Improving Services / Selected cases / Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 1998 - March 1999

Parliamentary

Access to official information

Health

Parliamentary

Access to official information

Health

Hot topics

Cymraeg

Freedom of Information

Accessibility

Other Ombudsmen and complaint handlers

Feedback

Satisfied with our service?

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

Sixth Report Session 1998-99

Volume 2
OCTOBER 1998 - MARCH 1999

The full report of selected cases

Summary of selected cases

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIROMENT,TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

Unreasonable delay in dealing with complaints and offering compensation relating to a road scheme

4.1 Mrs R complained that the then Department of Transport and subsequently the Highways Agency (HA), now part of the Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions, refused to purchase her property under their discretionary blight procedures, or to compensate her adequately for the depreciation in value of, and damage to, her property caused by the construction of a trunk road by-pass. She also complained of excessive delay in dealing with her complaints and offering compensation.

4.2 My investigation began in December 1997 after the Ombudsman had obtained comments from HA's Finance Director. I have not put into this report every detail investigated by the Ombudsman's staff but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked. In April 1994 HA became responsible for trunk road planning and construction in England; for convenience I use HA throughout this report to refer also to the Department of Transport.

Statutory and administrative background

4.3 Section 246(2)(a) of the Highways Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) provides for a highway authority, in this case HA acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, to acquire by agreement land the enjoyment of which is (my underlining) seriously affected by the carrying out of works for the construction or improvement of a highway. Section 246(2)(b) provides the highway authority with similar powers of acquisition when the effects arise from the use of a road which has been constructed or improved. The use of sections (2)(a) and (b) is subject to the vendor having a qualifying interest in the property and to time limits. The powers may not be exercised under section (2)(a) unless the acquisition is begun before the highway is first opened to public traffic (the opening date) or under section (2)(b) unless the acquisition is begun before the end of one year from the opening date.

4.4 Under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 a person may claim compensation for depreciation in the value of his or her property caused by physical factors such as noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting or the discharge of any solid or liquid substance, arising from the use of public works - including traffic on new or altered highways. Claims must be made on or after the first claim day, which is 12 months after the day the new or improved road came into use, and within six years of the first claim day.

Jurisdiction

4.5 The Ombudsman is able to investigate the administrative actions taken by or on behalf of those government departments and other non-departmental public bodies listed under Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Under Section 12(3) of the Act the Ombudsman is precluded from questioning the merits of a department's discretionary decisions taken without maladministration.

Investigation

4.6

1981-1987

Mr and Mrs R purchased a house in December 1981. In 1982 they experienced flooding in the corner of the cellar which appeared to have been caused by a crack in an old drainage pipe. Mr R replaced the damaged pipe with plastic piping and over the following five years no further incidents of flooding occurred. HA began construction of the by-pass in July 1987. Mr and Mrs R had previously raised concerns with HA that the filling of dykes during the construction of the road would cause changes to the ground water levels and lead to flooding of their home. In August HA wrote to Mrs R outlining the provisions of Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. On 31 August while Mr and Mrs R were away from home on holiday the cellar of the house, which was being used as a children's playroom, flooded. On 1 September the resident engineer (RE) employed by the county council, who were acting as HA's agents for the by-pass scheme, visited the house, witnessed several inches of water in the cellar and arranged for it to be pumped out. On 20 September Mrs R claimed compensation of £847 for the damage caused by the flooding to the house and to possessions stored in the cellar.

4.7 The RE initially considered the flooding to have been caused by the failure of the surface water drainage system. A check of the system revealed that contractors acting for the district council had cut through an existing drain and had made an ineffective repair. However, further investigations showed that the pipe from the house stopped beneath the neighbouring property and did not flow into the drain. In a further attempt to identify the source of the problem the RE arranged in October 1987 for several piezometres to be installed to monitor the ground water levels. The resultant data showed that levels immediately adjacent to the cellar fluctuated by as much as half a metre following significant rainfall; that suggested that the problem was caused by a very rapid rise in the water levels in the immediate level of the cellar rather than a general rise in the water table. The RE considered that the flooding was more likely to be due to the saturation of the subsoil of the rear garden, which sloped toward the cellar, rather than to the construction of the by-pass. However, the RE did not consider that he could rule out entirely the possibility that a change in the natural ground water drainage patterns had occurred and he recommended an independent assessment by an expert in ground water systems.

