Government prosecutes itself (Again). Taxpayers lose, Lawyers win

[Rroff]

I suspect a lot of councils no longer have enough staff/money to do inspections like this properly, and may not have full lists of their assets.

I can't remember details now as it was a long time ago but they used to have a software suite - I want to say Ludhouse - that handled a lot of this when it came to land and properties, etc. - there isn't really an excuse. I did work experience in IT (IS unit) at my local council offices and part of what I did while there was surveying the IT equipment at various council facilties to keep the records for IT assets up to date.

 

[Nitefly]

I have only read the link in the OP but it seems highly likely that there is a separate civil matter ongoing, using the outcome of this to evidence liability, with negotiations then turning to quantum and settlement.

 

[Orionaut]

Except it wasn’t litigation it was criminal law. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t apply criminal law to local authorities? Had the crime been sufficient or the guilt clear enough jail time would have ensued. Once again I presume we’re not excusing local authorities from that sanction.

Not at all.

I am saying that the legal sanction of confiscating the ratepayers money is punishing the wrong people and this sort of issue should be handled a different way.

Government agencies (Of any sort. and that includes nationalised/government controlled industries too) are not the same as private companies with shareholders and customers who have a degree of control and choice over them.

With LA's in particular. Their monopoly position combined with their legal right to demand money with menaces from their "Customers" need to have a different framework of penalties for when they fail to provide the service that they are taking money from people to provide.

I have only read the link in the OP but it seems highly likely that there is a separate civil matter ongoing, using the outcome of this to evidence liability, with negotiations then turning to quantum and settlement.

Indeed, and this is my point.

This £150,000 is NOT a compensation order.

£100,000 of it is a "Punishment", the rest has gone to make Lawyers fat.

The only people who have been "Punished" are the Wirral taxpayers.

This is grotesquely unfair to the people of Wirral who have no choice as to who their LA is, No choice as to how much they have to pay the LA each year and very little say in how the council is run at this sort of operational level.

 

[Dis86]

Not at all.

I am saying that the legal sanction of confiscating the ratepayers money is punishing the wrong people and this sort of issue should be handled a different way.

Government agencies (Of any sort. and that includes nationalised/government controlled industries too) are not the same as private companies with shareholders and customers who have a degree of control and choice over them.

With LA's in particular. Their monopoly position combined with their legal right to demand money with menaces from their "Customers" need to have a different framework of penalties for when they fail to provide the service that they are taking money from people to provide.




Indeed, and this is my point.

This £150,000 is NOT a compensation order.

£100,000 of it is a "Punishment", the rest has gone to make Lawyers fat.

The only people who have been "Punished" are the Wirral taxpayers.

This is grotesquely unfair to the people of Wirral who have no choice as to who their LA is, No choice as to how much they have to pay the LA each year and very little say in how the council is run at this sort of operational level.

It's weird how people just don't get this. We've seen it so many times and continue to see it.
A prime example is in Newcastle where some roadworks have been massively mismanaged. They were supposed to take 12 months. They've been ongoing for over 3 years. They've gone something like £3m over-budget and that's not counting the knock on effect of disruption to local businesses and residencies. The council however are completely above reproach. They've blamed everyone but the individuals within their highways and ultimately senior departments. Nobody has been sacked. No individuals fined. Nothing.

 

[Nitefly]

@Orionaut the decision massively benefits the claimant in the civil matter as it effectively decides liability, allowing the parties to turn to quantum. Or in other words, it is not true to say that it does not benefit anyone.

Secondly, it’s foreseeable that the legal costs are actually covered by insurance and that the council’s lawyers are actually the council’s insurers lawyers.

 

[Orionaut]

It's weird how people just don't get this. We've seen it so many times and continue to see it.
A prime example is in Newcastle where some roadworks have been massively mismanaged. They were supposed to take 12 months. They've been ongoing for over 3 years. They've gone something like £3m over-budget and that's not counting the knock on effect of disruption to local businesses and residencies. The council however are completely above reproach. They've blamed everyone but the individuals within their highways and ultimately senior departments. Nobody has been sacked. No individuals fined. Nothing.

As an aside, HTF does it take 4 years to create 30 miles of "Smart Motorway" on the M4?

(Reinforce hard shoulder, put up some barriers, install lights and signalling??)

It only took around 10 to build the whole of the M4, completely from scratch, all the way from London to the Severn.

the decision massively benefits the claimant in the civil matter as it effectively decides liability, allowing the parties to turn to quantum. Or in other words, it is not true to say that it does not benefit anyone.

And this is why I prefer the idea of a national No Fault Compensation scheme. It is also grotesquely unfair that somebody who has experienced an injury can only get financial support for it if somebody else can be found to blame. Of course it would still have to be paid for. But overall, nationally, it could prove a lot less expensive, But this is a different argument for a different thread.

Secondly, it’s foreseeable that the legal costs are actually covered by insurance and that the council’s lawyers are actually the council’s insurers lawyers.

Which still has to be paid for, by the Council.

I do not know about Wirral BC, but many large organisations will self insure (Or mostly self insure) It actually makes sense to do so.

EG, Consider fire insurance for houses.

If you own one house, the chances of it burning down are very low. The premium will reflect this.

If you own a thousand houses. one or two will burn down every year. The premiums will reflect this too. In the latter case you are better off just saving up a sum similar to what the premiums might be and paying for it when it happens.

As for the Lawyers. I doubt if the council would have had a legal costs award made against them to pay their own staff. That £50,000 will have gone elsewhere.

However the numbers are fiddled. The only people ultimately being punished are the Wirral taxpayers.[/USER]

 

[Mysterae_]

With LA's in particular. Their monopoly position combined with their legal right to demand money with menaces from their "Customers" need to have a different framework of penalties for when they fail to provide the service that they are taking money from people to provide.

I'm with you Orionaut. It amazes me that in this day and age LAs can't be managed more efficiently and put in place an effective punishment for individuals not doing the job we pay them for. There has to be accountability at a personnel level for their actions and omissions, otherwise these tragic events may happen again. This was a tragic accident that could have been avoided had someone done their job properly (at whatever level - the parks dept guy slacking or not even being tasked to check the trees, to the senior manager signing off the job sheet or budget constraints).

What's important now is ensuring changes are put in to effect so that it never happens again - reducing the budget/financially penalising the very department tasked with the change does seem counterproductive.