Foreword
Jump to
I am laying before Parliament under Section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 this report, which contains the results of my investigation into a complaint made by Mr and Mrs Balchin that the Secretary of State for Transport acted maladministratively by confirming road orders in respect of the A1151 Wroxham/Hoveton bypass without seeking an assurance from Norfolk County Council (the Council) that they would be given adequate compensation for the effect of the road on their house.
The history of this complaint is exceptional in several respects. First, it has been a very long-running saga; the events complained about began in July 1986, when the Council first adopted the preferred route for the proposed bypass which abutted Mr and Mrs Balchin’s home. The Council refused to buy the property in December 1987, June 1990 and October 1992. Meantime the Balchins had been experiencing extreme financial difficulties as a result of the impact of the proposed bypass on the value of their property and, as a consequence, on Mr Balchin’s business, as he had previously used his home as security to raise the working capital for his business. Mr and Mrs Balchin had then moved out in 1991 for both financial and health reasons. Ironically, the Council discovered in early 1996 that they would need to purchase the Balchins’ property if the bypass went ahead, but in June 1996 the Council decided to rescind the scheme for the bypass. Although the Balchins were subsequently able to sell the property, by that time their position had worsened to the extent that they only received sufficient to pay off the debts that had accrued in the interim.
Secondly, this is the fourth report by a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration into the complaint made by Mr (now Sir) Michael Lord MP on behalf of Mr and Mrs Balchin. The complaint was first made on 13 January 1994, and three successive Commissioner’s reports issued in December 1994, July 1997 and September 2000 have been the subject of judicial review proceedings in the High Court. In none of those reports did my predecessors find that maladministration by the Department of Transport had led to an unremedied injustice to Mr and Mrs Balchin. In broad terms, this was because they did not believe that the Council would have acted differently, whatever action the Department might or even should have taken to remind the Council of the nature and intention of new powers that had been granted to local authorities to purchase properties in circumstances such as the Balchins found themselves in. In each case, the Court made orders of certiorari and mandamus, which meant that Mr and Mrs Balchin’s complaint fell to be reinvestigated in the light of all the relevant factors. I began my own investigation in January 2003.
Thirdly, after we had made our initial enquiries, I took the view that, as the Council were the relevant decision-making body in respect of any purchase of the Balchins’ property, a thorough investigation of the Department’s actions and their consequences, and the appropriate level of any redress due, could only be properly concluded if there were to be a parallel investigation by my colleague, Jerry White, the relevant Local Government Ombudsman for England, of the Council’s part in relation to the events. I therefore referred the Balchins’ case to him in April 2004, asking him whether, despite the length of time which had passed since the relevant events, given the considerable injustice I felt had been caused to Mr and Mrs Balchin and the exceptional nature of the case, he would be willing to consider the part played by the Council in these unfortunate events. He said that he would, and Mr and Mrs Balchin subsequently submitted a complaint to Mr White, who began his investigation in May 2004.
We subsequently conducted our respective investigations in parallel. This presented greater challenges than might be immediately apparent, because the strong interdependency of the relevant actions of the two bodies involved meant that we needed to keep each other regularly updated not only on general progress in our respective investigations, but also on the development of our thinking with regard to maladministration, its consequences and redress. We also had to ensure that we did not unintentionally breach the various restrictions on our working practices placed upon us by our respective legislation, not least with regard to confidentiality and the sharing of information. Those restrictions, of course, also mean that we have had to prepare separate reports on our respective findings.
When I had completed my own enquiries I reached the conclusion, for reasons explained in the report, that there was maladministration in the Department for Transport’s handling of the matter. This was on the basis that, in my view, there was a clear onus on the Department to ensure that they did not knowingly allow Councils to mislead themselves as to the intention of any legislation (for which the Department was responsible) to which the Council were obliged to have regard, and to step in to offer a correct interpretation of the current legislative position if the Council clearly misrepresented that. They had not done so here. However, I was unable to ascertain the full impact of that maladministration on the Balchins’ position, and the consequences for redress, until Mr White had completed his enquiries. Those were concluded in August 2005, when Mr White found maladministration on the part of the Council also, leading to injustice to Mr and Mrs Balchin. He concluded that the total compensation due to Mr Balchin amounted to £200,000.
We then considered jointly what an equitable share of the responsibility for the considerable hardship caused to Mr and Mrs Balchin by the actions and omissions of the Department and the Council might be. We decided that it would only be fair to conclude that the Department and the Council had to carry an equal share in that responsibility. I am very pleased to be able to report that the Department for Transport immediately agreed to make an ex gratia payment to Mr and Mrs Balchin on that basis. In line with the Local Government Ombudsman’s standard practices, the Council now have three months from the date of the report’s publication to respond to Mr White’s recommendations. I very much hope that they will follow the Department for Transport’s commendable example and produce a similarly prompt and positive response, which will bring some long-awaited relief and comfort to Mr and Mrs Balchin and thereby bring this long and most unhappy story of hardship and injustice to a satisfactory close.
Finally, this case has, I believe, demonstrated all too clearly the need for reform of the legislation governing certain aspects of the working arrangements for public sector Ombudsmen, as set out in the consultation being conducted currently by the Cabinet Office. The restrictions on our ability to work together mean that we have not been able to provide the sort of fully-joined up and coherent service for Mr and Mrs Balchin that we should be able to provide to all citizens who have complaints which cross more than one Ombudsman jurisdiction. The removal of those restrictions, by means of the proposed Regulatory Reform Order, would undoubtedly enable us to provide a more efficient and streamlined service to complainants in the future.
Ann Abraham
UK Parliamentary Ombudsman
October 2005
