“LGO Watch is far from the work of a few disgruntled complainants, even the LGO’s own customer satisfaction survey revealed that a whopping 73% of complainants were dissatisfied by the outcome of their individual cases. Since its founding in 2003, the Watch has amassed a legion of supporters nationwide, and a similar Scottish watch has since been set up to target the corruption in local government north of the border.
With less than 2% of submitted complaints declared by the LGO as maladministration, there is a certain weight to the claims that the tax-funded service is not wholly committed to securing justice for the public.
One reason the LGO Watch provides to explain allegations of pro-council bias within the office is the alarming fact that all three current LGOs were themselves previously chief executives of local authorities. In fact evidence shows that many of the LGO’s investigators previously worked in local government.
If you took a damning complaint about the local police force to an independent, publicly-funded investigation and adjudication group, would it be fair to have a former chief of that same organisation handle your case? …”
http://www.complaintexpert.co.uk/can-we-trust-ombudsman-with-our-complaints.html
East Devon Watch 
There is a verifiable history where government “appointees ” to positions of huge importance and ostensibly ” in the public interest” are chosen because they’ve already shown considerable bias.
It goes without saying that the bias is toward the view of the government that appointed them.
A position in the House of Lords is a probable outcome, provided the “right” decision is reached.
Government is what it is, in power to ensure it remains in power for as long as possible.
We are pawns in their noxious game.
If there is such a place as hell, Cameron and his loons have earned their place already, to join the working man’s destroyer Thatcher!
LikeLike
Dear Watch, I have recently been through the Complaints process with the LGO conducting an investigation.
Despite having my complaints upheld against two colluding Councils, whom produced a secret anonymous report, in two differing versions!, the LGO conclusion was such, that it has been a complete waste of time.
I sought to have their conclusion further reviewed, whereupon an assistant Ombudsman conveyed to me in a telephone call that it is ‘very rare’ for Decisions to be overturned!
No surprise then, when the negative result came back.
I saw fit to write to say the attitude of the above shows an obvious bias which I deemed unprofessional.
I received a reply back from the Chief Executive, in which he stated the assistant Ombudsman didn’t recall the conversation (I presume calls are monitored for training purposes!).
He also outlined to me the the potential costs of my giving consideration to mounting a Judicial Review, that would be defended by the LGO. Good to know, he feels able to stand firm against the very Public they are meant to serve.
I would suggest such arrogance should be subject of budget constraints, which might focus their minds towards the provision of a service that actually supports the public rather than present such an obvious bias.
I am concerned that in the LGO stats they will deem that my complaints having been upheld, will be proof of a positive outcome, yet, the author of the report still remains anonymous, and one of the Councils is even refusing to apologise. So for me their conclusion was certainly not justice, and is therefore a complete failure.
The LGO conclusion in my case is appalling, and as such I suggest that in 2016, the LGO has not seemingly learnt from previous criticisms and is in my opinion not fit for purpose.
I have recently taken their survey, but as I have read the level of dissatisfaction is enormous, and I ponder how they have been allowed to continue in this way.
The problem is, where do we take it from here?
LikeLike