23rd May 2016, 10:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 27th May 2016, 10:58 AM by Marc Berger.)
I don't know, maybe in the mean time we could look at the one example that is published of an archaeologist going to the ombudswoman that I can find
http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/other-ca...13-021-401
After what I have experienced you have to read a lot between the lines. They are a law unto themselves although they don't seem to have jurisdiction and almost no right of appeal. They quote the 1974 local government act a lot and they have a frankly odd mantra which they like to kick off a lot of their so called decisions with
The Ombudsman here says that there was fault and the council have admitted to it but not of what that I can workout, is it that they forgot to put the person on or did they have an unfair criteria that kept them off under what Act?
Personally I am against councils producing lists unless I am the only one on it. I think that Mr B would have been better of going down the data protection route, putting in a freedom of information request to find out how much it cost to maintain the list and under what service agreement did the list come about and what were the rules based on. The ombudsman appears to say that some years the list was alphabetical and on others random.
The best bit though is the
The other thing that this case has that I am familiar with is the use of "cannot say" "caused" "any" "a" "significant injustice". significant injustice is not a term that I can find in the 1974 Act, Presumably an insignificant injustice is a justice.
Basically its all pretty pointless but presumably random lists with anybody from around the world are now going to be popping up all over council web pages. Lincolnshire I think link to BAJR (not that you would find me on that list either as us independent archaeologists have principles you know)
No mention of town and country planning acts in the decision which is what the council is presumably trying to administer.
Just where does it say in the annuls of government that Councils should spend tax payers money to provide and administer lists of archaeologists?
has bajr come across this case before?
http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/other-ca...13-021-401
After what I have experienced you have to read a lot between the lines. They are a law unto themselves although they don't seem to have jurisdiction and almost no right of appeal. They quote the 1974 local government act a lot and they have a frankly odd mantra which they like to kick off a lot of their so called decisions with
Quote:2.The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these.The strange thing is that service failure does not seem to appear in the 1974 Act and nor does the word fault so why don't they just use the word maladministration. I think why they don't like to use the word maladministration is then they would possibly have to say maladministration of what and that's probably the weakness of this archaeologist case just what law or act of parliament does the publishing of lists with archaeologists names come under. If it did say which Act then ombudswoman would probably then say that they should take it to court. With LPAs and planning matters its likely to be a planning inspector that the Ombudswoman would expect you to go to you but you have to be an applicant or the authority to do that by appeal. So us poor old archaeologists are basically exiles to Justice.
The Ombudsman here says that there was fault and the council have admitted to it but not of what that I can workout, is it that they forgot to put the person on or did they have an unfair criteria that kept them off under what Act?
Personally I am against councils producing lists unless I am the only one on it. I think that Mr B would have been better of going down the data protection route, putting in a freedom of information request to find out how much it cost to maintain the list and under what service agreement did the list come about and what were the rules based on. The ombudsman appears to say that some years the list was alphabetical and on others random.
The best bit though is the
Quote:The fact the Council now has one list, not showing location within or outside the county, is not evidence the previous structure was flawed or caused injustice to Mr B.giving with one hand taking with the other or if its not evidence why did they change it then?
The other thing that this case has that I am familiar with is the use of "cannot say" "caused" "any" "a" "significant injustice". significant injustice is not a term that I can find in the 1974 Act, Presumably an insignificant injustice is a justice.
Basically its all pretty pointless but presumably random lists with anybody from around the world are now going to be popping up all over council web pages. Lincolnshire I think link to BAJR (not that you would find me on that list either as us independent archaeologists have principles you know)
No mention of town and country planning acts in the decision which is what the council is presumably trying to administer.
Just where does it say in the annuls of government that Councils should spend tax payers money to provide and administer lists of archaeologists?
has bajr come across this case before?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist