Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Planning : : Planning archive 2006-07 : : Tandridge District Council (05C15987)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Tandridge District Council (05C15987)

Planning enforcement               Maladministration causing injustice

01 February 2007

A complaint about the unlawful occupation of land by two Gypsy families remains unresolved after 16 years. An investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman into events since May 2003(because of legal restrictions) finds that Tandridge District Council has failed to take decisive action. As a result, a couple who live next to the land have continued to suffer nuisance all the while.

Since 1990, ‘Mr Fox’ (not his real name for legal reasons) has been complaining to the Council about failure to take enforcement action but, despite the Council’s attempts to take action, the Gypsies are still there 16 years later. He says that he and his wife have endured years of harassment and abuse.

Following a landmark House of Lords decision (the ‘Porter’ case)* concerning human rights issues in May 2003, the Council should have decided whether to take legal action, and if it decided to do so, it should have done so promptly. It decided to take legal action, but three years later no action has been taken. The Council rightly sought to address the Gypsies’ human rights, but paid little heed to those of Mr and Mrs Fox.

In his report issued today (9 February 2007), Ombudsman Tony Redmond says that the Council failed to apply clear timescales for action, focus and drive: the matter was simply allowed to drift. “Delay itself puts successful court action at risk, since the longer the families remain on the site and the more established they become, the harder it may be to persuade a court to remove them.”

The Ombudsman finds this delay to be maladministration. “I am only considering the impact of the delay since May 2003 but I must bear in mind the extraordinary context in which this complaint has been made,” he said. In view of the history, it was reasonable to expect prompt action following the ‘Porter’ case*. Instead, over three years later, they are still in the same position. They have described the effect on them of the presence of the two Gypsy families and they continue to suffer while the situation remains unresolved.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council should:

  • set and keep to a short timescale for considering the recent legal advice and making a final decision on legal action and, if that decision is to continue, set and keep to a short timescale for commencing legal action;
  • review the way it deals with complex planning and legal matters; and
  • pay £3,000 compensation to Mr Fox, comprising £2,500 for outrage, distress and inconvenience over the past three years and £500 for his time and trouble.

* For details of the House of Lords decision (the ‘Porter’ case), see: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030522/wrex-1.htm

Date Published: 03/02/09