Council counts cost of traveller legal row (From Echo)

The stupid Council should have paid them their compensation. More of my money being wasted by incompetent half-wits.

Now, they should investigate all the benefit claims in detail (together with the Inland Revenue etc). Got the stomach for it Phil Turner???

These Outlaws only understand 1 law; that of the jungle.

Its about time whoever had the ultimate responsibility for the decision not to pay out initially which led to a bill of £10,000+ to lose their job/s.
.
Far, far too much money had been wasted by the council already with regard to the travellers.
.
Lets just get on and issue the 28 days notice this side of christmas.
.
All these money wasted could have prevented the need to sell off the park areas around the district.

I think it's a dam shame the council lost, but I say good on them. They couldn't win either way; If they had rolled over and paid out to them with out contest - A. I would be reading exactly the same lines here "...too much money had been wasted by the council already with regard to the travellers." B. If you roll over every time someone thinks they have a sniff of a case against you, especially in the case of travellers, then every man and his dog will be on the band wagon!
Good on the council for making it as hard for them as possible.

This is what I don't understand:

'virtually every household at the two illegal camps survived on benefits'

Now if anyone in the settled community was driving around in an expensive new car, wearing designer labels and spending money on tanning salons, whilst claiming benefits,they'd soon be knocking down the door of the recipient. Why are the travellers treated so lightly? we know that they're not all single mothers whose husbands whereabouts are unknown, but that is what they are stating to claim benefits. Unfortunately the geography of a traveller site makes it nigh on impossible to set up covert observation operations, and that gets to the crux of the matter. In order for these people to continue their deceptive way of life they must remain outside of the public eye, and a large un authorised site is the ideal place for such practices!

Dan_ wrote:
I think it's a dam shame the council lost, but I say good on them. They couldn't win either way; If they had rolled over and paid out to them with out contest - A. I would be reading exactly the same lines here "...too much money had been wasted by the council already with regard to the travellers." B. If you roll over every time someone thinks they have a sniff of a case against you, especially in the case of travellers, then every man and his dog will be on the band wagon!
Good on the council for making it as hard for them as possible.

Dan, I think the fact that they acted on half the Ombudsman directive and not the compensation bit suggests some muddled thinking:-
However, following a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman by three families from Hovefields, the council was told to apologise and pay them each £300 compensation.

The ruling Tory administration agreed to apologise, but said it would not pay the money.

Don't seem very astute to me, especially as they were guilty anyway.

No doubt the travellers were funding the lawyers fees from there own pockets, hold on, just seen a pig fly by my window.

Ironman wrote:

Dan_ wrote:
I think it's a dam shame the council lost, but I say good on them. They couldn't win either way; If they had rolled over and paid out to them with out contest - A. I would be reading exactly the same lines here "...too much money had been wasted by the council already with regard to the travellers." B. If you roll over every time someone thinks they have a sniff of a case against you, especially in the case of travellers, then every man and his dog will be on the band wagon!
Good on the council for making it as hard for them as possible.

Dan, I think the fact that they acted on half the Ombudsman directive and not the compensation bit suggests some muddled thinking:-
However, following a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman by three families from Hovefields, the council was told to apologise and pay them each £300 compensation.

The ruling Tory administration agreed to apologise, but said it would not pay the money.

Don't seem very astute to me, especially as they were guilty anyway.

Yes I see what you mean re-reading it. What legal weight does the Ombudsman have exactly? I'm not an expert (obviously), and what's confusing me is the way the report is worded "the council was told to apologise and pay them each £300 compensation". But then later in the report "Mr Justice Kenneth Parker ruled the council was wrong to reject the advice of the Ombudsman". So was it a legal(?) instruction originally, or was it 'advice'? Because presumably the seriousness with which you take those two things is very different? If it was an instruction that has to be appealed against then they we're indeed at best niave having been found to be in the wrong by a government agency to take it further. Would genuinely appreciate some clarity on all this. Sort of feels like without knowing what the real politics were behind decisions taken here, then this is just another angled report by the echo for a reaction. Seems to be their lawyers are cunning as hell going straight to the ombudsman in the first place.

Dan_ wrote:

Ironman wrote:

Dan_ wrote: I think it's a dam shame the council lost, but I say good on them. They couldn't win either way; If they had rolled over and paid out to them with out contest - A. I would be reading exactly the same lines here "...too much money had been wasted by the council already with regard to the travellers." B. If you roll over every time someone thinks they have a sniff of a case against you, especially in the case of travellers, then every man and his dog will be on the band wagon! Good on the council for making it as hard for them as possible.

Dan, I think the fact that they acted on half the Ombudsman directive and not the compensation bit suggests some muddled thinking:- However, following a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman by three families from Hovefields, the council was told to apologise and pay them each £300 compensation. The ruling Tory administration agreed to apologise, but said it would not pay the money. Don't seem very astute to me, especially as they were guilty anyway.

Yes I see what you mean re-reading it. What legal weight does the Ombudsman have exactly? I'm not an expert (obviously), and what's confusing me is the way the report is worded "the council was told to apologise and pay them each £300 compensation". But then later in the report "Mr Justice Kenneth Parker ruled the council was wrong to reject the advice of the Ombudsman". So was it a legal(?) instruction originally, or was it 'advice'? Because presumably the seriousness with which you take those two things is very different? If it was an instruction that has to be appealed against then they we're indeed at best niave having been found to be in the wrong by a government agency to take it further. Would genuinely appreciate some clarity on all this. Sort of feels like without knowing what the real politics were behind decisions taken here, then this is just another angled report by the echo for a reaction. Seems to be their lawyers are cunning as hell going straight to the ombudsman in the first place.

The Ombudsman made a recommendation which the Council rejected.
The full text of the judgment is at http://www.bailii.or
g/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi
n/2010/2824.html
It's long and detailed but paragraph 37 sort of summarises the issue.

As you say,the council should not roll-over (or be put off in future by this minor reverse).
I imagine their overall frustration with the traveller issue caused a decision from the heart not the head this time.
Two recent and much more important court decisions (the Boswell and Flynn cases) went the council's way so they should not be overconcerned with this one.

Enough is enough. 28 days notice should now be served on the Crays Hill travellers. It must be almost a year since the council got the go a head. Lets see the end to this saga.

Broonaldo wrote:
Enough is enough. 28 days notice should now be served on the Crays Hill travellers. It must be almost a year since the council got the go a head. Lets see the end to this saga.

You could argue it's almost 2 years.
The Court of Appeal decision was in January 2009 although it wasn't until May 09 that the travellers were refused an appeal to the House of Lords.Yes,enough is enough.

Thank you all for your helpful responses. Makes a nice change from the usual abuse and slanging matches :-) Cheers.