Coventry City Council apologises for company 'witch-hunt'

[dutchman]

A city council has been forced to apologise after a report found it conducted an "unreasonable campaign" against a company and its director.

The Local Government Ombudsman ruled Coventry City Council abused its safeguarding powers to carry out what the company's director calls a "witch-hunt".

The ombudsman delivered a rare finding of "maladministration with injustice".

The council said it had carried out the ombudsman's recommendations.

John Kavanagh, a director of Open Doors, a charitable company that provides housing support for disabled people, said the firm had brought three complaints against the council about the abuse. These were upheld by the ombudsman.

"Up until 2006 we had an excellent relationship with the council but then there was a change of management in social services," he said.

"After that, we noticed some examples of poor practice and we sought to speak to them about it."

Mr Kavanagh said he had met the head of social services and councillors.

"From that point, when we stuck our heads above the parapet, things started to go downhill," he said.

"The council had been our major source of referrals but since 2006, we haven't had one referral to date from them. We were blackballed."

The ombudsman found the council's actions against Mr Kavanagh amounted to "an unreasonable campaign".

"We were subject to an all-out witch-hunt," Mr Kavanagh said.

"The council invested huge resources in pursuing this campaign against us.

"There were more than 20 meetings and seven safeguarding investigations.

"This was all happening at the same time as Daniel Pelka was tragically being tortured and killed.

"Ultimately Coventry needs to be held accountable. So far, I've had a half-hearted, mealy-mouthed apology."

In March 2014, the council's children's services were branded inadequate by Ofsted, two years after the death of four-year-old Daniel

In a letter to Mr Kavangah, the council's chief executive Martin Reeves wrote: "I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to you for the mistreatment you have received from the council."

In a statement, the council said: "We have implemented the recommendations to the ombudsman's satisfaction.

"Unfortunately, we are unable to comment further."

Michael King, the ombudsman's executive director, said: "While we cannot comment on the specific nature of this particular investigation, I am pleased to confirm that the council has satisfied the recommendations that we have made.

"The law requires us to maintain the privacy of everybody involved in our investigations, and so our decisions are anonymised.

[dutchman]

Coventry council faces £1.5m damages bill after ‘witch hunt’

COVENTRY taxpayers face a seven-figure compensation payout after a damning ombudsman ruling concerning a council ‘witch hunt’ against a charitable company which supports disabled people.

As revealed in the Coventry Observer, the Local Government Ombudsman two years ago accepted Coventry housing company Open Doors’ claims, in finding the council had conducted a long ‘unreasonable campaign’ against the not-for-profit firm.

Ombudsman Dr Jane Martin – who investigates complaints against councils – delivered a rare finding of ‘maladministration with injustice’ and ordered Coventry City Council to apologise for conducting multiple inappropriate investigations. Martin Reeves formally apologised in writing as the council’s chief executive, accepting the charity had been mistreated.

Now a High Court court judge has thrown out a ‘costs order’ application by the council concerning the terms of any payment of the council’s legal costs by Open Doors, should the housing firm lose its case for damages at a later hearing.

Judge Davison dismissed the council’s application that the housing firm should pay £75,000 as security against costs to the court in advance, based on a mistaken assertion that the company might not be able to meet the costs.

He added such a costs order would be ‘undesirable’ given the company’s ‘duties’, including to its vulnerable clients.

Open Doors’ barrister, Gideon Roseman, also told the court in London last Thursday (July 7) the application was a ‘veiled attempt’ to ‘oppressively stifle a genuine claim’, in other words to apply pressure on the housing firm to drop its claim.

He also claimed the council was in breach of civil court procedure rules by failing to outline its defence beyond single word responses that the allegations were being ‘denied’.

The costs application alone is thought to have cost at least £15,000 of taxpayers’ money alone, amid cuts to jobs and services.

It was revealed in court last week the council could eventually face a compensation bill of £1.5million to Open Doors Housing and Support Limited, based in Far Gosford Street, Coventry city centre.

[dutchman]

Coventry council pays damages to charitable housing firm after 'witch-hunt'

COVENTRY City Council has agreed to pay damages to a charitable housing firm and one of its directors following a damning ombudsman’s ruling the council had conducted a long ‘unreasonable campaign’ against it.

The payments to Coventry-based Open Doors Housing and Support Limited – which provides disabled people with homes – and its director John Kavanagh, settles their High Court action against the council.

It followed the Local Government Ombudsman’s ruling the council had conducted a long-running ‘unreasonable campaign’ against it – in holding multiple inappropriate safeguarding investigations.

The ombudsman had delivered three damning findings of ‘maladministration with injustice’ against the council.

Open Doors had further alleged harassment by the council and Misfeasance in Public Office.