4.8

1988

HA looked into the problem and took advice from the county council before deciding to engage an expert. On 11 February 1988 Mrs R wrote to HA complaining that five and a half months had elapsed since the original flooding and three months had passed since they had agreed to ask the District Valuer (an official of the Valuation Office Agency) to appoint an expert to look into the problem. On 19 February HA replied explaining that further information was being sought before any more action could be taken. On 8 March Mrs R again wrote to HA seeking action. On 31 March HA replied saying that their enquiries were continuing. On 27 April HA wrote to Mrs R saying that they were arranging for the District Valuer to appoint an independent engineer. On 2 June the District Valuer wrote to HA saying that he had identified a firm of independent geotechnical experts (the consultants) as suitable and willing to conduct the study. On 10 June HA wrote to Mrs R asking for her agreement to their proposal to appoint the consultants. They said that the District Valuer would act as consultant liaison officer. Mrs R replied on 7 July complaining that it had been seven months since she had been offered the services of an independent expert; she sought assurances that the consultants had relevant expertise. On 28 July HA sent Mrs R a copy of their draft brief for the consultants to which she agreed with only a minor amendment. On 19 September HA wrote to Mrs R confirming that the consultants had been appointed to consider her complaint. On 7 October the consultants reported to the District Valuer that they had contacted the RE and had arranged to visit the house to assess the problem.

4.9

1989

On 10 March 1989 the consultants reported to the District Valuer that they had undertaken some investigations into the subsoil conditions and ground water levels but pumping on site by the road contractors was artificially depressing the water levels and they were unable to assess the effects of the natural water table and complete their report until the pumping had stopped. On 14 March the by-pass opened.

1990

In March 1990 Mr and Mrs R put the house up for sale inviting offers in excess of £115,000. HA made periodic requests to the District Valuer about progress on the consultants' investigations. On 12 June and again on 13 July the District Valuer wrote to the consultants. On 27 July the consultants wrote to the District Valuer saying that they were maintaining their monitoring of the water levels at the house; the latest readings suggested that the levels were still rising, and they had arranged for further readings.

1991

The consultants wrote to the District Valuer on 6 February 1991 saying that they had written to Mr and Mrs R on 24 January seeking an update on the situation in their basement. The consultants said that dry weather over the preceding two years had led to a drop in ground water levels thereby hampering the completion of their report. They said that they had undertaken seven boreholes around the house to identify the subsoil conditions and water levels between December 1988 and February 1990; they had completed their on-site investigations. On 4 September the consultants wrote to the District Valuer saying that they were still trying to obtain an update on the situation from Mr and Mrs R so that they could complete their report. The District Valuer made several attempts, without success, to expedite completion of the report.

4.10

1992

On 16 June 1992, at the suggestion of the District Valuer, HA wrote to the consultants saying that, in spite of many reminders from the District Valuer, their report had not been received despite their many promises. On 20 July Mrs R wrote to the consultants and to HA complaining of the delay and saying that flooding was still occurring. She said that her letter should be her last request that the matter be resolved; the previous time she had contacted the consultants they had told her not to write to HA. On 28 July HA recorded that the consultants had promised their report on 29 July. On 3 August HA replied to Mrs R saying that the completion of the report was expected shortly. On 18 September HA recorded that the consultants had said that the report would be completed by 25 September. HA and the District Valuer made further efforts to obtain the report before the consultants produced it on 2 November. The consultants reported that a combination of factors had caused the flooding at the house: the underlying subsoil conditions; the restricting fact of the house itself; and the new by-pass which, while not introducing any additional ground water, did affect the rate at which the water drained away. They recommended that a cut-off drain be constructed within the curtilage of the property and connected to a highway surface water drain. The consultants estimated that the cost would be £2,000 to £3,000. HA considered the report inconclusive regarding the element of the flooding attributable to the roadworks; while the consultants had suggested that the by-pass was likely to have had an effect on ground water levels, they had made no assessment of the extent of HA's liability in that respect.

