In this essay we will determine and examine the approach of ombudsman in order to

improve the method of the action taken by the administrative as well as the process of the
remedies granted by the official to the complainants if they have been treated wrongly by
the public officials. In order to respond to the statement in the question about the
effectiveness of the current strategy of the ombudsman will also be examined along with
potential reforms areas.

The ombudsman is a neutral investigator with the power to support the judiciary function
by acting and providing a forum to the people to complain for the maladministration against
the public authorities. PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER ACT 1967 (“PCA 1967) give the
power to the ombudsman. Pre to the ombudsman, the only practical resource for the
citizens who were affected by the wrongful action of the public official was to file a case for
judicial review in the courts or alternatively, to make a complaint to a member of
parliament. It is important to keep that in mind that is the offices of the ombudsman were
to be abolished tomorrow, the method listed above would basically return will being be sole
form of remedies for the complainant. Before making any negative or positive statement
about the current strategy of ombudsman. By themselves, these systems limited
effectiveness. In the first place, this was due to the changes in the request of the judicial
review, the complainant needed to show legitimate grounds in addition to having locus
standi, however the only action of the public official can be overturned if they were supra
vires. Additionally, member of the parliaments was usually very busy with their affairs of the
individual governments.

The process of the complaints can run smoothly and regularly which have been ensured by
the ombudsman and solves the problem which are mentioned above. This was
demonstrated in the case of (“CRICHEL DOWN AFFAIRS”) where the defendant had the
remedy only to the ombudsman and was otherwise would not be able to seek the judicial
review or lodge a complaint with a member of parliament. This increases the effectiveness
of the office of the ombudsman. Moreover, a officer or ombudsman is appointed “the
parliamentary commissioner for administration” by the s.1 of the PCA 1976, which is
appointed by the advice of government and once the parliamentary commissioner for
administration is appointed himself and appoint such officers as he determines with
approval of treasury which he gets the power by “s.3 of the PCA 1967”. Lastly the
mechanism of the claim that how can a member of public can initiate a claim which would
be investigated by the commissioner is provided in the “s.5(1) of the PCA 1967. The
investigation shall be carried in the rules which is defined jurisdiction and only if the
injustice had been suffered. By the claimant by the maladministration.

A wide range of the power are with the commissioner to investigate the number of
complaints, some of which may not have even been ordinarily admissible in the courts but
the commissioner is not a separate judicial platform on its own and it does not provide two
separate pathways to the complainants to get the claim resolved. The commissioners,
jurisdiction does not extend to the bodies whose activities do not fall under direct
ministerial control which have been defined in the s.5(3) of the PCA 1967 act, schedule 3.
However, in the situation where the corporate body brings a claim, the claim should not be
allowed if there is another alternate remedy available or tribunal it was stated in s.5(2) of
the PCA 1967.

However, due to certain issues the effectiveness and the usefulness of ombudsman’s office
is reduced. The first issue is that the specific definition of the maladministration even its not
have been defined in the act (PCA 1967) which is limiting the term with a narrow scope. As
stated by RICHARD CROSSMAN, “the maladministration may be described as prejudice,
negligence and inattentiveness etc. furthermore the maladministration is concerned which
the decision of the authorities they have reached, whereas maladministration is not
concerned with the actual decision it was clarified in the case of (ex parte eastleigh).
However, the main outcome does not matter even it just or not if the public bodies can
justify their decision as they have followed all the rules and procedures if they can
demonstrate that then the outcome does not matter. Similarly, in the case of (EX PARTE
BRADFORD) “maladministration was further defined as the fault and the bad
administration”.

Ombudsman can be reformed in the area of the maladministration in terms, it would be

preferable to do away with the concept completely and give more authorities to the
parliamentary commissioner for administration to hear complaints about any action that is
harsh, biased or arbitrary. The MP filter which is under s.5 of the PCA 1967 act is another
obstacle for the effective redressal through the ombudsman. According to this section, the
complaint should be filed made to a MP in state of writing, then the MP who must refer the
complaint to the commissioner for investigation. However, as the power and guidelines are
not set under the ACT for the MP. The MP have an tremendous amount of discretions,
moreover this discretion can lead them to be bias against the one’s who are underprivileged
or less educated.

ROB BEHRENS, the ombudsman, is requesting the government to address the mistake
quickly, but the administration has rejected his request. The appeal is that the PHSO
investigation revealed that “a severally ill lady’s benefits payments were substantially
reduced by the 80 pounds per week due to the government error, leaving the lady to be
unable to buy her food and heat his home. The same error of the government has caused
more the 180,000 individual who have disabilities and health issues. Yet all of the individual
who have been affected by the error have been denied to the chance to sue for
compensation. This demonstrates the ombudsman weak position and how urgently the
ombudsman need for reform.