The claimant challenged the refusal of the Council to pay compensation as recommended by the Ombudsman. The Council had gathered personal details and information of the claimants in the course of a planning dispute, and then published that information on its website. Though accepting that there needed to be good reason for not following the recommendation, no such reason had been recorded.
Held: The schemes for the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen were different and cases could not easily be transposed between them.
The recommendations of the Local Commissioner were not legally binding: ‘Parliament initially intended, for reasons of policy, that local authorities should have full autonomy to determine at local level what steps, if any, they should take to remedy any injustice identified in the LGO’s report. Parliament then subsequently empowered the LGO to make recommendations, but did not either make such recommendations specifically binding, or alternatively expressly require that local authorities should have ‘cogent reasons’ for rejecting any recommendations, provisions that would reasonably have been expected if such had been the legislative intent. On the contrary, the only express sanction was local publicity, leaving the electors to determine whether the local authority had behaved acceptably in rejecting any recommendation designed to remedy an injustice to a local citizen.’
The council’s public response at no point admitted the maladministration, nor the actual distress arising. The purpose of a payment was not necessarily to undo the worry caused, but rather to acknowledge the error in public. The decision not to make a payment had failed to take account of the relevant considerations, and had taken into account other irrelevant ones. The decision was quashed.
Kenneth Parker J
[2010] EWHC 2824 (Admin)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1996
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council CA 1988
Maladministration includes bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude, perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness in reaching a decision or exercising a discretion, but that it has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the . .
Cited – Bradley and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 7-Feb-2008
Complaint was made as to a leaflet PEC 3 issued by the Department in 1996, intended to summarise the changes introduced by the Pensions Act 1995, and their purpose. One answer given was: ‘The Government wanted to remove any worries people had about . .
Cited – Equitable Members Action Group, Regina (On the Application of) v Her Majesty’s Treasury Admn 15-Oct-2009
The applicants sought judicial review of the defendant’s response to a report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman finding maladministration by the defendant in rejecting the recommendation for compensation.
Held: The respondent’s rejection of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Information
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.425820