There were three other cases involving a failure of a body’s complaint handling Building Report process which similarly merit a mention. The Ombudsman found that, in dealing with what has indisputably been a difficult complaint to get to grips with, the Inspectorate had begun well by interviewing Ms X to obtain a statement of the complaint. They had then risked wasting that effort by issuing a superficial rejection of the complaint, but their provision for review by a senior manager had given an opportunity to retrieve the situation.
The review had been a significant improvement upon what had preceded it, but weaknesses in the collection and appraisal of evidence had allowed a doubt that had been raised as to whether the traffic examiner had acted appropriately in visiting the Ms X’s home to persist. Subsequent consideration of the complaint by the Chief Executive has not improved upon that.
Whether Ms X’s complaint would have been fully resolved in the absence of any shortcomings on the Inspectorate’s part was open to doubt. However, greater effectiveness on the Inspectorate’s part might have reduced to some extent the time and expense that Ms X had understandably felt obliged to devote to it, and the Inspectorate’s poor handling of the complaint had added to the upset that the situation had caused her.
The Chief Executive agreed to make Ms X a consolatory payment of £200; he also undertook to incorporate the lessons learned from the case in a full review of the Inspectorate’s complaint handling system. The Director said that, in his opinion, the LCD were on more difficult ground in refusing to disclose any information about gifts worth less than £140. Although there were a number of exemptions that might be cited in justification, he was doubtful if any of them would withstand prolonged scrutiny.
Several type of BPI problems are to be dealt out by the person who have sound knowledge and have years of working experience for the procedure of building inspection. After four years of legal wrangling, landowner opposition and delays, gas is finally flowing to Decatur through the new Southern Natural Gas pipeline. This is an exciting time at Decatur Utilities,” said Gary Borden, rates and contract specialist. The pipeline won’t bring lower gas prices as promised — at least not while gas prices are high.
A shortage of natural gas nationwide has driven up the cost: DU expects residential customers to pay 30 percent to 35 percent more for gas this winter. But in the long haul, the pipeline will give Decatur a second source of gas for industries, businesses and residents, officials said. “The advantage is that Southern’s transportation rate is a little cheaper,” said Borden. For 40 years, Decatur had to rely on one gas source, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. and Alabama-Tennessee Gas Pipeline working in tandem to transport gas here.
The person who possess knowledge and the experience for the process of BPI are said to be expert. By making use of obtained knowledge problems of BPI can easily be solved by the expert Building Inspectors Brisbane. Use of effort are to be done in best manner by the expert to bring solution of the problems in the process of BPI. DU officials said Alabama-Tennessee used transportation to its advantage in pricing. As a result, Decatur considered building its own pipeline.
Then in 1995, SONAT — seeing a potential gas market in North Alabama and points farther north — stepped in and offered to install a pipe from Tuscaloosa to Decatur and Huntsville as long as both cities would sign a 20-year contract for part of its gas supply. From then on, the proposed pipeline had to weather strong opposition by Alabama-Tennessee, by environmentalists and by landowners in the path of the pipeline in Morgan, Limestone and Cullman counties.
Article 12 of the 1981 Order required the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen (RGSS) (part of the the Department of Transport) to maintain a central fishing boat register. Following the provisions of Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (MSA 1988), a new central register administered by the Department of Transport, the Register of Fishing Vessels (the new register), was opened in Cardiff on 1 December 1988.
Instructions were issued to registrars in October and November 1988 about the coming change in statutory provisions explaining that owners of boats on the then current registers. would be sent an application form from the Registrar of Fishing Vessels (RFV) in Building Inspector Cardiff in early December 1988 to enable them to register their boats on the new register free of charge. As a result of such a closure the certificate of registry would be stamped as invalid from 1 April 1989.
Parts II and V of the Rules, pertaining to construction, surveys and certificates, came into force at a date according to the age and length of the boat in this case. where the keel of the boat was laid before 1 January 1947 and the boat was less than 15 metres in length, on 1 April 1977. Part V of the 1975 Rules required that every boat of 12 metres in length and over should be surveyed after such plans and other information as the surveyor required were provided by the owner of the boat and any fee paid. Customs’ guidance issued to registrars in March 1985 explained that all UK fishing boats of 12 metres or more in length were required to be surveyed and issued with a UK fishing vessel certificate.
