 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Summaries of cases that concern more than one category of complaint appear under all relevant category headings Antisocial behaviour 3 case summaries - 1 NEW February 2008 Cemeteries and crematoria no recent case summaries Consumer affairs no recent case summaries Disposal on death no recent case summaries Drainage no recent case summaries Environmental health 3 case summaries - 1 NEW February 2008 Environmental protection 6 case summaries Land no recent case summaries Leisure and culture 2 case summaries - 2 NEW Feb-Apr 2008 Licensing 1 case summary Local taxation 1 case summary - 1 NEW March 2008 Registry service no recent case summaries Waste management 2 case summaries - 1 NEW March 2008 Manchester City Council (06/B/1231) Maladministration causing injustice Manchester City Council issued an antisocial behaviour order on a woman without taking steps to check the truth of the allegations made against her. The Ombudsman found that the Council neither interviewed the woman nor tried to gather corroborative evidence. He said “This was an abuse of power of nightmarish proportions", and added “This should never be allowed to happen again”. The woman (called ‘Mrs X’ in the report) felt that the Council’s failures were shocking. Having never been inside a court, she felt that she was now known in the local community as someone associated with an ‘ASBO’, was known to the police, and was intimidated by the neighbours who complained about her, who she still saw in the area. She said that her health was affected, and that she took anti-depressants. The Ombudsman recommended the Council to pay Mrs X £2,000 compensation, offer her a meeting with a senior officer to discuss her complaint, and review its practice and procedure. ‘Mrs X’ had lived in her street for over 30 years. In June 2004 ‘Miss A’, who had recently moved into the house opposite, complained to the Council about Mrs X. She alleged that there had been verbal abuse, intimidation, loud music, threats of violence and offensive gestures. The Council was convinced - but never put the allegations to Mrs X, and did not make reasonable enquiries, which would have cast doubt on the veracity of the complaints. “It is extraordinary that the allegations were never to put Mrs X before the Council sought an ASBO against her, at first behind her back and then by serving papers on her just days before a court hearing.” This was the first Mrs X knew of any complaints about her. On 6 December 2004 the court granted an interim ASBO against Mrs X. At a court hearing on 1 February 2005, Mrs X produced 22 letters in her defence from other residents of the street. She applied for the interim ASBO to be discharged. Finally, on 16 May 2005, the case was withdrawn. The Ombudsman said the injustice to Mrs X was considerable, and that “The Council’s grudging acceptance that she should receive some sort of redress has come far too late and rubbed salt in the wound.” 27 June 2007 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (06/B/7051) Maladministration causing injustice Failures by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to follow up an incident of criminal damage sent a message that it was not prepared to tackle antisocial behaviour even when there was clear evidence and the perpetrator admitted his actions. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to liaise with police over the incident and did not even consider asking for CCTV footage or taking action against the perpetrator, who was a Council tenant. ‘Mr and Mrs Smith’ (not their real names) complained about the Council’s handling of antisocial behaviour they reported by two households in their street. The members of the two households were related to each other. The Smiths and the households complained of were all Council tenants for most of the period in question. The investigation found that, since May 2004, Mr and Mrs Smith complained of a number of incidents of antisocial behaviour from both households. The allegations included threats, objects being thrown into the Smiths’ garden, fire-raising, deliberate activation of the Smiths’ security light, and inconsiderate parking. The Ombudsman found no significant fault with the Council’s handling of these matters. Then, in July 2006, one of the neighbours damaged Mr and Mrs Smith’s garden wall, gates and car. He pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage shortly afterwards. The Council sent him a warning letter when the incident occurred, but the Ombudsman found that the Council did not liaise with the police or otherwise take further action when he was convicted. The Council appeared to believe it did not know about the conviction until seven months later, which was incorrect. The Ombudsman found the Council’s inaction was contrary to Government guidance and its own policies and procedures. He considered that this caused the Smiths distress and anxiety and sent a signal that the Council was not serious about tackling antisocial behaviour. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should:
