Manual Manipulation of the word Maladministration
Jan 14th, 2010 by bobdootson
It appears we are in possesion of another quote from the Local corridors of power:
“Maladministration is a description not a definition”
Somebody should tell the LGO!
Here are the explanations of what maladministration means given by the main public services ombudsmen.
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) investigates complaints about local authority services in England. Its 2008 leaflet suggests that you may want to complain about:
- administrative fault, such as the council making a mistake or not following its own rules
- poor service or no service
- delay
- bad advice
When parliament was debating the Bill to set up the Parliamentary Ombudsman in 1967, Richard Crossman said that maladministration included “bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude and so on”. In a court case in 1979 Lord Denning particularly liked the ‘and so on’ at the end. He said: “It would be a long and interesting list, clearly open-ended, covering the manner in which a decision is reached or discretion is exercised…”
Maladministration is a political term which describes the actions of a government body which can be seen as causing an injustice.
The law in the United Kingdom says Ombudsman must investigate ‘maladministration’. The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:
Delay
Incorrect action or failure to take any action
Failure to follow procedures or the law
Failure to provide information
Inadequate record-keeping
Failure to investigate
Failure to reply
Misleading or inaccurate statements
Inadequate liaison
Inadequate consultation
Broken promises
This is an extract from the web page of “rottencouncil.co.uk”. I don’t need to comment, the silence says it all.
No person should suffer!
It is every citizen’s duty to challenge the torment and distress so often caused by local authorities such as North East Lincolnshire Council. Quite often, maladministration, abuse of power and injustice within these authorities are simply left uncontested. Even when Councils are brought to task, their own internal investigations simply lack the credibility of an honest, impartial study of those complaints put before them.
Misconduct by Councils, when it occurs, harms not only the community they are elected to serve but the wider reputation of government as a whole across the entire country. We all should expect Councils to uphold the highest standards of integrity and carry out all its duties. Most wrongdoing stems from officers that are employed to uphold the Council Constitutions. It is these officers who have no fear of retribution from the employer they serve.
Unmistakeably, in particular matters where law and procedure have been unequivocally demonstrated to these officers, it is of little or of no consequence to them until the issues are forced into further investigation. These breaches of law and procedure are shown to exist for many years, prejudicing the rights of those individuals entitled to exercise or benefit from the fundamental function of that regulation or procedure and as of a consequence, irrefutably causing maladministration.
Despite hard evidence and firm arguments proving inexcusable behaviour by Council officers, the unfortunate citizen who has empowered themselves to bring their complaint forward is immediately deflated upon the Council’s conclusions into their complaints. Often, the complainant is made to feel that they are at fault as the Council usually vindicates itself of little or any wrongdoing.
After the initial whitewash from a Council investigation, those brave enough to go a step further will no doubt run into the biased brick wall of the Local Government Ombudsman. The Local Government Ombudsman is most efficient and indeed methodical in his or her duty of ‘tidying up’ complaints against Councils, adding further insult to injury. Such injustice is intolerable from a watchdog body which purports itself to be ‘impartial’.
We can’t get satisfaction!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MejtR81RzCo