Fife Council has been told to pay a woman’s legal fees in a row over sewage pipes.
The woman identified as Mrs C complained to the Scottish ombudsman over the way the local authority handled work on a flood defence programme.
The original plans, which went out to public consultation, would have had a minimal effect on Mrs C’s home. However, she was alarmed about the potential impact on her home of a decision to lay a new sewer directly under her garden.
The saga started for the concerned householder in 2010 when the main contractor working on the site showed her a copy of a revised plan, clearly marking a new sewer under her and her neighbour’s gardens. This was the first Mrs C or her neighbour knew of the change.
Concerned this would have significant consequences for her property, she complained to the council. But it maintained the flood prevention scheme was empowered by the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act, which, it said, gives the local authority the power to amend or deviate from within certain limits the original plans without any further consultation or handing out of information to those affected.
Considerable correspondence and meetings took place involving Mrs C, her neighbour, the council, the design engineers and constructors up until March 2011.
Mrs C and her neighbour both considered that negotiations were still ongoing at this stage, as there were several action points about further consultation or information to be provide to them.
But the next letter she received from the council, some three weeks later, was a formal notice to proceed with the revised plans. At this point, Mrs C felt she had no option but to seek legal advice.
After correspondence between her solicitor, the council and Scottish Water which did not agree with the local authority’s views a compromise was reached that meant the new sewer would not be routed through the gardens.
Mrs C then asked Fife Council to reimburse her legal fees but it refused.
The ombudsman’s investigation focused on the consultation with those affected by the scheme and the information they had received.
“We considered that it would have been reasonable for the council to have consulted with, or at least told, Mrs C at the point when the plans changed so radically,” ombudsman Jim Martin said.
“We were also disappointed that the council were giving mixed messages when they were corresponding and meeting with Mrs C and her neighbour in March 2011, but then without warning issued the notice to proceed,” he stated.
He added that, on that basis, he considered it was reasonable Mrs C felt she had no option but to take legal advice and that the direct intervention of her solicitor led to the compromise finally agreed.
“For this reason, we took the unusual step of recommending financial redress for the reimbursement of Mrs C’s legal fees.”
He also asked the council to offer a written apology. The council’s chief legal officer, Iain Matheson, said: “We have received the recommendations from the Ombudsman and will be taking steps to ensure that the actions which gave rise to the complaints are not repeated.”