10 September 2007 Sheffield City Council (06/C/10044) NEW Maladministration causing injustice A woman in her 90s was “very distressed” by events after Sheffield City Council stopped restricting tenancies of her block of flats to older people. It resulted in a 17-year-old woman moving into the flat above her. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the Council’s officers followed the Cabinet’s instruction and considered: the age of the tenants in the block; the level of demand from older people; and the availability of properties for younger people – as they had been instructed to do - before deciding to designate the block as ‘general needs’. A Council tenant (called ‘Mrs L’ in the report) lived in a block of four Council flats that were restricted to people aged 50+ (first floor) and 60+ (ground floor). The Council changed its rehousing policy and, when Mrs L was 90 years old, the flat above hers was allocated to a 17-year‑old woman. Mrs L complained about this young woman and her visitors making noise late into the night and of being disturbed by them using the toilet in the early hours of the morning. Sadly, Mrs L died while the Ombudsman was investigating her complaint. The Ombudsman said: “Based on the accounts of third parties and Council officers, I conclude that she spent much of the final years of her life very distressed, frightened and upset.” As part of a citywide exercise, the Council’s Cabinet had approved a review of the age restrictions on 52 blocks of flats in Mrs L’s area. The report on which this decision was based set out good reasons for change. The Cabinet was aware that altering the age restrictions could result in “clashes of lifestyles” between some young tenants and existing, older tenants. It resolved that the Head of Housing Operations should decide the age designation for each block, taking into account the age of the existing tenants, the level of demand from older people, and the availability of properties for younger people. Two years later, early in 2003, all 52 blocks were designated as ‘general needs’. The Council could not produce evidence to show who took this decision or that each block was considered against the criteria approved by the Cabinet. In the meantime the Council allocated another flat in the block to a young man whose behaviour included: firing a pellet gun at the young woman and her child; noise; and having abusive visitors. The Council cautioned him after six days and served notice seeking possession of his flat within three weeks. He moved away within seven months. In early 2007 a local housing board reviewed the designation of the 52 blocks and recommended changing 26 of them to be for people aged 40+ or 60+, but Mrs L’s block was not one of these. However, after receiving a draft of this report, the Council recommended the designation of Mrs L’s block for people aged 40+. The Ombudsman asked the Council to urgently finalise its decisions on all the outstanding re-designation recommendations. Mrs L was caused injustice in the distress that she suffered from the clash of lifestyles with the younger tenant, which her GP said had affected her health. As Mrs L had died, there was no way that the Council could properly remedy this. However, the Ombudsman recommended that it should pay her estate £500 in recognition of that injustice. It should also pay the other elderly couple in the block £500. 5 February 2008 no recent case summaries no recent case summaries no recent case summaries no recent case summaries London Borough of Merton (05/B/9611, 06/B/981 & 983) Maladministration causing injustice Merton Council delayed acting when new properties were built too close to neighbours’ boundaries and not in accordance with approved plans. The Ombudsman said that the Council should take enforcement action as quickly as possible, pay compensation to the neighbours, and review its procedures. Two neighbours also suffered a statutory noise nuisance from a metal staircase that was built without planning consent. ‘Mr Alder’, ‘Mrs Birch’ and ‘Mr and Mrs Willow’ (not their real names) lived near a pub. There was a planning application for the conversion of the upper floor of the pub into flats, and for houses and flats to be built in the pub’s beer garden. The development was in a conservation area. The Ombudsman found that, when the complainants raised concerns that the construction was not in accordance with the plans, the Council’s response was contradictory - though it later recognised that the approved and built schemes differed significantly. The Council failed to investigate thoroughly and respond accurately to the complaints. During the construction a metal staircase, approved by Building Control, was installed on the wall adjacent to Mrs Birch’s property without planning consent. The staircase caused a statutory nuisance by way of noise and vibration, but there were delays in referring the matter to Environmental Health. When Environmental Health became involved, an abatement notice was served. The Ombudsman said “It seems to me that the Council did not have a clear strategy in this case, and it failed to act robustly for several months when no accurate revised plans were forthcoming.” When new planning applications were finally received, it refused permission for the properties as built. The application for the houses on the beer garden was also refused on appeal. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s delays meant that matters could have been resolved much sooner than will now be the case. He found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
12 June 2007 Coventry City Council (06/A/15757) Maladministration causing injustice Coventry City Council wrongly destroyed a woman’s car after - also wrongly - deciding that it was abandoned. The Ombudsman found that the Council obtained information that would have prevented the mistake taking place, but it was never given to the correct officer. He recommended the Council to pay compensation and to develop a proper policy on abandoned vehicles. ‘Ms Smith’ (not her real name) complained that the Council wrongly decided that her car was abandoned and, without notice to her, removed it from the street where she lived and destroyed it. She also complained that the Council did not immediately inform the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) that it had destroyed the vehicle, and so the Agency pursued her to pay a penalty when the vehicle licence expired and she did not make a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) or retax the vehicle. The Ombudsman found that the Council first wrongly concluded first that Ms Smith’s car was abandoned, even though it had received information that the car was taxed and parked only a few yards from the owner’s home, and then it wrongly destroyed the car, even though its policy was only to destroy vehicles valued at under £1,000, where Ms Smith’s car was valued in the range £1,330 - £1,380. He commented “The Council’s policy on abandoned vehicles at the time was inadequate and not fit for purpose.” The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should:
22 November 2007 London Borough of Greenwich (07/B/346 & 1442) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Two complaints from women who had their cars destroyed by Greenwich Council revealed “fundamental problems” in its procedures. The Ombudsman said “the disrespect shown to [the two women] and their property was little short of astonishing”. The Ombudsman said it was “utterly incomprehensible” that the Council did not try to contact the owner of one car before destroying it, as it was parked right outside her home. He recommended the Council to pay compensation for the car’s value. In the second case, the car had been vandalised and so the Ombudsman did not criticise the actual destruction. But he found shortcomings in the Council’s handling of the case that caused the car’s owner unnecessary distress and concern. ‘Miss Smith’ (not her real name) received a car as a Christmas present from her parents. She complained that, less than two months later, the Council removed it from outside her home and destroyed it without warning. The Ombudsman found that, in deciding the car was abandoned, the Council had failed to act on the basic and relevant fact that the car was parked outside the home of the registered keeper. He criticised its failure to make reasonable efforts to contact Miss Smith and raise its concerns with her; its actions were “utterly incomprehensible”. Several months earlier, Miss Potter (also not her real name) bought a car and parked it in a garage she rented from the Council near her home. She complained that, several weeks later, she found the Council had removed and destroyed the car without notifying her. The Council said that Miss Potter’s vehicle had suffered serious vandalism and therefore posed a potential risk to the public. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s records supported this. He therefore concluded that the Council acted in accordance with the law and guidance in treating the vehicle as abandoned and removing it promptly; and that it had no duty to notify the vehicle’s registered keeper before doing so. Shortcomings in the Council’s handling of the case led to Miss Potter suffering unnecessary distress and concern, but the Ombudsman did not conclude that there would otherwise have been a different outcome. To remedy the injustice, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
The Ombudsman was pleased to note that the Council had already commenced a review of its procedures. He said the circumstances of these cases revealed fundamental problems that he hopes the Council would take fully into account, and that the review must restore a proper balance between the rights of private owners and the rights of the community to have its reasonable safety and amenity protected. 20 February 2008 Durham City Council (04/C/17368) Maladministration causing injustice Durham City Council failed to consider policies in its local plan when it gave planning permission for an indoor football stadium that is highly visible from routes into the City. The Ombudsman said that the stadium was built “…in a landscape that was supposed to be specifically protected…”. The complainant, who lived on the opposite side of the valley looking towards Durham Cathedral, could reasonably have expected this view to be protected, preserved and enhanced. The Council gave planning permission for a large indoor football stadium to be built where it was highly visible from rail and road routes into the historic City of Durham. At one point, the stadium impinged on the view of the Cathedral itself from a main approach road to the City. It was also clearly visible from the main railway line. The Council had specific policies in its Local Plan designed to protect and enhance the environment. Policy E11 was concerned with areas visible from transport corridors and said that the Council would protect and enhance areas visible from the road network, railway lines and recreation routes by not permitting development that unacceptably adversely detracted from them. The Council had the right to apply these policies as it saw fit in the circumstances. In this case, the Council did not bring the policies to the attention of the Development Committee which could not, therefore, take them into account when deciding to grant planning permission for the stadium. The Ombudsman found that this was maladministration and the Council agreed to her recommendations for a remedy. It will commission an independent landscape consultant to examine the site and produce a report and recommendations outlining what, if anything, can be done to reduce the visual impact of the building. The Council will then consider these recommendations, and decide whether any of the actions identified should be taken. 