The council denied the claims and says the payment of damages was without admission of liability in defending itself in court at an estimated six-figure cost to taxpayers – amid ‘austerity’ cuts to services.

Mr Kavanagh says the prolonged ‘witch hunt’ which abused safeguarding powers caused immense stress to him and the company, and was being conducted amid council failures to safeguard murdered schoolboy Daniel Pelka.

He added: “The council managers were ready and willing to throw unlimited resources to pursue non-valid safeguarding issues whilst social workers were under severe pressure with case load.

“On January 5, 2011, the day Daniel had his arm broken by his parent, 12 council officials were holding their thirteenth safeguarding meeting into Open Doors, mostly held in secret, to review and plan the next phase of their campaign against us, an organisation they had previously given a glowing inspection report to, and who a neighbouring authority had described as ‘exemplary’.

“I now invite the council to make a full and open public apology for their mistreatment and a commitment to re-establish a positive working relationship with Open Doors in its important work supporting vulnerable people in the city.”

A private apology was issued by chief executive Martin Reeves in 2014 on the council’s behalf, following the ombudsman’s advice it should do so.

The company and Mr Kavanagh are seeking a public apology for matters which led to the three damning ombudsman’s findings.

Open Doors was founded by Mr Kavanagh in 2003 after he had arranged housing and support for his disabled sister to enable her to live independently. The not-for-profit company was inundated with council requests to provide similar support for disabled adults.

But the company claims it was ‘ostracised’ in 2006 after it raised concerns at alleged poor treatment of vulnerable people by the council. It has not received a single referral since.

It alleged this escalated into a full-blown ‘witch hunt’ in 2009 after the company introduced a new charging structure in accordance with approved guidelines and increased rents via housing benefit paid by the council, which also grant-funded the firm to provide services. The council restricted the rents on grounds it later admitted it did not have.

As a result of the council’s misconduct, the company says it has been unable to source new contracts for five years.

Former council assistant director Simon Brake, now the director of primary care for Coventry & Rugby NHS and Coventry City Council, who was given responsibility to deal with the company’s grievances, initially dismissed the company’s complaints as mere “goading”.

He was also given responsibility for responding to the ombudsman under Mr Reeves’ directorate.

The allegations before the High Court partly concerned how the council responded to the ombudsman during its investigations.

Open Doors believes further matters could now be taken up by the ombudsman, who has requested to see further evidence.

[rebbonk]

...estimated six-figure cost to taxpayers...

Kind of sticks in the throat doesn't it?

[dutchman]

Coventry council provided 'inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete' evidence for ombudsman's probe after 'witch-hunt'



THE OMBUDSMAN charged with holding councils to account is considering dropping an investigation into whether it was ‘deliberately misled’ by Coventry council – despite admitting the authority had sent it “inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete” information during its probe into council mistreatment of a charitable firm for disabled people.

The Coventry-based national Local Government Ombudsman office had ruled in 2014 the council had conducted a long-running ‘unreasonable campaign’ against the not-for-profit firm Open Doors Housing and Support Limited, inappropriately and repeatedly using safeguarding powers against it which the firm said amounted to a ‘witch-hunt’.

Following the then Ombudsman Dr Jane Martin’s damning finding of ‘maladministration with injustice’ against the council, the council last year paid a substantial sum in damages to settle the dispute out of court.

But we also reported Open Doors was initiating a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman’s office – using evidence which came to light from preliminary High Court proceedings – that the council had systematically misled the ombudsman in its investigations.

In a draft decision issued last month and seen by the Coventry Observer, the Ombudsman Michael King’s office states it had “challenged the inaccurate, inconsistent and incomplete information the council provided at the time.”

Yet the draft decision also states: “I intend to discontinue the investigation as it would be a disproportionate use of our resources to pursue this matter given the limited public interest grounds.”

It further explains this on the grounds of a lack of “very compelling allegations of deliberate obstruction” – which Open Doors strongly disputes with the evidence provided – and because the former senior Coventry council officer Simon Brake, who dealt with the ombudsman, had since left the authority.

The council and Mr Brake declined to comment, while the ombudsman’s office says it does not comment on ongoing cases.

How can it be an "ongoing case" if they've decided to drop it?

[MilesRam]

Is someone actually going to be held accountable for this or is accountability a thing of the past?

[dutchman]

I very much doubt it Miles but to the forum.

[rebbonk]

The ombudsman is there to hold councils to account.

If CCC has been less than truthful and has tried to hide things then it must be held to account and those responsible personally punished. Anything else is unacceptable from the ombudsman. If the ombudsman fails to act it becomes unfit for purpose and its very existence must be called into question.

But, I'll not go holding my breath as this country seems to be losing more honesty and integrity daily.