1993

On 20 January 1993 HA sent Mrs R a copy of the consultants' report. They also wrote to the consultants asking for an assessment in percentage terms of the amount of liability considered attributable to HA for the flooding and resulting damage. The consultants replied on 2 March saying all the identified factors were contributing to the problem but, if it could be shown that flooding of the basement had not occurred before construction of the by-pass, "it would appear that the construction of the by-pass and therefore [HA] are 100% liable for the flooding as, if the by-pass had not been constructed the pre-existing ground water conditions would still obtain and flooding would not be occurring". HA accepted that conclusion and wrote to the county council on 21 July saying that they had told the District Valuer that it would be appropriate to include in the compensation claim to be negotiated with Mrs R sufficient funds for her to arrange the work necessary for the drain; as the county council were the responsible authority for the public highway on which any works would be undertaken, HA were obliged to seek their permission for the works to be carried out and to seek their advice on the feasibility of constructing a cut-off drain.

4.11

1994

On 5 July 1994 HA wrote to Mr and Mrs R apologising for the long delay since they had last written and informing them that their engineers were taking up with the county council the matter of constructing a cut-off drain. They said that if Mr and Mrs R intended to continue with their claim for damage to their property they should submit documentary evidence of their losses. On 11 August HA wrote to Mr and Mrs R apologising for delays in acting upon the report and asking whether the flooding problems had been resolved. They said that in 1993 they had written to the county council about the feasibility of connecting a cut-off drain but, despite them sending several reminders, they had not received a reply. HA pointed out that they had had no correspondence from Mr and Mrs R since 1988 and that that, coupled with the knowledge that the county council had improved the drainage of the road in which they lived, which might have lowered the ground water sufficiently to avoid flooding to their cellar, indicated that there might no longer be problems. In the meantime, they saw no reason not to treat separately the element of Mr R's claim relating to the original flooding. HA said that if Mrs R was content to accept settlement of her claim for £847 they would arrange payment. In mid-September Mrs R telephoned HA saying that the flooding problems were continuing. Back to top

4.12

1995

On 21 July 1995 Mrs R wrote to HA saying that the house had been up for sale for 20 months and had been empty since November 1994. Mrs R accepted the offer of £847 for the original damage caused and sought a further £150.40 for a replacement pump; any further claim would be dependant on the flooding problem being solved. Mrs R also explained that she had been telephoning the consultants during the time the report was being prepared. She asked HA to undertake the installation of a cut-off drain but doubted if that would solve the problem. She considered that instead HA should either compensate them or purchase the house which, because of traffic noise and fumes, was proving impossible to sell. On 22 August HA sent Mrs R a payment of £997.40, including the cost of a replacement pump. In November a HA official and the RE visited the house. Mr and Mrs R were not able to be present but the official recorded that the cellar could be seen from the outside to be dry. The official learned that the county council had looked at the feasibility of constructing a cut-off drain but had concluded that an outfall into the local highway was virtually unachievable. The HA official concluded that the only viable long term solution would be a permanent, more substantial pumping facility and suggested a sum of £1,000 as full settlement for Mr and Mrs R to use as they saw fit.

4.13

1996

On 13 March 1996, having given further consideration to the logistics of a permanent pump, HA wrote to Mr and Mrs R explaining that a cut-off drain was not possible. They offered £1,000 on a "without prejudice" basis to cover the cost of a permanent pump, the installation of which they estimated would cost £700. On 29 April HA issued a reminder. Mrs R replied on 1 May saying that the offer of £1,000 was unacceptable. She asked HA to purchase the house at the market value which would have applied in the absence of the by-pass. On 19 June HA recorded that there was no doubt that the construction of the by-pass had adversely affected Mrs R's property, with a resultant depreciation in its value. HA wrote to Mrs R on 25 June saying that they had no power to buy the house, but that Mrs R might (HA's emphasis) be eligible for compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (paragraph 4.4). They enclosed a claim form. On 10 November Mrs R wrote to the Chief Executive of HA complaining that their 1987 claim against HA remained unresolved and asking for his help in attaining a speedy solution to her request that HA buy the property. On 26 November HA recorded that construction of the by-pass had caused flooding to the property; and that, after matters had "dragged on for a ridiculous period of time", the permanent solution of a cut-off drain had not been feasible. An official recorded "I know what my view would be if I viewed a property which needed a permanent pump in the cellar in case of flooding." On 27 November HA wrote to Mrs R explaining why the use of discretionary powers to purchase the property could not be used. They urged her to apply under Part I for depreciation compensation on an ex gratia basis since the time for making a claim had elapsed. On 27 November HA decided to ask the District Valuer to determine whether Mr and Mrs R would have been entitled to Part I compensation had they made a valid claim.

4.14

1997

On 13 March 1997 the District Valuer visited the house. On 26 March HA again asked Mr and Mrs R to submit a Part I claim saying that they would entertain it on an ex gratia basis. Mrs R complained on 9 May that there had been no further movement on her request for the purchase of her house. She also pointed out that a Part I claim would compensate only for the devaluation in the property, leaving them with a house which could not be sold. On 30 May HA wrote to Mr and Mrs R saying that an early estimate of the amount likely to be payable under a Part I claim would be in the region of £8,000. On 3 June HA recorded "... throughout the years when [the consultants] carried out their investigation and report and the extreme delays generally, Mr and Mrs R had every right to assume that [HA] would eventually find a solution. It is not unreasonable that they only started to seek purchase after it became clear that a pump would be needed permanently." HA noted that the possibility of a separate payment to Mrs R for the diminution in value attributable to the need for a pump could be explored with their legal branch; if such a payment was possible, and coupled with ex gratia Part I compensation, the difference between the selling price of the property and the price which could have been expected would be made up. On 13 June HA recorded that the only likely practical solution to prevent regular flooding of the property would be to circle the house entirely with a buried barrier, which would probably cost more than the house was worth. They said "with or without such a feature Mr and Mrs R are going to have a great deal of difficulty selling the property and are not going to get the value they would have obtained prior to the road construction." On 18 June HA recorded that it appeared that the case should be treated as an "unresolved third party claim" for damage caused to the property. On 24 June HA wrote to Mr and Mrs R explaining that there were no powers of discretionary purchase available to them to buy the house - powers which were available under section 246(2) of the Highways Act 1980 had expired in March 1990. They pointed out that, in any event, Mr and Mrs R no longer had a qualifying interest in the property as they no longer lived there; and it appeared that, even if they had made a claim at the appropriate time, they could not have satisfied the normal policy criteria used by HA to establish that enjoyment of the property had been seriously affected by the by-pass. They noted that Mr and Mrs R had not submitted the forms to make a Part I claim and that they had declined to accept the offer of a settlement to the flooding problem.

4.15 Mrs R sought assistance from the Member who wrote to HA on 31 July asking for their assessment of her claim. On 27 August the Chief Executive of HA replied explaining that discretionary purchase of the house was not possible and that compensation under a Part I claim might be payable on an ex gratia basis.

HA's reply to the complaint

4.16 In his comments on the complaint, the Finance Director acknowledged that delays had occurred despite numerous attempts by HA to chase up responses from experts who had been consulted. He pointed out that establishing the cause of the flooding had not been straightforward and that the longest delay had occurred during the investigations by the consultants, who had taken four years to report, and even then further questioning had been required to establish HA's liability in the matter. Further delay had been caused by difficulties in obtaining the county council's assessment of the feasibility of constructing a cut-off drain; and there had been yet more delay until January 1996 while the council advised on the cost of providing and maintaining a permanent pump.

