Morpeth Council defies critical report

Dec 20 2008 by Dave Black, The Journal

DEFIANT members of a rural Northumberland council have voted for the second time in eight months to reject a highly critical report by a town hall watchdog.

Castle Morpeth Borough Council voted 18-7 to confirm its previous decision not to accept a ruling by the Local Government Ombudsman that it was guilty of maladministration in the case of a local couple who built their dream home.

Earlier this year, Ombudsman Anne Seex ruled that Denise and Stuart Howard had suffered an injustice at the hands of the council – and recommended that they should be paid almost £6,000 in compensation.

Her report concluded that Mr and Mrs Howard had ‘unreasonably’ incurred extra costs, and suffered distress and trouble, over the council’s insistence on the type of materials to be used on their timber home in Hadston near Morpeth.

In April, the council refused to accept her recommendations – sparking a damning follow-up report in which Mrs Seex said she was ‘gravely concerned’ at the authority’s response, claiming it had added to the discredit already brought on itself.

Now – after discussing both reports by Mrs Seex – the council has again decided not to accept the finding of maladministration or pay the recommended compensation to Mr and Mrs Howard.

The Ombudsman has no power to force the council to follow her recommendations.

Yesterday, borough councillor Arnold Baker said the authority was happy to celebrate Ombudsmen’s findings in its favour, so should have the good grace to accept rulings which went against it.

“I believe the Government should now look again at the Ombudsman’s powers in the wake of this decision,” said Coun Baker.

In her follow-up report, Mrs Seex said: “The way that the council has responded to my report only adds to the discredit it has brought on itself by the wholly unjustified and unreasonable way that it dealt with the complainants.”

Last night, Castle Morpeth council leader Peter Jackson said although it had taken the issue extremely seriously, it did not accept the findings of maladministration.

He said: “The council admits that, with the benefit of hindsight, the contract could have been clearer by defining a specification for a timber log house. The council still believes, however, that the complainants had a choice as to whether they completed the purchase of the plot, together with its specifications, or not.

“The council does not agree the remedy of £5,440, together with £500. The complainants have built a house at a lower cost by using cladding rather than logs and the council has not taken, and does not plan to take, any action against them.”

Last night, a spokeswoman for the Ombudsman said: “Until we have received the council’s formal response to the reports we cannot comment.’’

:: For more stories from the area, go to our new microsite at www.journallive.co.uk/morpeth