Tuesday, September 09, 2008

A or B or we'll hit you with C

This is what a council solicitor and the York LGO consider a 'consultation'.

Accept plan A or plan B, both of which include a ramp on my land. (A ramp which should be on land in their ownership) A ramp I don't want on my land and a ramp they can't force me to accept.

If I don't accept plan A or B they threaten to implement 'option' C. which is basically an 18" step at the boundary of my property totally blocking my right of way. (Curiously no plans at all have been supplied for this option)

On it's own the offer of plan A or plan B could be considered as a consultation, however, it wasn't offered on it's own it was accompanied with the threat that they would implement option C should I decline to accept plan A or B.

In my book that's a threat not a consultation. Option C interferes with my legal right of way as well as my human rights. The council has today declined to tell me which specific statutory authority allows them to implement option C and breach my legal and human rights.

It's a bit like a bully asking you to accept a black eye or a thick ear with the threat that if you don't agree to one or the other they will thump you in the stomach. If the York LGO considers this acceptable behaviour let alone a consultation then God help all complainants.

This is an extract of on email I received from the York LGO on the 3rd September 2008. Giving you an insight into how the York LGO's mind works. (Or doesn't as the case may be.)

'.....I have obtained a copy of the Council's letter to you of 21 August. As I read it, and without the benefit of the enclosures, the County Council has put forward two schemes which would involve work on your land and are inviting you to give consent by a given date to whichever you prefer.

In the event that you choose not to give consent to one of those schemes the County Council says that it will do what it considers necessary to bring the highway to adoptable standards by undertaking work on land entirely in its ownership. In that event, the Council warns that it will take legal action to prevent you from interfering with those works.

I do not see how the County Council's offer to do work on your land, which it makes clear you are free to decline, could possibly be said to ignore your human and legal rights.....'

More York LGO obfuscation, it's not the offer to do work on my land which is the threat per se. The threat is the intention to carry out option C should I refuse plan A or plan B. Option C does interfere with my legal and human rights as did their original plan which the York LGO has already conveniently ignored.

Just what part of a step don't you understand Mrs Seex? And exactly which part of the step on their land won't interfere with my legal and human rights, which part of the step on their land won't have any impact on my property, which part of the step on their land won't cause difficulties for my disabled visitors, which part of the step on their land won't cause my vehicles any access & egress problems and above all else which part of the step on their land won't be the result of maladministration?

Mary Seneviratne 'Public Services and Administrative Justice' (2002 Butterworth): Whilst accepting that ombudsmen have some flexibility in deciding what may or may not be maladministration she also states that ' where actions are clearly contrary to the law this is maladministration'.

Mrs Seex, I have a copy of this book would you like me to lend it to you?

No comments:

Post a Comment