Can you Sue a Planning Department or Planning Officer?
Discussion
All I can say is WOW. Reading the court document I was thinking that they were going to be taken to the cleaners, the you get to the decision and you think what??
All I can think is that the judge now has a nice new house with free council tax.
Planning departments have always seemed a little "bent", there was a restoration program on tv the other year where someone bought a big listed manor house then did it up, total cost about £3m. What did he do for a job? Planning Officer, they must earn a substantial amount!!
All I can think is that the judge now has a nice new house with free council tax.
Planning departments have always seemed a little "bent", there was a restoration program on tv the other year where someone bought a big listed manor house then did it up, total cost about £3m. What did he do for a job? Planning Officer, they must earn a substantial amount!!
Zulu 10 said:
I’m very nearly lost for words having read that.
My wife and I have had a number of run-ins with planning officers in our borough, and have a catalogue of them being dishonest, perverse in their decision making, make blatantly untrue statements to the Planning Inspectorate , and to cap it all allegedly one of them is in the pay of a local developer.
The Head of Planning with whom we’ve raised the issues has been disinterested.
The Chief Exec to whom we’ve made formal complaint has paid lip service, not run a thorough investigation, and then issued a report full of inconsistencies.
Our local councillors refuse to get involved.
Freedom of Information requests go unanswered – even when taken to the Head of Legal Services.
Now, having read that judgement, I know why: the blighters are absolutely bombproof!
Your experience is exactly the same as ours other than the freedom of Information request. My wife and I have had a number of run-ins with planning officers in our borough, and have a catalogue of them being dishonest, perverse in their decision making, make blatantly untrue statements to the Planning Inspectorate , and to cap it all allegedly one of them is in the pay of a local developer.
The Head of Planning with whom we’ve raised the issues has been disinterested.
The Chief Exec to whom we’ve made formal complaint has paid lip service, not run a thorough investigation, and then issued a report full of inconsistencies.
Our local councillors refuse to get involved.
Freedom of Information requests go unanswered – even when taken to the Head of Legal Services.
Now, having read that judgement, I know why: the blighters are absolutely bombproof!
Some of the paper work actually states that the previous owners building work should of been referred to there legal department for investigation but they failed to do that until we purchased the property and yes they then took action.
bobo said:
my point is there is a housing crisis. arnt LPA's obliged to help this issue not hinder it assuming the correct boxes have been ticked and agreed?
Planning departments have been hit harder than average by significant local government budget cuts, particularly against the need to maintain 'essential' services. The government go on about the need for housing and speeding up the planning process yet cut budgets by 50 percent or more an expect a better service. Your perceived personal grudge against you might just be a symptom of stretched resources?OK, WOW indeed!
So, to summarise, in that case there was a Local Government Ombudsman report finding malpractice and suggesting a remedy.
The Borough Council was obliged to accept the findings of the report (unless they successfully challenged them by appeal) but were not obliged to accept or pay the compensation payment recommended by the LGO, or indeed any payment at all.
The legal case then revolved around the Council's consideration of the question of payment and whether that was done fairly etc.
Given the amount of evidence in there of the original cockups that the Council had made, why did the plaintiff not just sue for negligence? Why go the ombudsman route in the first place and more importantly, why try to enforce it when the compensation levels are not mandatory?
Is there some statutory protection that says councils have no duty of care to the people and organisations that they deal with and regulate?
So, to summarise, in that case there was a Local Government Ombudsman report finding malpractice and suggesting a remedy.
The Borough Council was obliged to accept the findings of the report (unless they successfully challenged them by appeal) but were not obliged to accept or pay the compensation payment recommended by the LGO, or indeed any payment at all.
The legal case then revolved around the Council's consideration of the question of payment and whether that was done fairly etc.
Given the amount of evidence in there of the original cockups that the Council had made, why did the plaintiff not just sue for negligence? Why go the ombudsman route in the first place and more importantly, why try to enforce it when the compensation levels are not mandatory?
Is there some statutory protection that says councils have no duty of care to the people and organisations that they deal with and regulate?
You have to wonder sometimes if these ombudsman setups are a bit counterproductive and I'm surprised that in such a valuable case as the one above they even bothered with it.
I recently had an issue with an insurance company, the Mrs was involved in a no-fault accident, car written off and the other guys admitted liability. As seems to be pretty standard they offered a low figure for the now dead car and did a good job of digging their heels in, happily suggesting that everything they were doing was in line with the ombudsman recommendations (even though their offer was 20% below actual market value).
It took a little effort to make them understand that I wouldn't be complaining about them to the ombudsman, I'd just be suing them for the correct amount - what would I bother doing anything else?
I recently had an issue with an insurance company, the Mrs was involved in a no-fault accident, car written off and the other guys admitted liability. As seems to be pretty standard they offered a low figure for the now dead car and did a good job of digging their heels in, happily suggesting that everything they were doing was in line with the ombudsman recommendations (even though their offer was 20% below actual market value).
It took a little effort to make them understand that I wouldn't be complaining about them to the ombudsman, I'd just be suing them for the correct amount - what would I bother doing anything else?
