States of Jersey Complaints Panel: report for 2008.

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES OF JERSEY COMPLAINTS PANEL: REPORT FOR 2008

Presented to the States on 4th March 2009 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

STATES OF JERSEY COMPLAINTS PANEL: REPORT FOR 2008 Chairman's Foreword

The Privileges and Procedures Committee is pleased to present the report of the States of Jersey Complaints Panel for 2008, and would like to place on record its thanks to the Chairman, Deputy Chairmen and all of the members of the Panel (listed below) for their honorary work dealing with complaints during this period.

C h a ir man

M r s .  C.E. Canavan

D e p u ty Chairmen

M r .  N.P.E. Le  Gresley A d v o cate R.J. Renouf

M e m  bers

M r .  P.E. Freeley

M i s s C. Vibert

M r .  D.J. Watkins M r .  J.G. Davies

M r .  P.G. Farley

M r .  T.S. Perchard M r s . M. Le  Gresley

Following the introduction of amendments to the administrative appeals system in December 2006, there has been a significant increase in the number of matters referred to the Panel, and a resultant increase in workload. In order to assess the effectiveness of the procedures currently followed under the appeals system, the Committee will undertake a review of the process in early course.

Connétable J. Gallichan

Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES OF JERSEY COMPLAINTS PANEL: REPORT FOR 2008 Dear  Chairman,

I have pleasure in forwarding to you the report for 2008, which includes the resolution of matters outstanding as at the end of 2008. The following statistics show the work undertaken by the Complaints Panel during this period –

Application Appeal against Application Matter Complaint Minister's With- rejected refusal by Deputy deferred resolved upheld decision drawn

Chairmen pending before upheld,

further hearing report

Previous decision: action held presented

to the

States

Upheld Reversed

ed ard

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 4 4

: 1 4 0 1 1 0 4 5 2 matters were outstanding at the end of 2008.

During the course of 2008, one hearing was chaired by a Deputy Chairman and 3 decisions that a complaint should not be reviewed were referred as an appeal to the Deputy Chairmen in accordance with the procedure adopted in 2006. The Chairman's decision was upheld in each instance.

The Panel noted a significant increase in the number of matters referred to it during 2008, presumably as a result of the wider distribution of the guidance notes. Whilst it is right that members of the public should be aware of the process  and  take  the  opportunity  to  use  the  process,  the  Panel  is  aware  that  this  has  created  a  greater administrative burden for the Deputy Greffier of the States and her team. On behalf of the Panel I would like to thank Mrs.   Harris and her team for their continuing support at all times.

The Panel was pleased to note that 2  complaints were successfully resolved, one by the Housing Department and one by the Social Security Department, without the need for a hearing. The Panel would like to thank those concerned for adopting a sensible and practical approach in these 2 matters.

Mrs. C.E. Canavan, Chairman, Complaints Panel

The following is a summary of the outcome of the complaints which were outstanding in the 2007 Annual Report and of new complaints received in 2008 –

Outcome of complaints that were outstanding at the end of 2007 and which were referred to in the Annual Report for 2007 (R.24/2008) –

Planning and Environment

1. A Statementofcomplaintwasreceivedon 10th April 2007 relating to a decision of the Minister for Planning and Environment to refuse planning permission for the change of use from storage and maintenance of agricultural machinery to storage and repair of plant machinery in connection with the building industryat Les Goues,Le Câtillon, Grouville .

A h ea ring was held on 18th September 2007, and the Board upheld the complaint which it agreed –

(i ) w  a s based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact by reason of the omission to consult with

other relevant States departments and a failure to take into consideration Policy C19; and

( ii ) w a s contrary to the generally accepted principles of natural justice in that the applicant could

reasonably have expected the Assistant Minister to have consulted as appropriate and taken into consideration the policy most relevant to the application.

T h e Board concluded that the Minister for Planning and Environment should be requested to reconsider

the matter. It was agreed in November 2007 that the Assistant Minister would reconsider the application. The determination of the complaint is therefore complete.

2. A statement of complaintwas received on 25th July 2007 relating to a decisionof the Minister for Planning and Environment to refuse planning permission to build a houseat Rosedale Farm,La Route des Issues, St. John.

T h e Chairman having a conflict of interest, the matter was referred to one of the Deputy Chairmen for

consideration, and he agreed that a hearing should be held. Prior to the hearing, further negotiations took place and a hearing was therefore deferred.

