2578208
Parliamentary Ombudsmen
- Investigates complaints of
maladministration by the general
public that have suffered injustice
as a result
- R (on the application of Bradley) v
Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions - workers worked towards
their pensions. Which they were
expecting when they retire. But the
company had collapsed so they
were unable to receive their
pension payouts
- The claimants could not show if the
injustice was caused by the
maladministration
- The claimants could not show if the
injustice was caused by the
maladministration
- Injustice has not been defined
within the Act
- R (on the application of Bradley) v
Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions - workers worked towards
their pensions. Which they were
expecting when they retire. But the
company had collapsed so they
were unable to receive their
pension payouts
- Maladministration
is not defined in the
act but this allows
flexibility on a case
to case basis
- The public cannot complain
directly to the ombudsman, they
have to make a complaint in
writing to the MP
- The MP may reject this complaint or
progress it to the ombudsman - known
as the MP filter
- This illustrates three functions: that
the ombudsman is a servant (but they are independent) to
Parliament, allows the MP to decide
whether the claim is fit for
investigating,, and it allows
irrelevant complaints to be rejected
which would decrease the workload
of the ombudsman
- MP has the choice to solve
the problem themselves or
using an alternative rather
than using the ombudsman
- May result in MP's
preventing relevant
complaints reaching the
ombudsman, they may be
unwilling to submit
complaints (could conflict
with rule of law)
- May result in MP's
preventing relevant
complaints reaching the
ombudsman, they may be
unwilling to submit
complaints (could conflict
with rule of law)
- This illustrates three functions: that
the ombudsman is a servant (but they are independent) to
Parliament, allows the MP to decide
whether the claim is fit for
investigating,, and it allows
irrelevant complaints to be rejected
which would decrease the workload
of the ombudsman
- The MP may reject this complaint or
progress it to the ombudsman - known
as the MP filter
- The complaint must be
made within 12 months
from the issue was first
discovered. But this is
discretionary to allow
some late applications
- After investigations have
been conducted, the
ombudsman must report is
back to the MP who referred
the complaint
- Illustrates Parliamentary supremacy
- Illustrates Parliamentary supremacy
- Complaints for the ombudsman are
rising so workload is increasing
- But the high
rise in
complaints
could illustrate
the great
success rate it
has and it is
efficient
- But the high
rise in
complaints
could illustrate
the great
success rate it
has and it is
efficient
- Judicial review has
expanded so much
with locus standi
widening that the use
of an ombudsman has
decreased
- But judicial review can
cost around £10,000 if a
claim is lost - an
ombudsman is a
cheaper alternative as it
is a free service
- But judicial review can
cost around £10,000 if a
claim is lost - an
ombudsman is a
cheaper alternative as it
is a free service
- Available legal redress - this was
introduced in order to stop the
ombudsman from overlapping with
the courts
- The ombudsman
should decline an act
where a judicial
remedy exists
regardless of whether
it would have been
successful or not - R v
Local Commissioner
for Local
Administartion ex p
Croydon London
Borough Council 1989
1 All ER 1033
- They will investigate minor
matters that are not suitable
for judicial review
- Decisions taken under royal
prerogative are not subject to
be investigated by the
ombudsman, students'
complaints against the
university are also not subject
to this
- The ombudsman
should decline an act
where a judicial
remedy exists
regardless of whether
it would have been
successful or not - R v
Local Commissioner
for Local
Administartion ex p
Croydon London
Borough Council 1989
1 All ER 1033
- Investigations are done in
public and the ombudsman
has access to relevant
papers
- But can lead to the
process to become slow -
can take 48-52 weeks
- But can lead to the
process to become slow -
can take 48-52 weeks
- Maladministration is not defined within the Act
- What is considered to
be good administration
is getting it right, being
customer focused, being
open and accountable,
acting fairly and
proportionately, putting
things right and seeking
continuous
improvement
- What is considered to
be good administration
is getting it right, being
customer focused, being
open and accountable,
acting fairly and
proportionately, putting
things right and seeking
continuous
improvement
¿Quieres crear tus propios Mapas Mentales gratis con GoConqr? Más información.