the LGO and the Government are concerned about the growing membership of LGOWatch and have realised that one of these days, someone somewhere is going to put two and two together. Furthermore, they may well close the stable door after the horse has bolted, but that does not stop a claim for misfeasance that originated prior to that date.
If I was in America, I would suggest that all the complainants who have had to accept a `Locally Settled' case instead of an investigation leading to a finding of maladministration, take a class action legal case against the LGO. In America there are many more Lawyers willing to take a `Pro Bono' or `No Win, No Fee' case. With the potential damages from the LGO alone running into millions, let alone any spin-
The LGO Jerry White is right when he states his role is to investigate complaints of injustice arising out of
maladministration; he is also right when he states that the objective is to secure a remedy appropriate to the injustice. In addition he is also right when he states that they should try and put the person back in the position where they would have been before the maladministration occurred. He is partially right when he states that the Local Government Act gives the Ombudsman the power to decide whether to issue a report or not. He is also right when he states that he has the discretion to discontinue an investigation.
However, here is where the clever bit comes in: if he has found maladministration, then he must issue a report. He has no discretion in this. By definition, if he has accepted a settlement which he thinks puts you back in the position where you would have been before maladministration, then he must accept that maladministration has taken place. What the LGO do, though, is to ignore the fact they have found maladministration, pretend they are still investigating, and then use their discretionary power to discontinue the investigation. So in essence they have forced you to settle for the injustice you have suffered through maladministration without formally finding maladministration. That, I believe, is misfeasance. A statutory organisation cannot extend their express powers by such underhand means. They do not have any express statutory powers to settle a case. If maladministration is found, they should issue a report. It is an LGO fiddle that has been going on for long enough.
Please read the 1974 Act. There is no mention in it of local settlement at all. However, look at how many times it mentions investigate/maladministration etc. Do you not find it at all unusual that an LGO has express statutory powers for 1.6% of their work yet there is no mention at all of Local Settlements which account for some 29% of their work? If the Government felt the need to give an organisation the express statutory power to investigate, do you not think that they would have also included the express statutory power to settle a case if it was going to be used 20 times more than a report of maladministration?
The LGO is essentially stating that he is using Alternative Dispute Resolution, something he has not yet got the statutory powers to do. It is also interesting that the Government are about to remove that problem by giving the LGO the express statutory powers to settle a case, something they would not have to do if the LGO already had those powers.
All the LGO wants to do is bury maladministration for the benefit of a council: not to give the complainant the justice they so deserve.
Trevor R Nunn, October 2005
ON THIS PAGE . THE RARE CASE OF FINDING MALADMINISTRATION. CROYDON COUNCIL FOUND GUILTY BY THE LOCAL GOV’ OMBUDSMAN . . they were only told off for ignoring the danger . . the fact that they conspired to cause it is just brushed aside. . . .
THE TOTALLY UNAUTHORISED SITE THAT TELLS YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT REGIME @ THE LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON. . . . WWW.CROYDONCOUNCIL.INFO
THE Croydon Council information site.
THE Croydon Council information site.
Read what the Law Society say about SPOOF/PARODY SITES such as these and those of Rick Kordowski and his Moss and Coleman sites.
Click here.
Click here.
UPVC Chamfered & Moulded Systems
Aluminium Subframe or Direct Fixed
Solid Hardwood Windows
Doors & Conservatories
Aluminium Subframe or Direct Fixed
Solid Hardwood Windows
Doors & Conservatories
The Law Society’s Dirty Tricks Page.
In association with Richard Hegarty of Peterborough Solicitors Hegarty & Co . Consulting Matt Jacob of
Willoughby & Ptnrs London EC14
Richard Hegarty is Chair of the Solicitors Compliance Board for The Law Society.
In association with Richard Hegarty of Peterborough Solicitors Hegarty & Co . Consulting Matt Jacob of
Willoughby & Ptnrs London EC14
Richard Hegarty is Chair of the Solicitors Compliance Board for The Law Society.
This chap is doing the same to Moss & Coleman Solicitors www.mossand
coleman.co.uk
coleman.co.uk
I WISH I WERE CLEVER ENOUGH TO HAVE WRITTEN THAT . . .. Colin Cole
BUT IT GETS WORSE . . . Click Next . . . .below
BUT IT GETS WORSE . . . Click Next . . . .below
Relevant to this page.
What a load of Croydon Council ROT.
What a load of Croydon Council ROT.
Figures published this week show Croydon Council is the second-worst authority in England and the worst in London . . . . . . . . . . . Click here.
“LGOWatch regularly hears the most appalling accounts of misery from people who were betrayed by the institution LGO that was their last hope. This is a body that pretends to hold justice as its core value, yet betrays the existence of blatant vested interests and bias in its actions, and as a result effectively encourages further maladministration from local authorities with a sense of arrogant impunity.”
. . and this guy is having a go at “LEGAL BULLIES”
FDC Law, Solicitors.
Faulkner Daniel & Cruttwell, Midsomer Norton . . . .featuring Catriona “Merciless” Duthie @ St John’s Chambers, Bristol
FDC Law, Solicitors.
Faulkner Daniel & Cruttwell, Midsomer Norton . . . .featuring Catriona “Merciless” Duthie @ St John’s Chambers, Bristol
“ I am going to presume that Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley along with Ingram Winter Green Solicitors Bedford House and their clients Suryakant J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley and Fineland Properties Ltd, 43 Vincent Court (also known as Fine Land Properties Ltd. 2 Hillcrest Av. NW11 or Fineland Properties Ltd C/O Messrs Elliot Woolfe & Ros, Equity Hse, Edgeware ) . . . Reg owners Ruth Teitelbaum, 28 Overlea Road London, E5 9BG and Nathan Teitlebaum, Crest House, 34 Hillcrest Avenue, London NW11 0EN, CONSPIRED to lie, deceive and defraud me of my considerable claims in the matter of this dispute. . . See why ? . . . Click here
What a STAR . . .
HARRY ROFFEY
In his Seventies and having a go at the HSBC and Kent Police.
His site is
www.corruptpolice.co.uk/
Unlike
some of the scum advertised throughout my sites Harry is a really nice Guy until
you upset him.
Bit like me really.
See what I mean.
Click here
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross the no forms required to bid Auctioneers.
Contact Andrew
Mahon NI plaintiff 1’s chief fixer for details.
He knows Steven Grossman so doesn’t
have to fill out all those nasty Money Laundering forms.
Or ANY forms come to that.
www.barnett-
(Andrew Mahon
3 Pettigo Rd, Kesh,
Co
Fermanagh, NI.
02868 632102
0775 665878)
Steven Grossman MRICS
sgrossman@barnettross.co.uk
Have a word with Steve about how to avoid filling in all
those nasty PROXY forms.
He’ll do them for you.
“NO MAX” bids accepted.
And he’ll
invent a name
for you too.