| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:EALING'S CORRUPT COMPLAINTS SERVICE | |
| Posted by: | Andrew Farmer | |
| Date/Time: | 02/08/22 15:10:00 |
| Mr Evans, you are as complacent as Ealing Council. To say Ealing is not uniquely bad is not the point. Significant shortcomings in any council's complaints procedure which result in injustice to complainants are always matters of serious concern. Familiarise himself with the cases for which Ealing was criticised - victims of domestic abuse left in limbo, a homeless family left too long in unsuitable accommodation etc etc. The council failed these people and should be ashamed. I respond to your other points thus: EVANS: “Don't see why you want to invent a new system when current one seems to be functioning acceptably. The Ombudsman's disappointment doesn't equate to 'corruption'’’ ME: This ruling alone may not signify corruption and the council is eager to restrict consideration of the admonishment it to the issue of timely response to complaints. A full examination of the complaints service as set out in brief in my post on the forum and fully in my letter to the CEO gives a fuller picture and justifies word. EVANS: “you admit an earlier ruling went in your favour” ME: The ruling went in our favour due to the LGO. That does not mean the Council’s complaints procedure was operating properly. The opposite. You are confusing the operation of the internal system with operation of the LGO system. EVANS: “Making council officers financially responsible for any payouts is a non-starter. if they were being asked to carry the risk personally of the financial cost of any rulings they be given professional indemnity insurance as part of their contracts ME:I did not say they should be made financially liable, but what a good idea. I said it should be put on their record. They should at least be censured and some sanction imposed. And they ARE indemnified if not contractually de facto: no censure, no black mark in their record, no sanction. Lack of a sanction is a licence to go on misconducting themselves. The LGO case referred to was 17003301. |