Section 1: Introduction
Jump to
The complaint
Mrs D and her son complained that the Environment Agency (the Agency), Lancashire County Council (the County Council) and Rossendale Borough Council (the Borough Council) had failed to take appropriate action against their neighbour, Mr R, who was tipping, burying and burning large quantities of waste illegally, blocking public footpaths and intimidating anyone trying to use them. Mrs D said that the activities of her neighbour have made the landscape, which had been a local beauty spot, unrecognisable; made it impossible for her and her son to live peacefully in their family home; and may well have caused long-term damage by polluting the land and local water supplies.
Mrs D and her son seek redress for the years of distress and aggravation they have suffered and the fact that they have been unable to sell their property due to the failure of those bodies to take appropriate action.
The decision
We have fully upheld Mrs D’s and her son’s complaint and have found that maladministration by all three bodies complained about has caused Mrs D and her son considerable injustice over a very lengthy period. We consider that the agreement of those three bodies to our recommendations would provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice that Mrs D and her son suffered.
Background
Mrs D and her son live on a remote farm on the Lancashire side of the Pennines. The site is marked as green belt on the local plan, as a biological heritage site on the structure plan, and is noted as being of archaeological interest because of the remains of early industrial developments.
In 2000 the property next to Mrs D and her son was sold to a man, Mr R, who owned a skip hire business and waste transfer station in a nearby town. Mrs D told us that about six months after he moved in, he began using large trucks to bring the skips to the land surrounding both his and her property and spreading waste across the landscape. She said that shortly after this, he began burning large piles of rubbish that sometimes included items such as fridges and freezers, and which gave off appalling fumes. She added that, in order to enable him to bring the waste to the site, Mr R had laid concrete without permission and torn out trees.
From 2000 onwards, in addition to complaints made by Mrs D and her son, there were numerous other complaints made by local residents and walkers to the Councils and to the Agency about Mr R’s activities on the site and their effect on them and on the area itself. They reported that Mr R had removed stiles, blocked off footpaths, placed a large aggressive dog on the main track to the farm, and put up signs saying that the land was private and the public should keep out. The signs said that dogs that went onto the land would be shot and cars would be clamped and their owners charged £2,000 to remove the clamp. It would appear that Mr R did this so that he could carry out his activities undisturbed. Activities on the site began to come to an end when the Traffic Commissioner revoked Mr R’s Heavy Goods Vehicle operator’s licence in June 2007. In her findings, the Traffic Commissioner said that Mr R had driven a ‘coach and horses’ through the spirit and letter of the legislation, and took the rare step of revoking his licence immediately and indefinitely.
Mr R became insolvent and he and his wife were made personally bankrupt. The farm was then repossessed by the bank. Mr R and his family initially moved into a mobile home and Portakabin adjacent to the farm, but have since moved away. The Agency eventually prosecuted Mr R, and in 2008 he pleaded guilty to three charges under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) for depositing, disposing and keeping waste on the land. The judge asked the Agency to do a survey. It showed that some 7,613 cubic metres of waste had been dumped. That is enough to fill about three Olympic-sized swimming pools.
The Ombudsmen’s remit, jurisdiction and powers
The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s general remit
The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s remit is set out in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Her role is to investigate complaints referred to her by a Member of Parliament that an individual has sustained an injustice in consequence of maladministration by a body within her remit. In this instance, that body is the Agency.
If the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that maladministration has resulted in an injustice, she will uphold the complaint. If that injustice is unremedied, in line with her Principles for Remedy she may recommend redress to remedy any injustice that she has found.
The Local Government Ombudsman’s general remit
Under the Local Government Act 1974 Part III the Local Government Ombudsman has discretion to investigate complaints of injustice arising from maladministration by local authorities and certain other public bodies. In this instance the local authorities concerned are the County Council and the Borough Council.
If the Local Government Ombudsman finds that maladministration has resulted in an injustice, she may recommend redress to remedy the injustice.
Powers to investigate and report jointly
The Regulatory Reform (Collaboration etc. between Ombudsmen) Order 2007 clarified the powers of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman, with the consent of the complainant, to share information, carry out joint investigations and produce joint reports in respect of complaints which fell within the remit of both Ombudsmen.
In this case, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman agreed to work together because the Agency and the two Councils have between them the powers to regulate and control waste operations and the use and development of land. The authorities are expected to co-operate in carrying out those functions. It therefore seemed to the Ombudsmen that a joint investigation, leading to the production of joint findings and conclusions, which could take a view about the relative responsibilities of each of the public bodies involved, was the most appropriate way forward.
Back to top