9 August 2007 Restormel Borough Council (06/B/11183) Maladministration causing injustice Restormel Borough Council’s approval of a lawful development certificate for an industrial business in a rural area was “fundamentally flawed”. The Ombudsman said also that the Council acted against its own legal advice, was not even-handed in dealing with information provided by the different parties, and took too long to make its decision. He recommended the Council to pay £24,000 compensation to residents, and to commission an independent reassessment of the present position at the site and consider any recommendations arising for the further protection of the area amenity. The Ombudsman said “…the process by which the LDC [lawful development certificate] was considered was fundamentally flawed. Had the matter been dealt with correctly, I believe the application should have been refused on the evidence.” ‘Ms Archer’ (not her real name) complained on behalf of a small group of residents of a rural hamlet about the way the Council dealt with activities at a nearby business that did not have planning permission. She said that the Council failed to take enforcement action against the business and issued a LDC contrary to its own legal advice. She said that, as a result, the residents suffered unacceptable noise and disruption, and that important wildlife habitats were destroyed. The site owner submitted an application for a LDC in November 2003, but it was not determined until 2006. Despite strong legal advice to the contrary, the Council decided to appoint a members’ subgroup to evaluate the evidence. But they met erratically, were not rigorous in evaluating the historic evidence, and were swayed by their views about the current planning merits of the site. The residents, through their professional adviser, sought to submit evidence to challenge that provided by the site owner. The Council was not even-handed in dealing with the information provided, and the Members’ panel eventually recommended approval of the application, contrary to the legal advice received. The delayed and unsound decision-making process caused injustice to the residents. A LDC has been issued when the application should have been refused and the matter considered as a planning application on its merits. The long delay in reaching a decision also meant that investigation of other unapproved activities was slow and half-hearted while the planning status of the land was undetermined. The residents have suffered considerable cost and uncertainty over a four-year period, and some permanent loss of amenity that cannot now be defined. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:
9 January 2008 East Cambridgeshire District Council (05/B/1966, 06/B/2810, 2814 & 8087) Maladministration causing injustice There were faults in the way East Cambridgeshire District Council granted planning permission for homes on the site of a former gasworks. The Ombudsman said the Council failed to consider imposing a planning condition requiring decontamination work to be done on the site. The Council was already committed to conducting remedial works, and agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay £5,000 compensation to each of the four complainants. Four residents complained about the way the Council dealt with a planning application which led to the development of their homes on land that was formerly the site of a gasworks. They said that the Council failed to ensure that land upon which their homes are built was properly decontaminated prior to construction. The Ombudsman considered there was fault in the way the Council dealt with the application for planning permission. In particular, it did not properly consider whether a condition needed to be imposed on the planning permission to ensure that remedial work was done, and failed to take into account Government advice and guidance on dealing with planning applications for developments on contaminated land. The Ombudsman recognised there was uncertainty as to what would have happened had an appropriate condition been applied at the time. It was possible that decontamination work might have gone further than the minimum standards required at the time. He added “I cannot know for certain that all the complainants’ subsequent difficulties would have been avoided, but they might have been”. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing “significant injustice”, and the Council agreed to pay £5,000 to each of the four complainants in addition to its existing commitment to conduct remedial works to the properties’ gardens at no cost to the owners. 10 January 2008 Oswestry Borough Council (06/B/9241) Maladministration causing injustice Oswestry Borough Council granted planning permission for a new bungalow in the countryside, against both local plan policy and officers’ recommendation, without good planning reasons. The Ombudsman said “Had there been no maladministration, on balance, I believe this development would not have been permitted,” and “The Council’s failure … has resulted in the loss of open countryside and has changed the character of the area …”. ‘Mr Cowan’ and ‘Ms Butler’ (not their real names) live on the edge of a village surrounded by fields. The parents of a severely disabled child applied for planning permission for the erection of a bungalow to provide for her special medical needs, on a site opposite both Mr Cowan’s and Ms Butler’s properties. A representative of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England complained on behalf of Mr Cowan and Ms Butler about the Council's handling of the application. The Ombudsman found that the Council was at fault in failing to give adequate reasons for granting the application against officers’ advice and against the Local Plan policies. He accepted that councillors were entitled to depart from the officers’ advice, but only where they have good reason to do so, based on clear and legitimate planning grounds. In this case councillors failed to provide such justification for the decision and that was maladministration. The Ombudsman also found that, had there been no maladministration, on balance, this development would not have been permitted. This caused injustice to Mr Cowan and Ms Butler as the amenity they derived from living in open countryside would be permanently lost and there would be a fundamental change to the character of the area in which they live. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:
17 January 2008 Plymouth City Council (06/B/15306) Maladministration causing injustice Plymouth City Council delayed in taking enforcement action over non-compliance with planning conditions at industrial premises. The Ombudsman said that, in view of the number of residents’ complaints about noise and odour nuisance, “I consider that the Council should have acted much sooner to secure implementation of an adequate environmental protection scheme”. The Ombudsman recommended the Council to pay £5,000 compensation to the complainant and review its planning enforcement arrangements. ‘Mr Moore’ (not his real name) complained that the Council did not consult him or his neighbours about a planning application for industrial premises near his home and failed to ensure compliance with the planning permission issued in 2001. The Ombudsman found that the Council correctly applied its neighbour notification policy, but failed to monitor whether the company operating on the site was complying with planning conditions. Mr Moore and his neighbours made several complaints about noise and fumes from the company’s operations, and the Council’s failure to ensure prompt compliance with planning conditions resulted in delay in securing an acceptable environmental protection scheme. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council:
21 January 2008 Bath & North East Somerset Council (05/B/15565) Maladministration causing injustice Bath and North East Somerset Council was criticised by the Ombudsman over planning matters at a green belt site next to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and close to a World Heritage site. The Ombudsman found fault in the Council’s investigation of nuisances caused by the site and in its unnecessarily protracted attempts to resolve other planning issues. But the Ombudsman did not criticise the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the use of the site for waste recycling, which a local Conservation Group considered was unauthorised. The Group complained that the Council failed to take prompt and appropriate action to end the unauthorised activity. When the Group submitted legal opinion challenging the Council’s view that the site had the benefit of an established ‘B2 (General Industrial)’ fallback position, the Council reviewed its legal advice but remained of the view that it should not take enforcement action. “That was a decision the Council was entitled to reach, and I see no grounds to criticise it,” said the Ombudsman. Although the Ombudsman did not criticise the Council’s decision that planning enforcement action was not expedient, he did find that the Council’s efforts to resolve other planning control issues at the site were unnecessarily protracted. He also identified fault in the Council’s investigation of other nuisances caused by the site, complained about by the Group. He concluded that, in view of the Conservation Group’s interest in protecting the World Heritage site, it was caused both avoidable frustration and outrage by the Council’s administrative errors. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:
30 January 2008 no recent case summaries Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (05/C/16253) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Oldham Councillors who decided to close a village library to save £31,000 were not fully aware of the alternatives. The Ombudsman said that a local Community Association was working with the Council to provide volunteers to staff the library, but was then frustrated to find that the Council had no budget for the premises. There was a failure to explain to Councillors what was included in the saving when they made their decision, and this led to the closure of the library for two months. The Ombudsman asked the Council to pay £750 compensation to the Association, and provide it with assistance in locating other sources of funds for the volunteer-run library. ‘Mr Granger’ (not his real name) complained about the Council’s decision to close a village library and its dealings with a Community Association that was willing to recruit volunteers to operate the service. The Council approved the closure of the library to save £31,000 per year as part of a major exercise to reduce its overall spending by £6 million. The premises costs of the library were not mentioned in the reports submitted to an Overview & Scrutiny Commission, the Cabinet or the Council meeting that gave final approval. The only document that refers to what was covered by the £31,000 is a briefing note to the Lead Member that said “…the current budget reduction applied only to staffing costs…” All the reports that refer to saving the library from closure also refer to three options to be explored: letting the whole building, selling it, and operating with volunteers. The Community Association began to work with Council officers and, more than two months later, after the closure had been approved, discovered that the Council had no budget for the premises costs. Acting under delegated powers, officers agreed to fund the costs for one year only. The library was closed for two of those months because the Council did not provide the support it had promised to train the volunteers. The matter had not been considered again by Councillors. The Ombudsman found maladministration in the way the Council decided not to fund premises costs as:
This caused injustice to the Community Association as the village had no library service for two months, and its members had taken time and trouble in preparing to run the library only to find the project jeopardised by the unexpected difficulty of funding the premises costs. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council:
