Email this site to a contact

 

"Landlords and their aides can do as they please - and Thou will not challenge one of Mr John Prescott's departments" (My perception of events in 2004)

Local Government OMbudsman

 

The Local Government Ombudsman is the department positioned to address complaints against local government

(NB: The Local Government Ombudsman is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

Subsequent note in September 2008: I am not alone in my dissatisfaction with the LGO - see 'Campaign against bias and maladministration in the Local Government Ombudsman Service' http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org

Sections

(1) My complaint against Kensington and Chelsea Housing

I headed my 17 September 2004 complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman against Kensington & Chelsea Housing department with

"Evasion of its duty under Section 34 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, which states:   "Proceedings for an offence under any provision of this Act may be brought by a local housing authority"

Under point 16, I wrote,

"As so common nowadays with government departments, I have had to push and chase every step of the way.

(If I adopted the same attitude when they ask me to pay for my council tax, no doubt they would not waste any time prosecuting me)"

In his reply dated 5 October 2004 , the Local Government Ombudsman Investigator informs me that he will send a copy of my complaint to the Council; that

"For the moment you need take no further action on your complaint.

Once the Council has considered your complaint, if you are still unhappy, please send me the papers and say why you are dissatisfied".  

He terminates the letter by saying:  

"If I do not hear from you within the next 8 weeks, I will write to you again to see if you are satisfied with the outcome"

Back to list

(2) Local government and Local Government Ombudsman report to the same minister

I find the eight week grace period exceptionally generous given that by the time the Local Government Ombudsman wrote the letter, exactly four months had elapsed since I had first approached the Housing department.

This led me to explore where exactly the Local Government Ombudsman fitted within the government organisational structure and to discover that (at the time) it came under...

Mr Nick Raynsford who ALSO had responsibility for Local Government.

(Mr Raynsford came under Mr John Prescott i.e. part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

While I admit to not knowing the detail of the activities, this looked to me like a conflict of interest (similar to e.g. the Law Society, Bar Council, RICS, ICAEW etc. being both, trade associations and 'regulatory' bodies).

I then received a 15 October 2004 letter from the Chief Housing Officer to which I replied on 11 November 2004. (See Council section)

By then, I had become extremely tired of the pushback letters I kept receiving from government departments I turned to for assistance. I had also caught on the 'tricks' used by these departments to get rid of 'persistent' people like me.

Hence, to short-circuit my being made to go through any more 'loops' all with the aim of wearing me down so that I give up, I made it bluntly clear in my letter that I understood the underlying strategy.

(What also prompted me to make the various comments was my experience with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. Like Local Government, it also reported to the then head of the department, Mr John Prescott) .

I copied the Local Government Ombudsman on both my letters - including stating in my 11 November 2004 covering letter that I knew where the Local Government Ombudsman fitted within the organisational structure. Not surprisingly, these letters did not go down well.

Back to list

(3) 'Big Brother' decided to 'punish me'

The outcome was that 'Big Brother' decided it was going to punish me for, I assume, being a daring, insignificant 'nobody' - or other perceptions in a similar vein.

The Investigator copied me on his email of 16 November 2004 to the Director of Law and Administration at the council, as well as another individual, also at the council (NB: role unknown) in which he stated, among others, that:

"We will treat this as a new complaint which will be registered in due course.

There is presently a six week delay in allocating complaints."

It was clear to me that I was the 'true' addressee for this email.

I replied in my email of 17 November 2004 that, given the contents of his letter of 5 October 2004 , I assumed that an error had been made.

To this he replied on the same day i.e. 17 November 2004 at 11h03:

"No the statement you quoted is not an error.

It seemed to me your letter [i.e. of 11 November] was an expression of dissatisfaction with the Council's response.

For that reason I decided that your letter be registered as a new complaint (which it must be as your old complaint is closed)" .  

Compare this with his 5 October 2004 letter:

"For the moment you need take no further action on your complaint.

Once the Council has considered your complaint, if you are still unhappy, please send me the papers and say why you are dissatisfied"

 

The Investigator, whom, by then, I perceived as a little dictator with a grossly inflated sense of power, terminates his email by saying:

"I cannot confirm at this stage that your complaint will be pursued or what further action will be taken"  

Translation: Damn you woman! If you think you are going to outsmart us, you won't. We'll do exactly as we planned to do all along: ignore your request for assistance. If this does not demonstrate bias then, what does?

At least, the benefit of my approach was that I had saved myself endless hours of pointless letter writing and photocopying, as well as a substantial amount in postage.

Back to list

(4) 'Big Brother' appears to have had its cage rattled

My battle carried on with the Council's Housing department.

