Local Government Ombudsman issues rare further report criticising council

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) has for the first time since 2016 issued a further report into a council, after the Council of the Isles of Scilly failed to comply with recommendations made in an earlier report.

The report was originally issued in August 2017 and found that the council was at fault. However, the LGO said it was not published because of fears the family might be identified.

The Isles of Scilly was given three months to comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendations, but has failed to do this.

The LGO has called on the council to ensure it complies with the recommendations set out in the original report and provide evidence of this “without delay”.

It should also pay the family an additional £250 for the injustice caused by having to issue a further report, the Ombudsman said.

“The council should also lay the original report, and this further report before the authority if its intention is to refuse to comply with the recommendations of the original report and further recommendations,” the LGO added.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “While I appreciate the council is in a difficult position with regards to members discussing the original report in public, the council still needs to keep the communication channels open with my office and confirm its intended actions.

“Since we chased the council about its response to the initial report it has - albeit belatedly- sent an apology to the family and provided part of the financial remedy recommended.

“The council’s failure to respond properly to the original report has shown a great deal of disrespect to the family, and can have only compounded their sense of injustice. I am disappointed it took prompting and the threat of this further report for the council to provide part of the remedy it had previously agreed. It still needs to provide evidence it has complied with other aspects of the original recommendations, including for their loss of services, which were clearly set out in the original report and have remained consistent throughout our regular correspondence with the council.”