Personal Injustice - The right of the individual to object through due process was wholly prejudised resulting in the loss of open space and amenity Additionally the authority misled investigation , failed to provide timely information in compliance with the law and substantially frustrated their act and omission through service denial causing significant distress and cost in both time effort and financial outgoing ( the complainant attended all relevant council meetings relating to this land matter)
The complainant asserted
a. failed to or to check the status of the land prior to any alleged appropriation or its statutory requirement to advertise or in the alternative apropriate it at all under s122 LGA
b. did not advertise its intention to dispose of the public open space and consider any objections before making its decision;
c. did not consider the need for public open space in accordance with the lawful requirement to do
The precedent set by the LGO relates Bolsover to an almost identical parraellel, with the exception in this case that the authority where wholly aware that this was POS Public Open Space
Subsection(1) of the Local Government Act 1974, section 122, requires the Council to decide that the land is no longer required for the purpose for which it was held immediately before the appropriation. This requires a council to consider the public need within the locality for the existing use. The Council should have known that the land was held as public open space and consideration should have been given in a report as to whether it was no longer required for this purpose.
The Test
This is a simple test , which technically embodies two questions to the Local Authority
Did you apropriate the Land before its disposal in accordance with direction given under s122 of the LGA (1973) Y / N
Did You Sell The Land Y / N
The Evidence
The evidence which was provided to the LGO was clear
No advertised statutory notice relating to the apropriation of this land was placed in the local press
No Process of Apropriation had begun
The auction details of the Land Where provided
The Transfer Title was Provided
Information from the District Auditor recording transactions at the identified site was provided
A fully completed FOI request detailing material facts and a link to same via What Do They Know in respect of relevant and outstanding matters
The complainant had substantially alerted and provided the LGO the means to address these two basic questions to the offending authority which had defacto acted ultra vires
Failure Of The Local Authority To Respond & To Mislead
Correspondence from the first contact 13 months prior requesting details of the land sale to a legal where provided
Subsequent correspondence including a request to meet with the Paid Officer and the Statutory Officer ,CEO & City solicitor that being in law accorded the status in respect of the LGA as proper Officers
In order to provide the facts to the LGO the Complainant lodged a FOI Request asking for details of the Apropriation of the land disposal at this locality .
The local Authority initially failed to provide the information in accordance with the schedule afforded by law and subsequentally went on when out of time to refuse to provide any response to the simple questions through out on whether the land was apropriated or not
The complainant also drew to the attention of the LGO the authorities view to misleading where in one instance it was stated the land at the unapropriated location was more than a mile away when its was 100m from the complainants home
The Authority misled the LGO asserting that the process of appropriation was still underway . Apropriation could not occur on land passed into private ownership the act and ommision in law had occurred and to which no remedy to the loss of objection could be met
The complainant also drew to the attention of the LGO the authorities track record of unlawful instruction which ammounted to significant prejudice and disrimination as a result of the Local Authorities Failure to address duties, a duty being required in law
The complainant also made the LGO aware that the solicitor who appeared to be vetting communication was also the legal responsible for conveyancing an area where the act and ommision occurred
Refusal To Investigate
There was not "enough" personal injustice to merit investigation. How much does there need to be ?
The right to deny representation with subsequent loss of amenity on land valued by an individual is of significant personal value It is clear above what constitutes Maladministration and what constitutes the injustice done The ombudsman fails to distingusih that a member of the public can be an individual
The ombudsman understanding of process is incorrect.Re On One site Apropriating Land on Title removes all POS designation even though 10 % of the site might be only be required the whole of the Green would be impacted.
In the matter of apropriation of another this was not under taken at all the position is therefore unlawful
In the matterr of delay the query has been with the Authority in excess of 13 months including unrespondent FOI requests contrary to the law not the implied date of 6th Sept alone
Finally there is misnomer on the distance of land from the complainants home . There is no known precedent to suggest that a personal injustice as a result of loosing POS that which effects the well being of an individual as use of right is negated in the fashion ascribed by the ombudsman. In the Bolsover ruling quite the contrary
The Analysis
In Part 2 of this assessment we shall analyse the substantive failings and courses of action hereafter in respect of the Ombudsman Failure to Investigate and uphold the direction of the Law
No comments:
Post a Comment