4.17 The Finance Director said that HA have no legal liability to compensate for affecting percolating water in any way (ie ground water not running in defined channels), but are nevertheless prepared to consider individual cases with a view to paying ex gratia compensation where they are satisfied that construction works are the cause of any changes in ground water levels. As there is no liability HA are under no obligation to pay any particular sum; they may choose to make only a contribution to the cost of remedial works.

4.18 The Finance Director said that it had been accepted that, in the absence of detailed knowledge of the prior history of flooding and ground water levels at the house, the by-pass had been the most likely cause of subsequent flooding. However, he said that that was by no means certain, given that the cellar had flooded when Mr and Mrs R first moved in, and the cellar had been seen to be dry in November 1995 when HA and the RE had visited the property. The Finance Director said that as no reasonable engineering solution had been found to prevent flooding in the cellar, the only practicable solution was for a pump to be fitted and for HA to pay for its upkeep for a reasonable period of time. He said that HA's offer to consider a Part I claim for settlement on an ex gratia basis remained open.

Later developments

4.19

1998

On 28 January 1998 the Finance Director wrote to Mrs R apologising for the length of time taken to resolve the dispute. On 3 February HA sent her a further Part I claim form. On 3 March Mrs R informed HA that in December 1997 she had sold the house for £82,500, having had to reduce the price from £110,000. In order to settle the matter swiftly she asked HA for a minimum payment of £38,000 as a reasonable compensation package for the devaluation of the property, the loss of the children's playroom for a number of years, the damage to her health caused by dampness in the house, and the financial problems she had endured in maintaining two properties. On 16 March HA asked the District Valuer to make a Part I valuation in the absence of a claim form. On 18 March HA wrote telling Mrs R that and saying that negotiations towards a settlement would continue irrespective of the involvement of the Ombudsman.

4.20 The District Valuer reported on 26 March that compensation payable under a Part I claim would have been £8,500. On 9 April HA wrote telling Mrs R that and offering to pay interest of £4,946.77 on the amount. HA offered to make Mrs R a payment of £13,447.77 forthwith and without prejudice to her outstanding third party claim for the effects of the flood damage. They said that the earlier offer of £1,000 remained open for her to accept toward a solution to the flooding problem. They also asked Mrs R to provide details of the losses she had suffered in connection with the flooding so that an assessment could be made of whether any further compensation might be due. Mrs R replied on 20 April saying that in light of the reduction in the price of the house she considered Part I compensation should be a minimum of £20,000. She considered the offer of £1,000 to install a pump to be disgraceful given that they had been promised a permanent solution to the problem of water getting into the cellar, rather than a means of removing water once it had got in. She said that, without legal help which they could not afford, she was not qualified to consider compensation of the kind she had been asked to quantify. On 14 May HA wrote to Mrs R saying that they would pay her reasonable costs in taking professional advice to assist with further negotiation of a settlement of her claims against them. Mrs R explained to the Ombudsman's staff that that offer extended to the services of a solicitor and a surveyor.

Interview with Mrs R

4.21 Two of the Ombudsman's staff interviewed Mrs R at her home. She said that she and her husband had bought the house in 1981, without the need for a mortgage. In 1982 a cracked pipe had caused water to leak into the corner of the cellar. Her husband had replaced the pipe and there had been no other instance of flooding until the end of August 1987. Mrs R said that she had not considered making a claim for depreciation in the value of the property in 1987 because she had been waiting for HA's report and action in connection with the flooding and had thought that all the issues were being dealt with together. Mrs R said that she had put the house up for sale in February 1994 because allergy tests had shown that her health was being affected by dampness and dust (she is asthmatic). Mr and Mrs R had obtained a mortgage and had bought a property for her mother; and they had taken out a mortgage on the house to cover the cost of converting for their own use the house in which her mother had been living. They had not wanted to leave the house but dampness and the effects of the by-pass had forced them out, and they had ended up with mortgages totalling £85,000 for a period of three years, which had nearly crippled them financially. In addition, a business which Mr R had started experienced problems as a result of inadequate funding.