WOW indeed, they are above the law and they know it.as i said forget any notion of democracy. i have the support of the local MP, the local councillor and the neighbours with no objections at all. i even employed a planning consultant, in the vain hope they would treat a fellow proffessional better, didnt happen they openly mislead him aswell. and as far as the cheif exec, forget it , didnt want to know. good job i have backup plans . some one told me you shouldnt take it personally,
Whole planning system is broken really IMHO!!! at best opaque at worst corupt , the big developers bully the planners and the planners bully the little guy I ithink it would be much better if it was a function of central government ,
the mess we are in here in Cheshire is horrible and they continue to make mistake after mistake, a shower of dribbling incompidents and nimbys
the mess we are in here in Cheshire is horrible and they continue to make mistake after mistake, a shower of dribbling incompidents and nimbys
Zulu 10 said:
Steve H said:
.....It took a little effort to make them understand that I wouldn't be complaining about them to the ombudsman, I'd just be suing them for the correct amount - what would I bother doing anything else?
Er... that's exactly what the plaintiff did in the case referred to...he sued, with the benefit of an Ombudman's judgement in his favour... and still lost!!!He sued on the basis of the council not complying with the ombudmans report and recommendations, and more specifically on how they had considered the report - he did not sue for negligence even though it appears to be fairly easy to establish.
I was questioning if there was anything barring them from such an action.
Red Devil said:
gnc said:
google nestwood homes, spalding. yhen decide if you think its worth it.
For those who may be interested - http://www.11kbw.com/uploads/files/R_NestwoodHomes...
They are also the plonkers who are allowing a local developer to build houses on a field behind our house. Lots of objections, but everything ignored.
They built a large centre in the town and had to sell it not long after. Trouble is, they lost millions in the process. Muppets!
I hate saying it, but unless you are a gypsy/traveller, planning is a minefield. Gypsy and traveller sites can be put anywhere, councils will ignore 100% objections, their own departments saying no, MPs arguing objections, and every normal planning rule and grant them double quick, and if you complain, they just hear it, reject it, and carry on. Should you film the gypsies working on the site without consent (Ie before conditions are satisfied) they will tell you they will enforce it, and then simply sign off the conditions next day without the necessary reports and let them carry on. If the local area has an issue caused by the land use changing, such as flooding, waste or anything else, never mind they will say, we will monitor it
The ombudsman is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, they will only look at timescales and standard replies/procedures, so if there is anything untoward, they have no power. Plus, they simply ask the council 'did you do it all correctly?' They say yes, and that's it.
The ombudsman is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, they will only look at timescales and standard replies/procedures, so if there is anything untoward, they have no power. Plus, they simply ask the council 'did you do it all correctly?' They say yes, and that's it.
Edited by daytona355 on Sunday 7th February 23:38
It seems councils are the same the country over, I used to live in a conservation area, my neighbour changed his windows from single glazing to double, he had to get drawings made up showing they would look identical and ask all the neighbours if they had any problems with it. He then had to attach a laminated copy of the drawings to the front of his house. Meanwhile behind us one day diggers show up and demolish part of the village hotel. Turns out a company had planning permission granted to convert this to houses without our knowledge. I checked on the council’s website where you can view the planning application, on the front of the form one of the ticked check boxes says ‘neighbours informed’ and it's ticked, underneath this the council have stamped saying the application is approved, if you look through the application on the pages for the neighbours informed they didn’t even bother filling in any addresses, they just left it blank yet the council approved it!
The Moose said:
It's not Westminster, is it?!
Having a nightmare with them at the moment
no, islington planning department .....Having a nightmare with them at the moment
what beggars belief is they really are operating well outside of their own policy.
in addition whats the point in having planning officers if they have no jurisdiction/authority and just get over ruled constantly by senior management even if it is in line with policy?
may as well get rid of planning officers altogether. just have a senior planners execution jury roman emperor style with a thumb raised or lowered lol. at least it wouldn't take them 30+ weeks to determine something that's been previously consented even if they intend to refuse it anyway - but then i suppose that wouldn't be 'inconvenient' for the developer.
Hub said:
Planning departments have been hit harder than average by significant local government budget cuts, particularly against the need to maintain 'essential' services. The government go on about the need for housing and speeding up the planning process yet cut budgets by 50 percent or more an expect a better service. Your perceived personal grudge against you might just be a symptom of stretched resources?
not after 4 successful appeals with costs awarded on the same site. plus other complaints being upheld for unreasonable behavior. the excuses at that point run thin. its circumstantial... as for cuts, its islington. one of the most expensive boroughs in the Capital that also has half the City of London in its patch lol.... hardly a poor impoverished London Borough. i work with other boroughs that have been effected seriously by cuts. they get things done properly but it doesn't take them 30+ weeks to do it either.
shame it appears that theres absolutely nothing can be done about planners or planning departments who act outside of being reasonable or their own rule/policy book.
just have to suck it up. must be the only industry thats so well protected ? or are all council departments just as untouchable?
perhaps theres a tv documentary that could investigate the state of the planning system as a story?
Edited by bobo on Tuesday 9th February 09:37
bobo said:
shame it appears that theres absolutely nothing can be done about planners or planning departments who act outside of being reasonable or their own rule/policy book.
Can anyone with proper legal knowledge confirm if they can be sued for negligence when it exists and if not, why? Unless there's a statutory reason or appropriate case law barring it, I'm struggling to see why it couldn't be done.south holland council does look after their travelling friends though. best part of 1 million pounds for a 6 plot site with individaul walls and gates that would do a footballers pad proud. and the original ilegall site is still occupied after nearly 15 years. definatly got their finger on the pulse.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff