During 2001 the County Council as Highway Authority redesigned the private road next to my property. The Highway Authority should have applied for planning permission but didn't. They wrongly stated at the time that they were exempt (a lie). The reason why they couldn't apply for planning permission is because the Borough Council (as planning authority) would have had to give me neighbour notification of the planned works together with a chance to comment before planning permission could be granted. However, the Highway Authority falsified my boundary on their plans so they wouldn't have stood up to close scrutiny. In addition the plans proved they were attempting to interfere with my right of way so there was no way planning permission would have been granted.
Hence the reason why they didn't apply for planning permission. They just attempted to carry out the illegal work by wrongly stating that they were exempt.
Ironically the Ombudsman was ostensibly monitoring events during 2001 because of a 1998 finding of maladministration against the Borough Council. So the County Council actually committed numerous acts of maladministration right under the nose of the Ombudsman.
No wonder it took me until 2006 to persuade the Ombudsman to investigate events. If they find the County Council guilty of maladministration they would have to admit their monitoring of events during 2001 was woefully inadequate and was the cause of my family's 5 years of unnecessary and additional injustice. A bit like being mugged knowing the police were watching but doing nothing about it.
A difficult decision for the current Ombudsmen. Do you now find the County Council guilty of maladministration, proving that your predecessor was guilty of maladministration, or do you bury all the maladministration in an attempt to protect the integrity of your office?