Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 1998 - March 1999 > Department of the Environment, Transport and the regions
Sixth Report Session 1998-99
Volume 2
OCTOBER 1998 - MARCH 1999
The full report of selected cases
Summary of other investigations completed
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIROMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
Delay and mishandling of negotiations over the provision of an access road
In 1987 a property company bought a site adjacent to a trunk road but with no access to it. Planning permission to develop the site depended on gaining an access. In April 1989 the regional office of the then Department of Transport (DOT) told the company that DOT would allow an access from the site to the trunk road, if the company would meet the costs of building a roundabout at the projected access point and converting to a dual carriageway an adjacent length of the road. The work would be carried out under a section 278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980. As a first step, DOT's costs in drawing up the agreement needed to be safeguarded by the company providing an abortive costs undertaking, but DOT were slow to make their requirements sufficiently clear. The undertaking was finally signed in August 1991. The main section 278 agreement was not signed until June 1994. Construction work began in December 1996 and was completed in July 1997 at a final cost of £2.6m against an initial estimate of £1.25m which was the amount the company had been required to contribute. The company attributed lost land sales and increased costs, especially in the early years of the project, to DOT's shortcomings. The Ombudsman found that there was an underlying lack of control in DOT's initial handling of the proposal and inadequate and incomplete advice given to the company and their representatives which had contributed to prolonged misunderstandings between the parties and unrealistic expectations on the part of the company. There were some delays on the part of DOT at a subsequent stage. However, DOT had not acted intransigently nor had they given commitments or promises that particular things would be done by particular dates. Independently of DOT's actions, the company had chosen to embark on a complex development venture that was far from risk-free. DOT's Highways Agency agreed to apologise to the company for DOT's shortcomings and, in compensation to make them an ex gratia payment of £50,000.
Back to top
Provision of information about compensation for loss of profits
In 1992 the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) proposed a scheme to build a by-pass. On 25 May 1993 a meeting took place between the owner of land partly affected by the scheme, his agent, Mrs A and four other traders operating on the land, and representatives from DETR, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and the consulting engineers for the scheme. The meeting dealt with the possible effects the scheme would have on the traders' businesses. There are conflicting accounts of what was said about the likelihood of compensation. Mrs A's legal status as a tenant, which determined her eligibility for compensation, was not established until September 1995. VOA concluded that the scheme had not lead to a temporary diminution in the value of Mrs A's interests in the land, so no compensation was payable. The Ombudsman was unable to reconcile the conflicting accounts of the meeting of 25 May 1993 but criticised DETR and VOA for the length of time it had taken to establish Mrs A's status as a tenant.
Back to top
Handling of a request for the discretionary purchase of a property
Mrs C lived near to a proposed road-widening scheme the details of which the Highways Agency (HA) published in November 1994. She decided to move to improve her health and in January 1995 put her property up for sale at £59,000. Unable to sell, Mrs C asked HA in April to use their discretionary powers to buy the property. In June, under guidelines then in force, HA rejected her application. Following their revision of the guidelines in July, HA invited Mrs C to submit a further formal application. After doing so, Mrs C sold her property in November (for £37,500) and thereby lost her right to have it considered for discretionary purchase. She sought compensation from HA for the reduction in the value of the property which she attributed to blight from the scheme. On 5 January 1996 HA wrote asking her to provide evidence of her medical condition. She replied saying that she could probably provide evidence but, if it was not essential, she would be content to pursue her claim on the basis of the diminution in the value of her home. HA told her that her property would not have been eligible for discretionary purchase under the new guidelines and that they had no powers to offer her compensation. After the intervention of the Ombudsman, the Chief Executive of HA arranged for an examination of Mrs C's case to determine whether her property might have been eligible for discretionary purchase under the then new guidelines. Mrs C did not provide key information about her medical condition at the time of its sale and HA told her that, with no evidence of hardship other than the diminution in the value of her property, they were unable to accept her case.
Back to top
Failure to supply accurate information and meet statutory obligations
Following a public inquiry in 1982/83 a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) scheme to improve a trunk road was approved. Construction started in 1987 in accordance with DETR specifications which left it to the constructor to decide the material for the road surface, in this case brushed concrete. The specifications, at that time, required no maximum depth of texture. The amount laid was much greater than the minimum specified. The texture and an increase in actual traffic flow compared to that predicted at the inquiry resulted in complaints to DETR about road noise immediately after the road was reopened in December 1989. The Ombudsman criticised DETR for losing files but found that the information they had supplied to the inquiry had been accurate, that they had not been required to give evidence of the surface material to be used and that the construction specifications used had been reasonable. The Ombudsman also found no evidence that DETR had been maladministrative in mitigating the effects of the road noise. DETR told the Ombudsman they had instituted a review of their maintenance of files and that traffic forecasting methods have been improved since the inquiry.
Back to top
Unreasonable delay by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in issuing a renewal driving licence
On 23 March 1998 the DVLA received from Mr D an application for the renewal of his large goods vehicle licence, which was due to expire on 13 April, together with a medical report from his doctor which showed that Mr D had suffered a collapse in September 1997. The Ombudsman found that DVLA's medical unit had taken seven weeks to start their enquiries into Mr D's medical condition but that subsequent delay in issuing his renewal licence had been due to factors beyond DVLA's control. Mr D was made redundant on 5 June. DVLA issued his renewal licence on 30 June. DVLA's Director of Operations acknowledged that the delay in renewing the licence might have been a factor in the difficulties Mr D had experienced in finding another job. DVLA offered unqualified apologies to Mr D and agreed to make him an ex gratia payment of £627.21.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