T h e Chairman was advised by the Department that the Assistant Minister was minded to support the

construction of a proposed new dwelling on the basis of a revised sketch scheme which had been submitted. This would need a fresh application, but the complaint was effectively resolved.

3. A statement ofcomplaintwas received on 1st November2007 against a decision of the Minister for Planning andEnvironmenttorefuse planning permissiontoconstruct a storage shed atMandoreyVilla, La Grande Route deSt. Jean (Field 1007).

T h e Chairman concluded that this was not an appropriate case for a hearing by a Board as she did not

believe the Board would be able to consider the case in a meaningful way. An appeal was made to the Deputy Chairmen against the Chairman's decision.

T h e Deputy Chairmen concluded that they could not find any areas which would give them reason to

suspect that the complainant would have any success in bringing an appeal before the Board and in such circumstances they upheld the Chairman's original decision.

New complaints received in 2008 Education, Sport and Culture

4. A   statement of complaint was initially  received  on 28th  February 2007  against  a  decision  of the Education, Sport and CultureDepartment relating to themannerinwhich alleged bullying of a child at school had been handled bydepartmental officers. Thecomplaintwasre-activatedinFebruary2008.

A h e aring was held on 23rd July 2008 and the Board upheld the position of the Minister for Education,

Sport  and  Culture,  but  requested  the  Minister  and  the  Department  to  review  the  presentation  of information on the Education, Sport and Culture section of the www.gov.je website to ensure that its procedures could be easily found by a layman using the site.

T h e f indings of the Board were presented to the States on 20th August 2008 (R.90/2008).

5. A statement of complaintwas received on 24thMay2008 against a decisionof the Department for Education, Sport and Culture not to offer the complainant'schild a placeatHauteValléeSchool.

T h e B  oard upheld the Minister's decision but considered that steps should be taken to communicate much

more clearly and sympathetically with parents. The Minister agreed to review procedures and improve the Education, Sport and Culture section of the gov.je website accordingly.

T h e f indings of the Board were presented to the States on 20th August 2008 (R.90/2008).

F u rt h er to the Board's recommendations, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture confirmed on 28th

August 2008 that a review of several aspects of the Department's appeals process in respect of admission to secondary schools had taken place and a number of changes made.

6. A statement of complaint was received on 2nd June 2008 against a decision of the Department for Education, Sport and Culture not to offer the complainant'schild a placeatHauteValléeSchool.

T h e c omplaint was withdrawn prior to a hearing being held.

7. A statement ofcomplaintwasreceived on 26th June2008 against a decision of the Departmentfor Education, Sport and Culture to nottooffer a placeatHauteValléeSchool.

T h e B  oard upheld the Minister's decision but considered that steps should be taken to communicate much

more clearly and sympathetically with parents. The Minister agreed to review procedures and improve the website accordingly.

T h e f indings of the Board were presented to the States on 20th August 2008 (R.90/2008).

F u rt h er to the Board's recommendations, the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture confirmed on 28th

August 2008 that a review of several aspects of the Department's appeals process in respect of admission to secondary schools had taken place and a number of changes made.

8. A statement ofcomplaintwasreceived on 26th June2008 against a decision of the Departmentfor Education, Sport and Culture not to offer the complainant'schild a placeatHauteValléeSchool.

T h e c omplaint was withdrawn prior to a hearing being held. Health and Social Services

9. A   s tatement ofcomplaintdated 12th September2008wasreceived against decisions oftheDepartment for Health and SocialServicesregarding the care ofthecomplainant's father.

T h e m  atter was reviewed on behalf of the Chairman by one of the Deputy Chairmen, who concluded on

18th November 2008 that this was not an appropriate case for a hearing by a Board.

A n a ppeal against this decision under Article  3(5A) of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey)

Law 1982 was submitted by the complainant on 6th December 2008. Following consideration by the Chairman

and the other Deputy Chairman, the decision not to proceed to a hearing was upheld as the subject fell outside what the Panel may legitimately consider.

Home Affairs

10. A   s tatementofcomplaintwasreceivedon 23rd July 2008 concerning a complaint against the States of Jersey Police and the investigation of that complaintby the Jersey Police Complaints Authority.

T h e r equest for a hearing was refused by the Chairman on the grounds that the procedures of the States of

Jersey Police were not a matter for administrative review, as they were operational matters. Furthermore, the appeals process of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority was not considered something which could be reviewed under the Administrative Decisions Law.

T h e c omplainant was informed of this decision in a letter dated 4th August 2008, and submitted an appeal

in accordance with Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982 (Article 3(5A)) on 25th August 2008.