In my 24 November 2004 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, I referred to my experience with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe that this Ombudsman intervened 'behind the scene' as, on 13 January 2005, I received an email from the Local Government Ombudsman Investigator.

My not replying, led to another email on 26 January 2005 (this includes copy of both emails) and to a phone call a few days later. I considered his tone at the beginning of the conversation as dictatorial and commented on it.

In his emails, the Investigator stated that "I understand you have received the accounts" . In fact, I had not.

In my 27 February 2005 letter to him, I related what I had told him during the course of our conversation on 1st /2nd February, namely that in her 16 December 2004 letter,

"the Executive Director, Housing & Social Services triumphantly announced that MRJ had told [the TRO]   that the accounts had been sent which therefore vindicated the Council's stance" .

2. I had not received the accounts i.e. for 2002 and 2003.

3. In spite of the detailed, comprehensive evidence I provided to the Council, [the Executive Director] opted to (based on her letter) believe that MRJ had sent me the accounts instead of ascertaining that I had indeed received them."

4. I then told you: "what would it have cost the Council to enclose a copy of the accounts?   Based on previous years, at most it will be c. 4-5 pages for each year"

5. At this point you replied to me: "There is no hidden agenda".  

I put it to you that any reasonable people when considering the evidence would conclude otherwise"

Following our 1st / 2nd February conversation, the Investigator contacted the Housing department. In a correspondence dated 9 February 2005 , he enclosed the 2002 and 2003 accounts.

Back to list

(5) Indications are that the council also opted for 'punishment'

In my 27 February 2005 letter, I drew attention to the fact that:

•  The fax from Mr Barrie Martin, Martin Russell Jones, to the Housing department was dated 5 November 2004 i.e. three months earlier

•  He only referred to the 2003 accounts - not the 2002 accounts

•  Leading me to ask:

"when were the 2002 accounts received by the [TRO] and, why were they not sent to me at the time?"

Yet again, I concluded that this was another example from one of Mr Prescott's departments that leaseholders who dare to challenge a landlord and, to top it all, also dare to challenge one of his departments, would not 'get away with it'.

In which part of the private sector would employees be allowed to behave in this manner towards their employer?

Back to list

(6) The favourite replies from a government department: "not in the public interest", and "do it yourself!"

In the rest of my 27 February 2005 letter, I challenged many of the points in the 16 December 2004 letter from the Executive Director of housing highlighting the misinformation, as well as contradictions in the excuses provided - among others, in the series of "justification" provided for not prosecuting.

I concluded on the section by stating:

"And you expect me to believe that "there is no hidden agenda"?"  

(The comment made by the Investigator in reply to my saying to him on 1st / 2nd February that "it was now very clear to me that the RBK&C Housing Department was protecting Steel Services" )

I followed by this relating my experience with him and, in the latter part of my letter wrote:

"Yes Mr [ ] , there is a hidden agenda which is now very clear to me:   a dictate that landlords are sacrosanct and, quite clearly, some more so than others.

While, as a result of my horrendous nightmare experience now going into its 4th year, I firmly believe that the leasehold system must be abolished, I would suggest that, at a minimum, some discretion is used in implementing the dictate from the top.

The benefit of doing this ought to be obvious to those with the most at stake"

I concluded with the following:

"The government would like the public to believe that 'customer orientation' is the new 'mot d' ordre' for government departments.  

Quite clearly, this message has yet to filter down to Kensington & Chelsea Housing Department.

Indeed, in her letter of 16 December 2004 , [the Executive Director] makes it clear that improvements in the service provided by her department are not on the agenda:

"To create one central manual containing a "comprehensive repository of lessons learnt from previously identified failings" of this or any other local housing departments as you suggest would be both impractical and unworkable"

Re. the reply from the Executive Director: good of her to confirm that the failings of her department, as well as others, are so numerous that there is no hope of improvement.

Back to list

(7) At the end of August 2006, I finally obtained the missing part of the 2002 and 2003 accounts showing that a fraud had taken place. Was the Local Government Ombudsman aware of this at the beginning of 2005 when he challenged me on my claim that the accounts were not compliant with legislation - nor, my lease?

In my 27 February 2005 letter, under '1. Enclosures' , I also drew attention to the following:

"Page 1 i.e. the commentary for both, the 2002 and 2003 accounts states: "...show how they are reflected in the service charge demands and specifies the amount payable by each lessee".

"This schedule was not enclosed for the 2002 accounts, nor for the 2003 accounts"

I attributed this to the fact that Martin Russell Jones , Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and their client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, had something to hide. I WAS RIGHT!

