Conclusion

The Office does not take an inflexible approach to the difficulties that bodies within remit may have from time to time in terms of resources and staff. In the course of seminars and meetings held in various local authorities throughout the country over recent years, the Office has stressed the need for local authorities to advise the Ombudsman if difficulty and/or delay is likely to arise in relation to the Ombudsman's request for a report on any particular complaint and that the response of the Office to such difficulties would be fair and reasonable. Neither does the Office issue Section 7 notices lightly, without first having given the body concerned ample opportunity through reminder letters and phone calls to deal with the matter. It should be noted that the number of Section 7 notices issued to a body is published in league table format in the Annual Report of the Ombudsman.

The following table sets out the picture in recent years with regard to the issue of Section 7 notices, generally, and to local authorities, including KCC:

The fact that no Section 7 notices are recorded against KCC in 2003 and 2004 does not mean the Ombudsman was satisfied with the level or speed of response from the Council to complaints being processed in those years. The history of the Council's dealings with the Office in the period 2003 to 2006 is set out in Appendix 1 and demonstrates that, perhaps, the issue of Section 7 notices was stalled by the submission of a report/information at the eleventh hour. It is also likely that having observed the history of the Office's dealings with the KCC in 2003 and 2004, patience was lost with the Council and Section 7 notices issued more routinely in 2005 and 2006, once the agreed time limits had been exceeded without a valid explanation. The number of Section 7 notices (12) issued to KCC in 2005 is unprecedented for a single body when taken in the context of the total number of complaints to the Ombudsman against the Council in 2005 (27).