28 February 2008 Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council TWO SEPARATE REPORTS (06/C/16558 & 06/C/15879) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council did not deal fairly with one allotment holder who was involved in a dispute with another allotment holder and, in a separate case, the Council mistreated an allotment holder over his tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman said that the Council accused one of the complainants of having a formal police caution when he did not, and that the Council failed to include a dispute resolution procedure in its tenancy agreement. Case concerning a dispute between allotment holders (06/C/16558) ‘Mrs B’ complained about the Council’s biased and unfair treatment of her husband, ‘Mr B’. There had been a long running and acrimonious dispute amongst some of the allotment holders. An exchange took place between Mr B and ‘Mr X’ on the allotment site. The next day, Mr X went to the Council with a tape recording which he said demonstrated that Mr B had abused him during the exchange. Witnesses to the exchange wrote to the Council saying that Mr B had not behaved improperly. Mr B later wrote setting out his version of events. It was clear to the Council that the witnesses’ letters described the same incident. The Council concluded that Mr B had instigated the altercation, but it decided that the incident did not warrant any action other than to write to Mr B and Mr X about the matter. The letter to Mr B said the Council was “minded to caution you to do everything in your powers to prevent another similar incident”. Mr B interpreted this as a caution. The Council had previously written to Mr B, referring to a previous incident, saying he had been formally cautioned by the police. Mrs B had told the Council at the time that this was untrue, but a council officer had said he had been given the information by the local police. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that:
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended that the Council should:
Case concerning tenancy agreement for an allotment (06/C/15879) ‘Mr C’ had been an allotment holder for over 22 years. He complained about the way the Council treated him over the issue of a tenancy agreement for his allotment. The tenancy agreement issued by the Council looked substantially different to the one it had previously agreed with the Ombudsman to use, which should have included a dispute resolution clause. When Mr C refused to sign it because of the apparent differences, the Council:
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice to Mr C. To remedy the injustice, the Council should:
7 April 2008 Ryedale District Council (05/C/9026) Maladministration, but no injustice An investigation into complaints about Ryedale Council’s handling of a zoo licence conditions finds that records were not properly kept of informal inspections, but no evidence to suggest any reason to be concerned about animal welfare. In her report, the Ombudsman found no fault on allegations that the Council had failed to require conservation measures in the zoo’s licence, or that it had not carried out inspections, but she criticised its lack of record keeping. ‘Ms Campbell’ (not her real name) complained about the Council’s handling of conditions attached to a local zoo operation licence. The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council in relation to the complaints that it failed to include conservation measures in the licence conditions, or that it failed to include conditions recommended by a special inspection of 2006. She also found no fault in the Council’s reliance on the input of specialist vets approved by DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), and said it seemed both inevitable and reasonable. The Ombudsman said there was no evidence to suggest there was any reason to be concerned about animal welfare or other standards at the zoo. On the contrary, the evidence from periodic inspections by specialist vets approved by DEFRA suggested that the zoo management was both appropriate and effective. However, the Ombudsman did find maladministration by the Council in relation to the 2002 Regulations in its failure to consider imposing conditions requiring conservation measures, and in not keeping systematic records of the informal inspections that were part of the statutory system of monitoring and control. She recommends the Council to develop a systematic approach to its inspections, and to record the results. 31 May 2007 Wolverhampton City Council (06/B/16600) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Wolverhampton City Council made a man bankrupt over non-payment of his council tax debt, without fully considering all the alternatives. The Ombudsman said that the Council failed to consider the possibility of making a charging order against the man’s home. It also gave him inadequate warning of the consequences of bankruptcy before commencing proceedings. The man now faces costs of £38,000 for a debt of £1,105. The Ombudsman said: “The Council cannot, it seems to me, turn a blind eye to the consequences to the debtor of any recovery option it pursues. … The dire and punitive consequences of bankruptcy, involving a multiplication of the original debt many times over and frequently incurring the loss of the debtor’s home, must be a factor to be taken into account in deciding that the ‘last resort’ is indeed appropriate. I have seen no evidence that this relevant consideration was taken into account.” ‘Mr Ford’ (not his real name) complained at the actions of the Council in making him bankrupt for council tax arrears in June 2005. Mr Ford sought to argue that he owed less than £750 at the time of the bankruptcy, but the Ombudsman found no grounds to support this. Mr Ford had arrears of £1,105 at the time bankruptcy proceedings commenced, but ended facing costs of some £38,000. The Ombudsman considered the evidence that Mr Ford was on a low income and would appear to have had an entitlement to council tax benefit that could