Findings

4.22 The house suffered flooding on 31 August 1987 shortly after the start of construction of the by-pass. The RE took prompt action in visiting the house and arranging for the cellar to be pumped out, and a temporary pumping facility was installed. On 20 September Mrs R claimed compensation of £847 for the damage caused to the house and to possessions in the cellar. I accept that at that stage HA had reasonable doubts about whether the flooding was related to the construction works and I view as a sensible course of action the RE's recommendation, at the end of 1987, to obtain an independent assessment (paragraph 4.7). However, it was not until 27 April 1988 that HA set the wheels in motion to identify a suitable consultancy firm to undertake the work, and not until 19 September that the consultants were appointed. I criticise HA for their tardiness in those respects. During their lengthy investigations the consultants apparently encountered various difficulties relating in 1989 to the distortion of water levels caused by on-site pumping by the road contractors, and in 1990 to the fact that water levels were still rising. On 6 February 1991 the consultants reported to the District Valuer that dry weather over the preceding two years had led to a drop in ground water levels, which had hampered their investigations; however, their on-site investigations had been completed and they had asked Mr and Mrs R for an update on the situation in their cellar. Despite many reminders from the District Valuer and HA, and frequent promises from the consultants, the report on the investigation was not produced until 2 November 1992. Although in the light of the problems apparently encountered by the consultants the process of investigation was always likely to be lengthy, it should have been possible for HA to have obtained the consultants' report much earlier than turned out to be the case. There is little precise evidence in their records of the efforts made by the District Valuer and HA to obtain completion of the report, or of the various undertakings given by the consultants; but the eventual responsibility for ensuring that the report was completed lay with HA and they failed to achieve that within anything like a reasonable timescale. I criticise them for that, and for not seeking, until 20 January 1993, clarification from the consultants when HA found the report inconclusive as to how much of the flooding was attributable to the road construction. On 2 March 1993 the consultants concluded that HA were "100% liable for the flooding"; HA accepted that without challenge.

4.23 Although the consultants' report recommended the construction of a cut-off drain as a solution to the problem of flooding, it was not until 21 July 1993 that HA wrote to the county council (because a public highway would be involved) to determine the feasibility of such a project. I criticise HA for that unwarranted delay and for not taking effective follow-up action to ensure that they got the relevant information from the county council. It was not until November 1995, some 28 months after HA had made their request, that they learned that the county council had concluded that a cut-off drain was virtually unachievable. I strongly criticise HA for allowing such an inexcusable delay to occur.

4.24 In the meantime, on 11 August 1994 HA had decided to deal with Mrs R's claim of September 1987 for the initial damage from the flood. That decision should have been taken in March 1993 when HA accepted that they were liable for the damage; and in the absence of the maladministration outlined above the decision could have been made considerably earlier. Delay in Mrs R responding to their offer to settle that part of her claim meant that HA did not make the payment to her until 22 August 1995. I return to the matter of compensation in paragraph 4.27.

4.25 I now consider the matter of Mrs R's requests, which she made in July 1995 and again in May 1996, for HA to purchase the house. On 19 June 1996 HA recorded that there was no doubt that the construction of the by-pass had adversely affected the house, with a resultant depreciation in its value. On 25 June they told Mrs R that they could not purchase the house and raised the matter of Part I compensation; but they gave no explanation for their decision. After Mrs R had written to the Chief Executive, HA gave her the explanation - which they should have given earlier - of why their discretionary powers could not be used to purchase the house. On 24 June 1997, following a further request from Mrs R, HA provided a fuller explanation which included their assessment that even if Mrs R had made such a claim at the appropriate time she could not have satisfied the criteria for discretionary purchase. Although I criticise HA for the length of time they took to deal with the matter of discretionary purchase, and for not giving Mrs R a full explanation at a much earlier stage, I am satisfied that they eventually gave the matter proper consideration and I find no maladministration in the way in which they arrived at their decision in the matter.