T h e Deputy Chairmen met to consider the appeal on 7th October 2008 and, following further

consideration, decided to uphold the decision of the Chairman of the Complaints Board on the basis that the complaints made did not come within the remit of the States of Jersey Complaints Board.

Housing

11. A statementofcomplaintwas received on7thMay 2008 against a decision of the HousingDepartment regarding undue delays throughout 2007 in the processing of rent abatement/rebate claims under the Housing Departmentscheme.

A h e aring was held on 14th July 2008, and the Board concluded that insufficient grounds existed to

uphold the complaint in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Administrative Decisions (Jersey) Law 1982. In particular the Board considered that the actions and inactions of the Housing Department fell short of conduct which could be described as unjust or oppressive. It considered that there had been an element of inequity and inflexibility in the position adopted by the Department concerning repayment of the outstanding arrears, and had therefore invited the Minister to consider adopting a more lenient approach, without precedent, in respect of any repayment schedules it might expect the complainant to comply with.

T h e f indings were presented to the States on 23rd July 2008 (R.82/2008) and the Minister responded to the

Board's findings in a letter dated 12th August 2008.

12. A statementofcomplaint dated 29th September 2008 was received concerning a change in the rules regarding eligibility for the Jersey Homebuy (Shared Equity) scheme.

A h e aring was scheduled for 17th December 2008, but was cancelled following reconsideration by the

Minister for Housing of the qualifying criteria for the scheme. On 5th December 2008 the Minister reviewed the policy and agreed that applicants who had previously purchased Share Transfer or Flying Freehold property would not be excluded from the scheme. Accordingly the complainant now qualified for a property through the Jersey Homebuy (Shared Equity) scheme, and the matter was therefore resolved.

Planning and Environment

13. A  statementofcomplaintwasreceivedon 11th April2008 regarding a decisionof the Planning and Building department not to permit the change of use ofField 1007 from agricultural to domestic curtilage.

T h e C hairman decided, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey)

Law 1982 that a review of this case was not justified, having concluded that this was not an appropriate

case for a hearing by a Board as the relevant planning policies had been followed. T h e D eputy Chairmen upheld the decision of the Chairman on appeal.

14. A statementofcomplaintdated 19th June 2008was received regarding a decisionmadeby the Planning and EnvironmentDepartmentin respect of the construction of a 3-storey building plus flat roof and atrium onthesiteofWinchesterChambers, 6 Val Plaisant.

T h e Chairman concluded that this was not an appropriate case for a hearing by a Board as the Board

would not be able to consider the case in a meaningful way. The request for a hearing was therefore refused on 5th August 2008.

15. A statementofcomplaintwasreceivedon 28th July 2008 relating to a decisionof the Assistant Director, Development Control, under delegated powers to refuse retrospective planning permission for the addition ofbrickslip to the roadsideelevationof Casa Mía Restaurant, 57KensingtonPlace, St. Helier.

T h e Chairman reviewed the report presented by the Department and concluded that this was not an

appropriate case for a hearing by a Board as she did not believe the Board would be able to consider the case in a meaningful way. The Chairman therefore decided, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982 that a review of this case was not justified.

A n ap peal to the Deputy Chairmen was withdrawn before consideration.

16. A statementofcomplaint dated 22nd September2008wasreceived relating to a decisionofthe Planning and Building Services Department regarding the leveloffees due for Planning Application P/2008/1461.

T h e Chairman reviewed the report presented by the Department and concluded that this was not an

appropriate case for a hearing by a Board as the Department had acted intra vires, and the complainant was informed of this in a letter dated 17th December 2008.

O n 1 8th December 2008, the complainant appealed against the decision of the Chairman not to proceed

with a review. The matter will be considered by the Deputy Chairmen in early 2009.

17. A statementofcomplaintdated 15th December2008wasreceived relating to a decision of the Minister for Planning andEnvironmenttoorder the removalof parts of a fenceerectedat the propertyknownas Saval, La Route des Côtes du Nord, Trinity .

T h e C  hairman will consider the papers to determine whether a review is justified in early 2009. Social Security

18. A statementofcomplaintdated 23rd October2008wasreceived relating to the decision of the Social Security Department regarding the level of rent set and absence of correspondence.

F o ll o wing receipt of the complaint by the Department, the claim was re-considered and resolved and the

complaint was withdrawn on 25th November 2008, prior to review by the Chairman.