After an unebelievable battle with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, at the end of August 2006, it sent me a copy of the above enclosures, with its letter dated 29 August 2006.

The 2002 and 2003 "summary of contributions to the major works fund" sent to me by the ICAEW show that 9 out the 14 flats listed on the West London County Court claim were charged the FULL amount originally demanded by Ms Hathaway in her 15 July 2002 letter.

These amounts are listed in the Particulars of the claim (1.1MB) (contains my analysis of the contributions paid by the leaseholders, as well as supporting documents) accompanying the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim - drawn-up by CKFT - and filed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth.

With the assistance of West London County Court, at least seven leaseholders were made to pay the full amount BEFORE the tribunal had issued its determination, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database) (See West London County Court # 2 , # 6 ; Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 , # 6 , # 7 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.1 , # 6.2 , # 6.3 )

These sums were obtained fraudulently, amounting to committing offences under, among others, the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 ; the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; the Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; the Malicious Communications Act 1988 - See Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, including # 6.6

The Investigator replied to my 27 February 2005 letter by email on 14 April 2005 , challenging my claim that the accounts were not compliant with legislation.

WHY?

Did he know about the content of these enclosures? I consider this a fair question for me to ask.

Well, I can always ask - even though I will not get the answer - as suggested by this article in The Guardian, 4 December 2006, in relation to the Freedom of Information Act "Afraid of the daylight"

"...ministers have set-up a fantastical bureaucratic structure with the aim of obstructing inquirers at every turn" (back-up extracts)

This was also picked-up by The Independent in its 15 December 2006 article, headed "Blair questioned by police on day of 'burying bad news' "

"The Department for Constitutional Affairs under Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced it was pressing ahead with plans to limit the Freedom of Information Act ­ curtailing rights to access and increasing fees to apply" (back-up extracts )

I replied on 17 April 2005 maintaining my position. (See Pridie Brewster )

 

 

The 12 May 2005 reply from the Investigator falls back on the 'old favourite'

"...even if the freeholder had not complied with the terms of s21(5) as you allege, it is the council's view that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute the case." (1)

In light of the above, it certainly would not be "in the landlord's interest to prosecute the case"

Which is then followed by another of the government's favourite: "do it yourself!" as the letter states

"It remains open to you to bring a private prosecution against the landlord if you so wish"

To which, in my view, should be added:

"As you know from your first-hand experience with West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court, this is not going to get you anywhere. Landlords are untouchable "

Note:

(1) On the other hand, the government evidently considers it to be "in the public interest" to squander billions of pounds of taxpayers' money e.g.

 

•  The Mail on Sunday article of 8 May 2006 - "The Eurofighter project has been plagued by technical problems for years, resulting in extra costs to taxpayers of at least £20 billion" (US$35bn)

•  The Independent, 5 September 2006 article - "A major computer system used to process payments has been shelved, the Government confirmed today...The BBC Radio 4 Today programme reported that it had cost £141 million (US$250 million) in the three years since it had been first set-up and had been designed to save around £60 million (US$106 million) for the taxpayer"

•  The Independent, on 15 December 2006, "Anger as Whitehall spends £7bn on private consultants" (backup extracts )

"Government departments have spent £7.2bn on consultants in three years, but appear not to have a clear idea of what value they got for their money, according to the first authoritative survey by the official public spending watchdog"

This seems to me to be the outcome of handing over a £500+ billion (US$900 billion) business (the size of the budget) to people who have never run a business in their life. (Discussed in more detail in My Diary under the latter part of the entry for Wednesday 2 August 2006))

So much for housing departments being the " prosecuting authority for contraventions of Landlord - Tenant legislation" - as detailed, under point 5 of the 16 December 2004 letter from the Executive Director Housing & Social Services for Kensington & Chelsea.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Since then, I came across an article in The Times of 16 August 2005 , in which the journalist wrote:

"...LGO Watch... called for the setting up of an independent local government complaints commission to bring order into a system it described as "morally corrupt"

...the 2000 Act was supposed to herald a regime of quality, efficiency and leadership.

In fact, it has meant the introduction of the payroll and pork-barrel politics into English local government, along with the acceleration of an arrogant, managerial style of operation"

(I wrote a letter to the journalist to compliment him on his insights).

My battle with Kensington and Chelsea Housing department and the Local Government Ombudsman has cost me, among others, over 250 hours of my life. (See Document Library for the list of correspondence)

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA HOUSING, MY WARD COUNCILLOR, AND THEIR THEN OVERALL HEAD, MR JOHN PRESCOTT CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

Back to top