Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive. To be introduced by the Leader.

To consider the report of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (20 006 289) and confirm the actions that the Council has taken or proposes to take, under the requirements of the Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2) (as amended).

The Leader of the Council introduced the Council’s response to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman issued a report on 10 January 2022 in response to a complaint from a resident of the borough (Mr X) with regarded to the Council’s decision not to acquire his home, the manner in which this decision was made and the communication from the Council to Mr X.

The Ombudsman made recommendations to the Council with regard to the appropriate next steps and these were being taken forward.

The Leader of the Council apologised to Mr X for the stress and uncertainty caused him. The Council was committed to implementing the Ombudsman’s recommendations in full and had already issued a formal letter of apology to Mr X and paid him £1,000. The next report on the agenda would reconsider all possible options for the development site at Cranwood and Woodside Avenue.

The Leader wanted to ensure that nothing like this ever happened again and had asked the new Chief Executive to review arrangements for how property decisions were taken in the future and acquisitions are made to make sure that the decision-making process is robust, transparent and accountable. The Leader of the Council had also convened an independent external investigation into historical arrangements for property transactions.

Following questions from Cllr Cawley- Harrison, Cllr Ejiofor, the following was noted.

-       With regards to the LGO report noting non response and non-co-operation, this related to a specific incident where one email from Mr X, sent in April 2018, which was not responded to and officers accepted that this was not right and emails should be responded to. Officers present in the meeting were not employees of the Council and service at this time, and could only speculate that the plans for the site in April 2018 were in flux due to the pause in the creation of the HDV and before an election period in which there was likely to be a change in direction. This may have guided this non response to the email.

-       In response to a question on specific flaws and responsibility for this, the LGO report referred to March 2020 decision making as a ‘flawed’ and this had been accepted as the Council and LGO report derived that injustice had occurred and Council apologised and paid compensation. Also section 4.2 of the report clearly set out the flaws in the decision making and reasons for this.

-       Responding to the information at Paragraph 37 that the outcome of the decision making would not have been any different, it was noted that the LGO report sought reconsideration of the decision and this would be taken forward in the next item.

RESOLVED

1. To note the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman in the report shown at Appendix 1.

2. To note the implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations as set out in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3.

3. To adopt the report as the Council’s formal response under s.31 Local Government Act 1974, to be communicated to the Ombudsman.

Reasons for decision

As set out in the Ombudsman’s report, Mr X has been found to have suffered injustice as a result of faults on behalf of the Council.

Where a report such as this is made by the Ombudsman, it must be laid before the authority (s.31 Local Government Act 1974). In cases such as this where the Council is operating executive arrangements, “the authority” means the executive, i.e. Cabinet (s.25(4ZA) Local Government Act 1974).

Alternative options considered

The Council could choose not to implement any of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman.