Public Service Ombudsman for Wales: you're guilty of maladministration!
Unless You'd Like to Show I'm
Mistaken!
Over time, it became evident that the local Highway Authority - in the shape of Anglesey County Council, currently under a partial Welsh Assembly take-over for poor governance - displayed what I received as an authoritarian approach to what had been until then a fairly simple matter, with neighbours able to negotiate directly and amicably. Whilst the authority was content to turn a blind eye to matters that assisted their own aims and position, they were not so relaxed when it came to helping the landowners' position. In particular, the Council inexplicably and steadfastly refused to make an on-site visit to quickly resolve matters without lengthy and formal exchanges of letters.
Not understanding fully the legal position, my neighbour took it upon himself to approach the Highway Authority at their offices where, according to the HA, he claimed I had told him that "the Council had [already] demanded the removal of the cattle grid". In fact, in a letter to my neighbour, what I had said was that the "Council had a right to remove the cattle grid" if certain works were not carried out, and that I hoped that situation would not occur. This was a completely true account, and I relied upon a document sent to me by the Council itself - 'Managing Access' (Countryside Council for Wales) to write my letter. Indeed, not only does a Highway Authority have the right to remove unlawful obstructions, it has a statutory duty to do so.
It appears that, because I was not content to accept the authoritarian and inflexible approach demonstrated by the Council, a certain preconception of being a troublemaker had developed about me in their offices. When they heard my neighbours' claim, it fitted nicely with what the Council already seemed to believe about me. So confident were they about my being a troublemaker that the Corporate Director of the service issued a letter personally, accusing me of saying to my neighbour that the Council was demanding the cattle grid be removed, and that this "totally misrepresents the communications [I] have had with the Council." To make matters worse, a copy of this letter, containing other personal information, was sent to my neighbour, which was received as an attempt to belittle me for making what they wrongly believed was a false claim about the Council.
When my neighbour received the Council's letter, even though it was he who had misread my letter and made the false claim, he took this to indicate that I had lied to him about the Council's position. He then decided to communicate only via his solicitor.
I was incensed by the arrogance and stupidity of the letter's contents, particularly as it had been issued by a very experienced and senior officer of the Council. I decided to submit a formal complaint to the Council, which was poorly handled and yielded only a meaningless reply that the officer had acted in good faith throughout. There was no apology other than for sending personal data to a third party. I later learned that the officer had enquired about his possible breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 with colleagues.
Having achieved little with the internal complaints process, I submitted a complaint using a web form to the Public Services Ombudmsan for Wales. There was a fair amount of direct contact with the investigator, and I always tried to remain objective and fair, because all the evidence was on paper for all to see. The two parties were given plenty of opportunity, more or less at will, to submit any information they wished, and to respond to the other party's submissions. A formal investigation was begun, and eventually, in early summer 2010, a Preliminary Report was issued. This found essentially all the elements of the complaint I had made against the Council upheld. It said they had not issued a reply within the proper timescale, had allowed the officer being the subject of the complaint to handle the affair himself, rather than an independent person handling it, that they had breached the Data Protection Act, that they had favoured my neighbour's view without checking that what they had been told was in fact true, and that they had generally demonstrated maladministration in handling the matter.
Whilst this was a good outcome, I was concerned to note that there was another opportunity given to both parties to submit yet further information. This struck me as very peculiar, given the many months of investigation and the ample opportunity for all to present their views. It was as though a jury handed down a verdict at court, and then asked the various parties to try and persuade them they'd got it all wrong!
Despite the Council's eventual oblique apology not conforming to what the Ombudsman had described in writing in the Preliminary Report as a meaningful apology, the investigator decided that they wouldn't really be able to extract a better outcome from the Council, and that they had issued an adequate apology after all. But, there was no "correct description of the offending action or behaviour and why it occurred", there was no "expression of sincere regret" and there was no "acknowledgement of the resulting impact on the aggrieved." And despite much effort and money being spent on dealing with the fallout of the Council's actions using solicitors, the Ombudsman decided that there should be no financial restoration made (I had claimed £500) because I had been involved in legal negotiations with my neighbour before the Council's actions. In fact, this is an entirely false assertion, and for which I still await an apology from the investigator.
Whilst the investigator was very polite and offered an open door to submit evidence to her, in view of the eventual outcome and the truly ridiculous decision-making process, I have to conclude that the Ombudsman is essentially a worthless organisation that has no meaningful enforcement powers.
My firm belief is that the Ombudsman should have given a fixed period of maybe two months where evidence could be presented by all, and then reach a fixed decision in a single, final report. It is right and proper to have an appeals process, but with the Ombudsman, the decision and appeals processes seem to be rolled into one; a very ridiculous and flawed state of affairs indeed.
John Rowlands, Anglesey