The Local Government Ombudsman: an 11 year case study

 

Vale Royal Borough Council, Cheshire County Council and the Local Government Ombudsman

Our response to the Ombudsman's draft report, 1st April 2008

Rather than crystalise and concentrate on the key issue, your draft report does nothing more than drown it in 30 pages of obfuscation. In addition, it still contains most of the errors that we have brought to your attention over the last few years as well as many new ones.

For example:

  • The Highway Authority is responsible for the problem because it was entirely of their own making. They failed to take action against the developer in 1991 when we initially brought the matter to their attention. They should have enforced the terms of the Section 38 agreement whilst the developer was still constructing and selling properties, but in any event no later than 1994 when the road should have been completed to adoptable standards. They allowed the developer to continue to sell assets long after they were in breach of the Section 38 Agreement.

  • There is an express intention to dedicate the road as a highway at a specific time in the Section 38 Agreement. The conditions of dedication had not been met in 2001.Therefore, the road in the vicinity of our property was not a highway when the Highway Authority attempted to carry out the works.

  • We are incensed that the delay in resolving the matter is now being attributed to ourselves. A review of the correspondence and meetings over the last 8 years would clearly demonstrate that we only sought to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Because of these and many other problems we have little or no confidence in your office correcting them at this late stage. One would have thought that after all these years you would at least have got the basic facts right. As a result we don t see the point in wasting any more of our time and effort trying to bring all the errors in your draft report to your attention, if they are once again going to fall on deaf ears.

However, we will make one last attempt to show you how the matter could have been clarified in less than 1 page.

Our property is 150 years old and has had right of way access to a highway ever since it was built. If a Highway Authority is having difficulty bringing an unadopted part of the highway, which we have a right of way over, up to adoptable standards then that is clearly a problem for them to resolve. It is ludicrous for anybody to suggest that we should allow the Highway Authorities to shuffle their self created difficulties onto us. Particularly since we warned them of this eventuality 17 years ago. During 2001 the Highway Authority planned some works which we argued (i) they had no statutory authority to carry out. And (ii) would interfere with our right of way. We asked the Highway Authority on numerous occasions, well before they attempted to implement the works, for further information about the planned scheme and the specific statutory authority they relied on to carry out the works. The Highway Authority refused to, and still refuse to give us, that information, thereby denying us the right to challenge them. That is an unequivocal interference with our legal and Human Rights by any stretch of the imagination. We find it inconceivable that a Local Government Ombudsman does not appear to understand this. A public authority cannot, and should not, deny information to an interested party in an attempt to stop them challenging the legality of their plans. If they do it s called maladministration! As a result, everything the Highway Authority did, following their failure to provide the information necessary for us to effectively challenge the legality of their scheme (or their authority) must have been further acts of maladministration. Not only do we have a right to the information we requested, it is also clear the works cannot proceed until it is provided. The only reason for the delay over the last 7 years is because the County Council have refused, and are still refusing, to give us the information.

Everything else in your draft report hides that simple truth. There was no need, nor do you have the authority, to determine any of the legal or human rights issues involved. Therefore, why have you wasted the last two years attempting to do just that and why does your report concentrate on those issues rather than the initial and further acts of maladministration? For far too long we have put our faith in an alternative system of justice that doesn t appear to exist. Therefore, we are keen to revert back to the more traditional legal route, in which the rules of fair play and natural justice are still embodied and practiced in a transparent, open and honest way.

We will reserve any further comments until after we receive the promised communication from Cheshire County Council.


[Back to the top]