| Topic: | EALING'S CORRUPT COMPLAINTS SERVICE | |
| Posted by: | Andrew Farmer | |
| Date/Time: | 02/08/22 08:00:00 |
| The Local Government Ombudsman is “disappointed” in the borough’s handling of complaints. I am disgusted. The problem is rooted in the reluctance of our elected representatives to take an interest in the misconduct of council officers. It is left to officers to police officers. The assumption is they will behave with impartiality. The evidence is that senior colleagues collude in cover-up to protect one another and betray the public interest in favour of their own. The trick that has become institutionalised in council practice is to claim the complaint has already been dealt with. When asked to demonstrate where and when, they ignore the request. I and neighbours complained about seven officers in succession. The lie (“already dealt with”) was passed down the line. “Tell one for the team” is the esprit de corps in Ealing’s top offices. The officers still with the council who, it is alleged, have behaved in this way are Ms Reynolds, Ms Harris, and, in a separate matter, Ms Taylor. Between them, the first two control the complaints procedure so it is impossible to make a formal compaint which will survive their maladministration. The LGO never names the officers whose behaviour gives rise to complaints. We were paid a sum of money when the LGO found the Council guilty of maladministration in a matter we put to it. Who paid? We did. You did. It came from Council Tax. The offending officers got away without a bad mark against their name. Who is responsible for the present, not-fit-for-purpose complaints system? For one, Mason. He promised transparency in the Council’s dealings with residents: “Do email me to raise specific issues about the Borough”. I drew the corrupted state of the complaints service with examples to his attention 12.6.21. Despite three reminders (19.7.21, 18.8.21, 20.9.21), I have not received even the courtesy of an acknowledgement, let alone a reply of substance. Not much interest in the behaviour of senior officers from him. He is happy to turn a blind eye to the complaints against them. I have formed the opinion that Mr Mason is a moral fraud, a man who does not keep his word, who cannot be trusted. I put the matter to Mr Read, the officer responsible for the way the Council engages with the public. I gave summaries of of a number of complaints. He wrote back : “ I have reviewed the case history of the complaints which you refer to. I do not believe that officers have acted improperly. The complaints process has been followed and exhausted.” This bland catch-all “acquittal” was mere opinion unsupported by analysis of the behaviour of the officers involved. It was untenable. I pointed out in the case of Ms Harris that the Council itself had been obliged to apologise for her delay (four months) in dealing with my complaint. (In fact, she never dealt with it at all.) He asked what specific matter we wanted the Council to deal with. We said the behaviour of Ms Reynolds when she responded to a complaint against a senior colleague. We put it in the form of a questionnaire about Ms Reynolds’ behaviour. We have waited a fortnight for a response. Give him another week. Then we shall conclude that answering our questions would have led him to the truth about his colleague Reynolds and so he is dodging them. it would be interesting and useful if readers of Ealing Today would contribute to the Forum their experiences of Ealing Council’s complaints procedure. These could be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government, asking for Ealing’s complaints service to be taken into special measures. The attempt would at least attract attention to Ealing’s corrupted complaints service. Of course, the unacceptable state of the complaints service is only one feature of the corrupt culture of unaccountability that infects Ealing Council. |