Vale Royal Borough Council, Cheshire County Council and the Local Government Ombudsman
A Chronological Summary of Key Facts (submitted to the Ombudsman on 14th June 2006)
(How the current situation evolved between 1991 and 14th June 2006)
1) 1991 Vale Royal Borough Council (VRBC) informed about the potential problem.
I informed VRBC during 1991 that the roadway on phase one of the Mulberry development was not being constructed in the planned position.
2) 1992 VRBC enter into an Adoption Agreement with the Developer.
VRBC entered into a Section 38 Road Adoption Agreement with the Developer in May 1992. Now the roadway is neither in the planned or bonded position.
3) 1992 VRBC issue a Part One Certificate for the roadway.
VRBC issued a Part One Certificate for the roadway on the 8th June 1992. Even though the roadway was not being constructed in the planned and bonded position.
4) 1992 to 1996 I take court action against the Developer.
During 1992 the Developer attempted to complete the roadway by trespassing on my land. As a result, I took court action to protect my interests. VRBC took no action to protect theirs. In fact, they did exactly the opposite. During that period, VRBC allowed the Developer to entrench the position by building houses on the opposite side of the roadway. Whilst court action was underway that was an extremely risky gamble by VRBC. The fact that they gambled on the Developer winning the case now meant that moving the roadway to resolve the problem would be much more expensive.
5) 1995 Appeal Court find in my favour.
The Court of Appeal found in my favour. 'A ramp on my land (in order to access and egress my property) would be a trespass'.
6) 1996 The Developer starts to have financial difficulties. We realised that the Developer was having financial difficulties when they failed to pay our court costs. However, that also meant it was unlikely they would complete the roadways on the site. VRBC had imprudently allowed them to carry on building and selling houses even though they had been in fundamental breach of the Section 38 Agreement since June 1994.
7) 1997 VRBC threaten to complete the roadway.
VRBC were now victims of their own serial negligence. Unfortunately for them, the Developer was no longer in a position to pick up the bill. As a result, a Solicitor from VRBC threatened to complete the roadway in the wrong position. This is the key to the whole problem. VRBC, and subsequently Cheshire County Council (CCC), have always pursued a zero cost solution to what was now their problem. This was just their first attempt.
8) 1997 I complained to the Ombudsman.
As a direct result of the Solicitors threats, I complain to the Ombudsman. My complaint was investigated during June 1997 and 1998.
9) 1998 CCC's testimony to the Ombudsman confirms that the roadway is in the wrong position.
Ombudsman's report (62) '.....The County Council has carried out a full survey to establish whether the highway conforms with the Section 38 agreement and, if it does not, the extent of the divergence. The County Council's conclusion is that the highway in the vicinity of Mr and Mrs Jarndice's property has not been constructed to the line and level set out in the approved drawings and that it will prove impossible to construct the vehicular crossing at the gradient required within the highway boundary without first altering the line and level of the kerb line and carriageway of the constructed road.' [My emphasis]
10) 1998 The Ombudsman's report into my first complaint is published.
The Ombudsman asks VRBC to look at the available options and ensure that the roadway on Phase One and Two are completed and adopted.
11) 1999 Vale Royal Borough Council respond to the Ombudsman's report.
VRBC respond to the Ombudsman's report in January 1999 stating that the roadway will be redesigned so it will have no impact on my property.
12) 1999 CCC plan to move the roadway.
Mr Wood, CCC produced a plan (CE/11329/50/06) showing the horizontal line of the roadway moved away from our property and the vertical line to a much lower level. This plan reinforces their earlier testimony to the Ombudsman and is also in line with VRBC's promise to the Ombudsman.
13) 2000 CCC attempt to get Mr T Jones, College Hill Underwriters (the Bondsman) to pay for the cost of moving the roadway.
The Councils approached Mr Jones, with the intention that he pays for the roadway to be moved. However, VRBC had wrongly given Mulberry Construction Ltd. a Part One Certificate on the 8th June 1992 resulting in the bond being substantially reduced. The insurance no longer covered Part One works so Mr Jones rightly refused to pay for the roadway to be moved. That was one of the reasons why I asked the Ombudsman to ring Mr Jones. This created a major problem in the Council's quest for a zero cost solution.
14) 2001 Councils decide to trigger the bond.
In a second desperate attempt to complete the roadway in its current position the CCC tell VRBC to trigger the bond. However, CCC never overcame the legal obstacles before triggering the bond even though they told Mr. Jones, College Hill Underwriters that they had. As a result, he did most of the work on site before realising that they hadn't actually resolved the problem in the vicinity of my property after all. They even kept the plan from him until the last minute so he would do all the other work first. That was another reason why I asked the Ombudsman to ring Mr. Jones. The Ombudsman and I weren't the only ones Cheshire County Council were trying to deceive. Now you may understand why College Hill has never taken legal action over my removal of their kerbs in the vicinity of my property.
15) 2001 Wrongly triggering the bond before resolving the problems frustrated the Section 38 Road Adoption Agreement.
This can be ascertained from the Ombudsman's report. (56) the Council's Principal Solicitor, essentially stating;
(i) The Council may be unable to ensure the roads were made up by triggering the bond because of the dispute between myself and the Developer.
(ii) The dispute may render the terms of contract between the developer, the bondsman and the Council incapable of being carried out, and this would frustrate the Section 38 Road Adoption Agreement.
(iii) It was better for the Council to overcome any legal obstacles before triggering the bond. 16) 2002 I complain again to the Ombudsman. I decided to involve the Ombudsman again following threats by CCC to complete the roadway by trespassing on my property and interfering with my right of way. . I submitted a second complaint during March 2002.
16) 2002 I complain again to the Ombudsman.
I decided to involve the Ombudsman again following threats by CCC to complete the roadway by trespassing on my property and interfering with my right of way. . I submitted a second complaint during March 2002.
17) 2002 Cheshire County Council persuade the Ombudsman not to investigate my complaint.
During April 2002 Mr McGinn and Mr Hobbs have a telephone conversation and agree not to take my complaint any further.
18) 2002 to 2006 The roadway on Phase One and Two remain unadopted.
Since the Councils wrongly triggered the bond and attempted to complete the roadway in the wrong position they have done little to resolve the problem. They did allow another Developer to complete the Roadway on Phase Three during 2001. However, this just turned the Roadway into a major through road and made matters a lot worse. The Roadway on Phase One and Two remain unadopted to this day. Mr McGinn told me during July 2001 that they could have resolved the problem years ago but they wanted a zero cost solution.