Basildon District Council (06A16993 + two others)
Access to information Further report
12 November 2008
Basildon District Council refused to remedy injustice to three families identified by the Local Government Ombudsman. He said “My previous report on these complaints identified clear and significant maladministration that caused an injustice to the complainants… I am not convinced by the reasons it has put forward for not implementing my recommendations in full. Its failure to do so means [the complainants] have been denied a remedy for the injustice they have suffered.”
The Council published personal and sensitive information about traveller families and their children on its website and in a report that was considered in the open part of a Council committee meeting, where copies were available to members of the public and the press who attended. The information included medical details, and the names and ages of all the children living on the site.
The Ombudsman said: “I firmly hold the view that all citizens, whether they are travellers or members of the settled community, are entitled to equal protection under the law and are entitled to expect that the Council will respect their right to privacy and not disclose sensitive personal information about them and their children.”
‘Mrs Oak’, ‘Mrs Birch’ and ‘Mrs Ash’ (not their real names for legal reasons) were travellers who lived with their families on an unauthorised site on green belt land in the Council’s area. They were shocked and outraged when they learned that such sensitive information had been put into the public domain and they worried for some time about the possible repercussions for themselves and their children.
The Council changed its procedures to ensure that sensitive and personal information about individuals would in future be considered in Part 2 of committee meetings from which the press and the public are excluded.
In addition, the Ombudsman recommended that, to remedy the injustice, the Council should pay each family £300 and write to apologise to them.
The Council declined to pay the compensation and, although it has apologised, the Ombudsman said “I also feel bound to comment on the rather grudging tone of the letter of apology sent to the complainants. This is not the full and unreserved apology I expected the Council to provide.”
He added “I now call upon the Council to arrange for an officer at Director level or above to write an unreserved letter of apology which shows some understanding and sympathy for the consequences the Council’s actions had on the complainants.”
He also asked the full Council to consider his report and agree his recommendations, including the payment of compensation.
Remedy
The further report did not persuade the Council to change its stance. However, following judicial review proceedings taken by the Children's Legal Centre on behalf of the complainants, the Council finally paid the outstanding compensation and issued letters of apology.
LGO satisfied with Council's response after further report: 25 January 2011
Date Updated: 02/02/11