Plymouth council told to pay woman £1,000 after planning battle
A WOMAN who spent years battling council planners is to be paid £1,000 in compensation for the injustices caused.
The unnamed woman, who wished to develop her land, complained to the Local Government Ombudsman after negotiations with Plymouth City Council failed to reach an agreement.
-

But the council even failed to uphold an agreement it made with the Ombudsman.
And the woman had to go back to square one in her negotiations when the council transferred its housing stock to a housing association in 2009.
BUY NOW - PAY NEXT MONTH (on all floor sanding works)
View detailsThis voucher if printed off and given to us on the day of the quotation entitles you to have your floor sanding work completed, you pay a small deposit & then pay next month.
Terms:
1 voucher per person.
1 voucher per household.
Payment to be settled in full 28 days from completion date (+10% charge).
A payment contract will be signed.
Contact: 01752 421711
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
The council's delay in fulfilling a settlement remedy it had agreed with the Local Government Ombudsman demonstrated "a lack of appropriate commitment to customer service", said the Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin.
In her report, issued today, she says the woman wished to develop her land, and asked the council to release her property from a restrictive covenant that prevented further development. The council at first said it agreed in principle, but later proposed, instead, to vary the covenant. Negotiations continued until eventually the woman complained to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman proposed a remedy aimed at breaking the stalemate between the parties.
After the council agreed to consider whether to release the restrictive covenant in whole or in part and reflect the delays to which it had contributed by reducing any fees or costs, the Ombudsman discontinued her investigation.
The council delayed in carrying out the terms of the settlement and then discovered the transfer of its housing stock to a local housing association in 2009 meant that it no longer owned the covenant.
It could not therefore deliver the remedy it had agreed with the Ombudsman. The benefit and right to enforce, release or vary the covenant now rested with the housing association.
The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice because the council: delayed in acting on the remedy it had agreed, and failed to identify the situation about the ownership of the covenant either when the woman complained to the Ombudsman, or when the Ombudsman proposed the settlement remedy.
"I can agree remedial action with a council during an investigation to enable complainants to receive a remedy more quickly," Dr Martin said. "But in this case, the remedy was not fulfilled, and information provided was inaccurate."
She said that, having spent years pursuing her goal of a release of the restrictive covenant, the woman now had to start again with the new owner of that covenant. She had been put to "considerable inconvenience and no little expense."
The council has agreed to apologise to the woman, pay her £1,000 in recognition of the distress, delay and inconvenience caused, and as a contribution towards her abortive costs, and review its procedures.
A council spokeswoman said: "We accept the findings of the Ombudsman and will be making a payment to the complainant. We would like to apologise for the unacceptable way this issue was handled. We have reviewed our procedures to make sure this doesn't happen again."




Comments
by Winstonsmith0
Thursday, September 27 2012, 4:35PM
“@CharlieDodd
you commented; "At least we can give councils the boot at the next local elections, every botch-up like this is another nail in their coffin..:)"
I wish that were true old fruit. The council officers remain in their comfy seats regardless of the political group in charge.
'Officially' they function in a totally impartial and unbiased manner - just as did Alan Hartridge as he told mistruth after mistruth and dodged most of the pertinent questions at the incinerator planning meeting whilst he presented his full-of-errors report.
Thank goodness there are very few like him . . . unless, of course, you know different?
These 'ghosts' operate the city council and can strongly influence the reports read by our elected representatives. We complain that our councillors and MP's fail to do as we ask (even though they work for us) yet most people seem to be blindly unaware that many decisions are either made by or influenced by unelected council officers.
So perhaps we need to take back the reins a bit - and insist our elected few begin office by monitoring those pen pushers who have systematically taken power away from the people whilst themselves remaining quite secure in their jobs!
Plymouth; space of waste!”
by circles1
Thursday, September 27 2012, 3:06PM
“@ Mick, council planners are employees of the council and not elected councillors, thats why they are faceless,useless, over-paid busy bodies”
by bikerlad
Thursday, September 27 2012, 12:59PM
“you lot voted them in . nuff said”
by CharlieDodd
Thursday, September 27 2012, 10:58AM
“..Winston said- .Doesn't it sicken you that these council officers operate in a nameless, faceless capacity without any real culpability whatsoever'..
At least we can give councils the boot at the next local elections, every botch-up like this is another nail in their coffin..:)”
by Winstonsmith0
Thursday, September 27 2012, 10:47AM
“Just look how they handled the incinerator and the airport!
Doesn't it sicken you that these council officers operate in a nameless, faceless capacity without any real culpability whatsoever. They remain a law unto themselves yet all of them supposedly 'work for us'!
I bet those responsible for failure after failure are still in their secure and well paid jobs.
Pathetic!
Plymout; space of waste!”
by trudie2010
Thursday, September 27 2012, 10:45AM
“Most covenants should be looked at again to make sure they are still relevant. Things like"no washing lines" no poultry, when everyone is trying to go green.”
by stratobuddy
Thursday, September 27 2012, 10:43AM
“Can the ombudsman now look at the airport lease given to SHH?”
by nothalf
Thursday, September 27 2012, 9:11AM
“very typical of these council jobsworths, useless bunch the lot of them”