Ombudsmen

Problem scenario

Timothy owns a large farm. The government has announced that it intends to develop plans for a new railway line which will go through the middle of the farm. Timothy knew nothing about this announcement and is furious that he was not informed about this before the announcement was made. Timothy’s anger increased when he discovered that his neighbour Frank had meetings with the Department of Transport about their intention before the announcement was made. Timothy has written to his MP, who has also heard from several other constituents that they were not informed by the Department of Transport before the announcement.

Analysing the scenario

Imagine that you have been presented with this scenario and asked to advise Timothy.

Timothy should complain to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. It appears that the Department for Transport may be guilty of maladministration here: they have treated Timothy less favourably than Frank for no apparent reason. The Department of Transport has been inconsistent in how it has approached consulting with landowners when developing the proposals for the new railway. It generally appears that they have not complied with the standards of good governance.

To complain to the Ombudsman Timothy would have to write to his MP and ask for his complaint to go to the Ombudsman. Had the Draft Public Service Ombudsman Bill become law, Timothy would have been able to complain to the Ombudsman directly. Even if Timothy could make a direct complaint, he would be well advised to inform his MP, who could give publicity to this issue. This may cause others to complain, and multiple complaints will alert the Ombudsman to the fact that there could be a systemic issue with how the Department of Transport has acted. This would make it more likely that the Ombudsman would make a full investigation.

The Ombudsman has the powers to obtain the necessary evidence from the Department of Transport, and if necessary, can compel witnesses to give evidence. Obstructing the Ombudsman is the equivalent to a contempt of court. Once the Ombudsman concludes their investigation, if they uphold the complaint of maladministration, then they can make a recommendation. This can include compensation for the loss that the maladministration has caused. This is a distinct possibility in Timothy’s case, given that the new railway line will harm the value of his farm. Should the Department of Transport not agree with the Ombudsman’s conclusions, they could lay a report before Parliament to increase the political pressure on the government. This is more likely if those failings are systemic and other landowners have been affected in a similar way to Timothy.