Part of Butterworths 'Law in Context Series', this is a description and evaluation of the UK public sector ombudsman system, focusing on the Parliamentary, Health Service and Local Government ombudsmen in England. It also covers the public sector ombudsmen in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Communities and Local Government Committee calls on the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) to raise its game significantly. To deliver its role as independent arbitrator in disputes about unfair treatment or service failure by local authorities, the Local Government Ombudsman must tackle operational inefficiencies rapidly and conduct its own activities with credible effectiveness. The LGO must implement the changes identified by the recent Strategic Business Review. The LGO management's rationale for not publishing the 2011 Strategic Business Review in full was unconvincing and suggests there may be insufficient appetite for change within the LGO. The LGO must explain which findings from the Strategic Business Review will be implemented in full and in part, and provide a timetable for this. It also needs to set out the arrangements and timetable for appointing the new Chief Operating Officer (and their responsibilities). In future the LGO must be completely clear with all parties about the criteria it applies in order to determine whether cases are assigned to be resolved through a mediated process to achieve redress, or are allocated for full investigation and formal determination. Likewise the LGO must be transparent about the procedures that apply when any case is moved from one process to another - such as when mediation fails. The Government must explain how it will monitor the implementation of reorganisation at the LGO. An annual, independent staff survey should be reinstated at the LGO with results published.

These are the reports of two cases which were jointly investigated by the Health Services and Local Government Ombudsmen,, both of which involve the provision of services by local council and by NHS trusts and both, to some extent, concern the actions of staff working in mental health services. The first involved Enfield Council and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust & Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust. The other case involved Havering and the North East London Mental Health Trust. Neither case was upheld in respect of the Councils though partly upheld in respect of North East London Mental Health Trust