Quote:The evidence before me suggests that the remains may date back to the late Saxon – early medieval period, with the lesser possibility of prehistoric remnants. The former would potentially chart the settled development of the area. The parties have provided differing assessments of the significance of the remains, and I have taken into account the Council’s that this situation may have resulted from the more limited scope undertaken by the appellant’s initial evaluation.

Quote:Further to the previous pre-application discussions, a geophysical survey and evaluation excavation have been undertaken within the site. Although a copy of this report does not seem to have been submitted as part of this application (……SCCAU ref 1168). The evaluation trenching identified several features containing evidence for metal working and possibly dating to the Late Saxon period together with evidence likely to relate to documented 18th century repairs to the church.

Quote:The evidence before me suggests that the remains may date back to the late Saxon – early medieval period, with the lesser possibility of prehistoric remnants. The former would potentially chart the settled development of the area

Quote:Local Government Ombudsman

10 June 2016


Mr Marc Berger
Beam End
Muckton
LOUTH
LN11 8NU
Your ref:
Our ref: 15 013 320 & 15 016 144
(Please quote our reference when contacting us and, if using email, put the number in the email subject line)



Dear Mr Berger
Complaint against West Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council The Ombudsman has asked me to review Ms Mead’s decision on your complaints to make sure this was justified by the evidence.

Ms Mead has the delegated authority of the Ombudsman to make decisions on her behalf. Her decisions carry the same weight in law as decisions made by the Ombudsman herself and can only be challenged by judicial review. There is no right of appeal, but we offer one internal review to consider whether the decision has been made properly.

After reviewing the two files and looking carefully at what you have said, I appreciate you may be disappointed, but I support the decision to close your complaints.

In relation to the complaint against West Lindsey District Council Ms Mead did in fact uphold your complaint acknowledging the delay in the Council sending you the brief. However she is correct when she says that the injustice was to the developer.

Our role is to consider complaints of maladministration and service failure causing injustice. We look for administrative faults such as unreasonable delay and failing to follow relevant policies and procedures. We will not investigate matters where the personal injustice caused by the fault is not significant.

With regards to your complaint against Lincolnshire County Council Ms Mead determined that an investigation would not be progressed because the complaint was outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because you could have complained sooner and your claim for loss of earnings and libel are matters for the courts.

Because Ms Mead properly considered your complaints, I will not overturn the decision which she made on behalf of the Ombudsman under her delegated authority. Therefore, although I recognise that this will disappoint you, the decisions must stand.
I understand you may continue to disagree. Our process allows for one review of a decision, and this is that review. We have now finished considering your complaints and the decisions are final.

Your remaining means of challenging our decisions is through judicial review in the High Court. Please take some advice before considering taking such action as the Ombudsman will – as a publicly funded body – seek to recover our reasonable costs in defending unsuccessful applications.

The cases remain closed and we will not write about or discuss them further because we cannot justify the cost of continuing to communicate with people whose cases we have closed. We will note any further contact from you, but we will not acknowledge it or reply unless it clearly contains new information which we decide has a bearing on our decisions.

Yours sincerely
Donna Campbell
Assistant Ombudsman

Quote:Local Government
Ombudsman


22 June 2016
Mr Marc Berger
Beam End
Muckton
LOUTH
LN11 8NU
Your ref:
Our ref: 15 013 320
(Please quote our reference when contacting us and,
if using email, please put the number in the email subject line)
If telephoning please contact: 0330 403 4045
email address: D.Campbell@coinweb.lgo.org.uk

Dear Mr Berger

Complaint against West Lindsey District Council

Thank you for your email of the 20 June 2016. You have referred to the possibility of a judicial review.

In a judicial review, the court considers whether the Ombudsman has acted within the law or whether for example he or she has misunderstood the law or failed to take account of a relevant factor, or has taken account of an irrelevant factor. Under the Local Government Act 1974, the Ombudsman is given a wide discretion about whether to conduct or to discontinue an investigation, and whether to find maladministration. It would be necessary to show that the Ombudsman had acted unlawfully in the way that discretion was exercised.

Judicial review is not an appeal against the Ombudsman’s decision and the court could not change the decision. The most that could be achieved would be for the decision to be quashed and sent back to the Ombudsman for re-consideration.

There is a procedure called the Pre-Action Protocol that should be followed before an application for judicial review is made. The Protocol sets out a code of good practice and describes the steps a party should generally follow before the claim is made. You may obtain more information about the Protocol and the guidance and procedure for judicial review by contacting the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice on 0207 947 6205 or 6000 or at http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_jrv.htm. You will see that the Protocol, at paragraph 11 strongly advises claimants to seek appropriate legal advice when considering proceedings and in particular before making a claim.

I should also refer to the question of costs. A claimant must obtain the permission of the court to bring an application for judicial review. The court first considers the matter on the basis of a written claim, together with any written submission by the proposed defendant opposing the grant of permission. The Court of Appeal has said that if permission is refused, the defendant is entitled to seek to recover the costs of the preparation of the written submission.

I hope you would understand that the Ombudsman would need to oppose any application from you and seek to recover his legal costs if your application is not successful. In my experience those costs are normally in the range of £2,500 to £5,000 (plus VAT) depending on the time involved in preparation. It is up to the court to decide on the award of costs, but I am aware that such cost orders are frequently made.

I must of course emphasise that I am giving you this information to ensure that you understand broadly what is involved. I am not trying to prevent you from making a judicial review claim. You have the right to make a claim and it is not for me to seek to stop you pursuing such action, if this is your wish.

The time limit for making an application for judicial review is very strict. It must be made promptly and in any event within three months after the decision concerned.
In your case, the decisions were made on 19 May 2016.

Yours sincerely
Donna Campbell

BAJR Wrote:I have to report them to the Crown and they are disposed to museums. ( or skip if they are disclaimed)