The guidance said that enforcement of the requirement was a matter for the Department of Transport, but when dealing with an application for registry of a fishing boat. other than on a change of ownership of an already registered boat, the registrar was to take the opportunity to advise the owner that the boat would require a UK fishing vessel certificate before it could proceed to sea.
Various kind of activities are to be taken place in the process of BPI. To get the result in accurate manner different sort of schedules are to be prepared out by appointed expert so that without wastage of time required results can be gain. I criticise fEE for not making any reference to the Code until the Permanent Secretary responded to the summary of complaint announcing this Office’s investigation. “The Southeast is maybe taking a bigger loss than the rest of the country,” said Childers, who sits on the Dairy Farmers of America’s Board of Directors.
I invited the Permanent Secretary to remind DfE staff of the importance of dealing with all requests for information as if they had been made under the Code and in accordance with Code procedures. In reply, the Permanent Secretary said that his Department did treat its obligations under the Code seriously and that he had recently reminded staff of their obligations under the Code in the context of the forthcoming Freedom of Information Bill. A series of presentations on Freedom of Information was also to be held.
While preparing out schedules for Pre purchase building inspections process detail study and research is to be done by the inspector which can be helpful to get effective results within limited time period. In very careful manner and in accordance to required situations schedules are to be prepared out. I welcome these developments. These checks, which are commonly known as check tests, are conducted by senior grade driving examiners who are referred to as SEs (ADI).
There are 44 SEs (ADI) covering England, Scotland and Wales, all of whom are issued with a loose leaf document called. Mr H wrote again to the DSA on 13 April and repeated his request for the National Standards, asking the DSA to make it clear if no such standards existed. On 30 April, the DSA wrote to Mr H and said the answer to your repeated request for the Nationally Adopted Standards is that one is not available. All approved driving instructors (ADIs) must undergo periodic checks of their instructional ability.
The Permanent Secretary replied to my director’s letter on 26 May saying that the MCA expected to have information ready for release to Mr I later that week. On 28 May, however, the MCA wrote to my staff again to say that there would be a further slight delay. My staff continued to press the MCA for the final results of their review, which they finally sent to Mr I on 18 June, and the name of the drug to which those declarations referred.
MCA said that the summarised material provided to Mr I did not include ‘personal, commercial or otherwise confidential material within the terms of exemptions 2(d), 7, 13 and 14 of Part II of the Code. My staff obtained from the MCA copies of the original minutes from which their summaries had been prepared. When the MCA wrote to Mr I on 18 June they supplied him with a paper setting out their position in relation to his information requests. a summary of declarations of personal specific interests and summaries of the minutes of the following meetings held in 1998.
CSM meetings held on 14 January, 29 January, 11 February and 26 February; the meeting of the Building Inspection Cost Sub-Committee on Chemistry. Pharmacy and Standards held on 8 January, 5 February and 5 March the Biologicals Sub-Committee meetings held on 26 January and 4 March and the meeting of the Sub-Committee on Pharmacovigilance held on 24 February. In their position paper MCA said that they had re-examined their records and had made some corrections to the factual information imparted in their letter of 11 September 1998 to Mr I.
In particular, this showed that, contrary to the impression given in that letter, there were six meetings of the CSM (not two) at which declarations of interest were made in relation to the drugs referred to by Mr I. Following a query from Mr I, MCA subsequently amended this to five meetings and sent him the corrected information on 23 July. The MCA provided Mr I with information in reply to questions (i) and (ii) (see paragraph 8.6) when they wrote to him on 11 September 1998. In response to (iii)(a) the MCA gave the number of occasions on which declarations has been made between 1987 and 1998.
I suggested to the Permanent Secretary that Mr A should be supplied with all the information which MCA withheld,including that relate to those cases not reflected in the statistical tables. In reply, the Permanent Secretary agreed to release some additional information in anonymised form, including the 16 letters. After a further exchange of correspondence between us, MCA agreed, also, that those adverse drug reaction reports which were typed could be released in anonymised form.Although the MCA provides some of the information requested by Mr I they refused to disclose it all.
However, they were not prepared to release those 41 of the 76 reports which were hand written because, in their view, there was a risk, if only a small one, of the handwriting being recognised. Instead they proposed to prepare a typed summary of each case which would be a complete record of disclosable information. this would include the year the report was received, the sex and age of the patient where known, the details of the reaction and the relevant medical history, and any comments.
I am satisfied that their proposal discharges their commitment under the Code to release Termite Inspection information, and I welcome their decision to provide Mr A with these additional details.As to MCA’s handling of the complaint, it would have been better if they had told Mr A at the outset that they could not locate the papers he had requested. Had they done so, the need to conduct a detailed review would not have arisen. None of the relevant papers had been located at that stage and in those circumstances it is very likely that a review would not have led to the initial decision being overturned.
Even if, after completing the review, MCA had concluded that full or partial disclosure was appropriate, that outcome would have been of no practical use to Mr A because they did not have the information to release. Both the Permanent Secretary and MCA have accepted that Mr A’s request could have been handled much better, and they have already offered their apologies for the delay and the distress their handling has caused him. In addition, they have agreed to review their procedures for dealing with information requests.
We want to ensure that young people in Looe have good access to clubs and activities. The swim bus scheme means that they will be able to enjoy swimming at an affordable price year round. At Lux Park they pay just 80p instead of the usual £1.70 for swimming and have their bus ticket stamped to show Home Inspection that they have been to the leisure centre.Caradon’s efforts to promote sustainable development have been praised by Best Value inspectors, who have awarded the service two stars and rated it as good. The car park, which is bordered by Trinity Street and South Street, was due to be demolished later this year, so a detailed alternative car parking strategy has already been put in place.
Temporary signage will be erected to direct traffic to these sites before June 14. Restormel Borough Council has been regularly monitoring the car park over the last two years because parts of it date from the 1960s. Following a routine inspection the council commissioned a full structural survey, which was undertaken two weeks ago. The results of that survey were sent to the council at the end of last week, and show that the car park’s steel frame has widespread corrosion.
Although there is no immediate threat of structural failure, independent consultants have recommended as a precaution that the car park be closed to all vehicles as soon as is practicable. It is with regret that we have had to decide to close the car park earlier than anticipated. It was always planned that the car park would be demolished as part of the overall town centre regeneration scheme.
But at the end of last week the consultants advised us that in their opinion the car park has reached the end of its useful life. Although major repairs could be undertaken, the cost and complexity of such work would be impractical and unnecessarily disruptive given our regeneration plans for the town centre. On their advice the council decided that the car park should be closed as soon as practicable, and that date will be June 14.following extensive consultation with the Chamber of Commerce and other town retailers, a plan for alternative car parking was agreed by the council in March. We have provided 62 more public spaces in the Priory Car Park.
The following table shows the allocation of the Force budget (estimated at the time this document was prepared), to support our service areas during 2004-2005. The second table breaks down the estimated expenditure further to show which functions the funds will be spent on. Collaborating with the Chamberlain’s Department of the Corporation of London, we have devised a medium term financial plan, a summary of which appears below. The Force has reorganised its human resources to support the delivery of the priorities outlined within this Plan, and has planned and coordinated the actions required to effectively achieve our objectives.
It identifies the financial resources required to implement Force action plans, and thereby deliver our corporate objectives and priorities. A number of assumptions have been made in formulating the Plan, the detail of which appears below. In previous years the Force generated significant end of year balances, Pre Purchase Building And Pest Inspection which were carried forward to augment available resources in the following year. These balances invariably arose as a result of underspend within the payroll budget as the Force failed to maintain a strength equivalent to its budgeted complement.
In recent years this trend has reversed and not only is the Force strength equivalent to its complement but there is a waiting list to join the Force of fifty prospective probationers. As a result of the success of the Forces recruitment and retention strategy, there are no plans to generate a significant underspend at the end of either 2004/05 or 2005/06. The Force forecasts additional pension liabilities of £2.57m in 2005/06.
This is recognised as a national concern and we remain hopeful that the government will provide additional resources to address the issue. The Medium Term Financial Plan assumes that the Force can meet these forecast liabilities in the year that they fall due, from the budget available in that year augmented by a small provision of £0.17m created in 2004/05.
Creating such a reserve is that in the year in which unforeseen events occur the organisation has resources to mitigate at least some of the adverse financial consequences. thereby hopefully creating sufficient time to implement a medium to long term strategy to meet the new challenges. This plan proposes to create a general reserve by annual contributions of £0.25m for the next two years. The Force currently has insufficient accommodation to meet its current and future needs.