Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 1998 - March 1999 > Scottish Office
Sixth Report Session 1998-99
Volume 2
OCTOBER 1998 - MARCH 1999
The full report of selected cases
Summary of other investigations completed
SCOTTISH OFFICE
Maladministration relating to work in connection with the agreed acquisition of land for a road scheme
The Scottish Office (SO) agreed to buy part of Mr and Mrs R's house and garden in connection with a motorway scheme. SO also agreed at their own expense to demolish the remainder of the house, to undertake associated clearing and ground improvement works, to transplant or replace specified vegetation in accordance with good horticultural practice, and to erect a fence on the line of the motorway boundary. On 3 December 1991 SO met with Mr and Mrs R to discuss matters which might affect them. Over time relationships between SO and Mr and Mrs R deteriorated and there were disputes about the meaning and implementation of many of the provisions of the original agreement, and of subsequent agreements relating to remedial works; about whether SO had occupied land when they were not entitled to do so; and about the extent of SO's liability for meeting the costs of Mr and Mrs R's solicitors. SO completed the correct construction of the motorway fence in November 1995, and the horticultural works in December 1996. The Ombudsman criticised SO for not having done more to avoid a developing confrontation before attempting to start the demolition of Mr and Mrs R's former home in 17 February 1992, and for the uncalled for video recording of an exchange with Mr R; but he did not find that SO could be held accountable for distress suffered by Mrs R. The Ombudsman also criticised SO for errors and delays in the completion of the works and for not keeping Mr and Mrs R properly informed. SO had also not dealt as carefully as they should have with Mr and Mrs Rs' concerns over the ownership of certain parcels of land; had they done so the boundaries might have agreed and much subsequent correspondence might not have been necessary. SO made an interim payment of £2,068 to Mr and Mrs R for their legal fees and are willing to meet the cost of such fees in relation to resolving a continuing dispute over the positioning of the boundary fence. They offered apologies for the shortcomings which had occurred and agreed to make an ex gratia payment of £1,000 for the inconvenience Mr and Mrs R had suffered. They also offered to explore further an ambiguity over the extent of some of the land taken.
Back to top
Delay and errors by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment Department (SOAEFD) in deciding a grant claim and failure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) to issue a correct herd mark
A farmer who had received 1993 suckler cow premium and 1994 hill livestock compensation allowance told SOAEFD in August 1994 that he had did not have enough calves to comply with the conditions of his 1994 hill livestock claim, and that he wished to rely on provisions relating to force majeure. In March 1995 SOAEFD rejected that claim and recovered from the farmer the premium and allowance payments earlier made, together with interest from August 1994. In December 1995 SOAEFD accepted that the farmer had conformed to the requirements of the 1994 hill livestock compensation allowance; they refunded his reclaimed payment but rejected his compensation claim for interest and for the expenses he had incurred over the matter. In October 1996 SOAEFD agreed to make the farmer an ex gratia payment of the amount he had claimed as compensation. The Ombudsman criticised SOAEFD for the delays in repaying the hill livestock compensation allowance and making the ex gratia payment; but found that SOAEFD had not unduly delayed considering the force majeure claim in respect of the suckler cow premium. The Ombudsman did not find that SOAEFD's decision regarding the suckler cow premium rules on force majeure tainted by maladministration. The Head of SOAEFD offered apologies to the farmer.
When the farmer had taken over the farm in 1986 MAFF had allocated him a new herd mark (mark A) but had not told him. By his own account MAFF had agreed that he could continue to use the herd mark (mark B) used by the previous owner of the farm. In 1993 MAFF discovered that the farmer was using mark B wrongly; they allocated him mark C. The farmer became aware that mark B was being used by a neighbouring farmer, one of whose cattle had contracted BSE. In September 1994 MAFF's divisional veterinary manager authorised the farmer to replace with mark C four remaining cows in his herd bearing mark B, and provided him with a letter to show potential purchasers that no cases of BSE had been found on his premises. The farmer nevertheless complained that he faced continuing problems, as MAFF would not remove mark B from their register and his herd was therefore "blacked for BSE". The Ombudsman criticised MAFF for their failure to notify the farmer of the herd mark allocated to him in 1986 but did not find that that had been the likely cause of the financial loss the farmer had identified. The Permanent Secretary of MAFF offered his apologies for MAFF's failings. Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