4.26 I am satisfied that the construction of the by-pass had a detrimental effect on the house in a way which could not be remedied solely by a successful Part I claim. Mrs R had been promised a permanent solution to the problem of water getting into the cellar, which HA accepted was their responsibility. When that did not prove possible HA should have realised that their fallback solution of a permanent pumping facility to remove water from the house carried with it the certainty of diminution in the value of the property. It is hardly surprising that Mrs R firmly rejected HA's offer of £1,000 in March 1996 as a solution to the problem.

4.27 On 3 June 1997 HA belatedly noted that the possibility of a separate payment for the diminution in value caused by the need for a permanent pump could be explored with their legal branch. That would have been a sensible move but nothing seems to have come from that idea; and it is evident from the papers which I have seen that there was no clear view within HA as to which branch should be taking forward the various issues and how they should be approached. It was only after the Ombudsman's intervention, and pressure exerted by Mrs R after the sale of the house at a greatly reduced price, that HA decided to offer to settle Part I compensation on an ex gratia basis without prejudice to her third party claim for the effects of the flood damage. I strongly criticise HA for the fact that some eleven and a half years after the initial flooding of the house, and six years after HA had accepted responsibility over the matter, they have still not agreed appropriate compensation for Mr and Mrs R. My view on compensation is that in addition to the ex gratia Part I settlement, with appropriate interest for late payment, which HA have already offered, they should compensate Mr and Mrs R for properly assessed diminution in the value of the house caused by the installation of a permanent pumping facility; for the loss of use of the cellar as a playroom; and for any reasonable out-of-pocket expenses which had been incurred through maladministration. I also asked the Chief Executive if HA would pay interest in respect of that part of the period of eight years which it took to meet Mrs R's initial claim of £847 for which HA were responsible. In addition I asked the Chief Executive if HA would make Mr and Mrs R a consolatory payment for the distress, gross inconvenience and botheration which they had suffered over such a prolonged period of time, taking into account any medical evidence they might supply in relation to damage to Mrs R's health caused by dampness in the house. In reply the Finance Director acknowledged that HA could have been much more proactive in pressing for responses from those experts asked to investigate the flooding problem, and its solution, at the house; and that they could have acted more promptly in considering the conclusions of those experts and in handling the resulting correspondence. He said that he very much regretted the delay in settling the claim for the original damage. On the issue of compensation for diminution in the value of the house, the Finance Director had asked the District Valuer to make an appropriate assessment and to negotiate a settlement with the valuer appointed by Mr and Mrs R's solicitors; interest at Treasury rates would be paid on the amount of compensation awarded on the original third party claim. As for a consolatory payment, the Finance Director said that Mrs R's solicitors had informed HA on 20 November 1998 that they were obtaining expert medical reports with a view to making a claim for the deterioration of Mrs R's health caused by the flooding of the cellar at the house and the continuing problems concerning works and compensation. He went on to say that the solicitors' proposals precluded HA from making any kind of consolatory offer to Mr and Mrs R until such time as a properly formulated claim was received. However, he gave his assurance that such a claim would be assessed and dealt with thoroughly and promptly by HA's advisers. I understand that discussions between the respective parties over a settlement are continuing.

Conclusion

4.28 I found that HA had inordinately delayed establishing the cause of the flooding in the house, and considering appropriate compensation for Mr and Mrs R. I did not find maladministration in the way HA had decided not to purchase the house. HA have offered Mr and Mrs R Part I compensation, and are considering the matter of compensation for the diminution in the value of the house and a consolatory payment for the distress, gross inconvenience and botheration experienced over a prolonged period of time. I consider all that, together with the apologies of the Finance Director, to be a satisfactory outcome to a justified complaint.

Previous < Contents > Next

Short text of this investigation

Last updated: 19 April 2006