have significantly reduced these arrears. But the Ombudsman considered that no fault could be attached to the Council for not paying that benefit, which arose from Mr Ford’s failure to co-operate with the claim process. The Ombudsman accepted the right of the Council to collect its council tax arrears and the limited options available to it in Mr Ford’s circumstances. He noted in particular that the Council was not able to apply to the Department for Work and Pensions for a deduction of Mr Ford’s Incapacity Benefit to repay arrears, as this benefit is not one where such a method of recovery is allowed. He noted also that the Council used bailiffs to try and collect the debt from Mr Ford, without success. However, despite all of the above, the Ombudsman does not consider the Council followed due process in making Mr Ford bankrupt. First, he found that the Council gave Mr Ford inadequate warning of the consequences of bankruptcy before commencing proceedings, in breach of its usual practice. Second, he found that the Council failed to properly consider the alternative of seeking a charging order against Mr Ford’s home. The Ombudsman considered that, on the balance of probabilities, had such failings not occurred, then Mr Ford would have made an offer of repayment to the Council prior to the commencement of proceedings. In order to put Mr Ford in the position that he would have been in had no maladministration occurred, the Ombudsman considered Mr Ford’s bankruptcy should be annulled and that the Council should pay for this by arrangement with the trustee in his bankruptcy. However, the Ombudsman considered that it would not be right for Mr Ford to avoid liability for his debt. So, he makes the recommendation conditional that the Council should not make any payment that will lead to annulment of the bankruptcy until Mr Ford has first entered into a binding arrangement with the Council to repay £1,105 of the costs that it will incur and to clear that debt as soon as is reasonably practicable (that debt may be secured by way of a charge on his property at the Council’s request). In addition, the Ombudsman recommended the Council to review its collection policy and procedures for local tax arrears in the light of this report in order to avoid a repeat of the maladministration found in this case. 31 March 2008 no recent case summaries Bristol City Council (06/B/1379 & 07/B/2281) Maladministration causing injustice Failures by Bristol City Council led to a lost opportunity to minimise the impact of a waste recycling centre on local residents. The Ombudsman found fault by the Council during the site assessment and in its decision-making process. In particular, he said, “Local residents were denied the opportunity to put forward their concerns about the proposal,” and the Council’s environmental health officers had no opportunity to recommend conditions for regulation of the site, or to refuse it outright. He recommended the Council to pay the two complainants £2,000 each for the significant noise nuisance they suffered between August 2005 and November 2006. ‘Mrs Ash’ and ‘Mrs Oak’ (not their real names) complained that the Council granted planning permission for a nearby industrial unit to operate as a waste recycling centre without consulting adjoining properties or the environmental health department. They said that, as a result, the operation of the recycling centre caused noise and environmental pollution to them and other local residents. The Ombudsman found failings by the Council during the site assessment, when the planning application was received, and during the decision-making process. The Council failed to notify neighbours directly about the planning application, and failed to consider the previous history of the site or undertake consultation with its own environmental health department. As a result, the Council lost an opportunity to minimise the impact of the recycling centre on the amenity of the area. When the Council received complaints from local residents it did take action to try and resolve the situation. As a result the situation has improved, although the Council is still considering whether to take more formal action. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:
Mrs Oak lived in a sheltered housing complex and it was likely that the other residents were similarly affected by the nuisance. The Council may wish to consider, in consultation with the manager of the sheltered housing complex, what redress can be made. 30 July 2007 Bath & North East Somerset Council (05/B/8418) NEW Maladministration causing injustice Bath & North East Somerset Council overlooked the existence of an agreement that a site had the benefit of an established industrial use fallback position, and incorrectly threatened to take enforcement action against the owner. The Ombudsman said the error led the Council unfairly to withhold business from Mr Scott in the mistaken belief that his site might be subject of planning enforcement action. ‘Mr Scott’ (not his real name) owned and operated an industrial site. For a number of years there was uncertainty about planning approval for operations and development at the site. Mr Scott complained that the Council unreasonably threatened to take planning enforcement action against him; that it embargoed the use of his waste recycling facility; and that it incorrectly approved changes to the Local Plan that did not accurately reflect the approved use of his site. The Ombudsman found that the Council had overlooked the earlier agreement, and had unfairly withheld business from Mr Scott as a result. He also found errors in the Council’s process for approving pre-inquiry changes to the Local Plan. The result of those errors caused Mr Scott avoidable uncertainty, stress, anxiety and legal costs. The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:
27 March 2008 |
