The Absence of a Child’s Consent Does Not Prevent a Local Authority from Investigating a Complaint

A Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has ruled in favour of a father who sought action against Lancashire County Council (LCC) for its refusal to investigate his complaint.

LCC had refused to instruct an independent investigator because the affected child had not provided his consent to escalation of the complaint to the investigation stage.

Background

The father initially complained to LCC alleging that its failure to provide regular social work support had resulted in a significant deterioration in his son’s behaviour, a complete breakdown in their father/ son relationship and his son’s eventual removal into care. The father also complained that LCC’s failings had negatively impacted upon both his and his partner’s mental health, resulting in the breakdown of their relationship.

Regulatory Update – August 2019

• HSE Dust-busters
• Suspended sentence for builder after three-year-old girl seriously injured
• Child killed by falling electric gate
• Construction companies continue to be targeted by the HSE

Forbes at Trial: Costly Claim Fails at First Hurdle

Cox v Bury

A Claimant’s claim for personal injury was dismissed after the Court concluded that the alleged pothole was not the cause of the Claimant’s accident.

The Claimant alleged that she tripped in a pothole measuring in excess of 50mm and sustained a fractured elbow.  The Claimant brought a claim pursuant to s.41 Highways Act 1980.  The Defendant denied that the defect was actionable or hazardous to pedestrians.

The claim was limited to £25,000 and the matter was therefore allocated to the fast track.  In the Claimant’s pleadings, the claim for care and assistance was simply marked “TBC”.  When the Claimant subsequently filed an Updated Schedule of Loss, the claim for care and assistance totaled in excess of £138,000. 

Forbes at Trial: Claim Dismissed after Judge is Unable to Unpick the Circumstances of the Accident

Rees v Co-operative Group Ltd

The Claimant alleged that she had tripped in an uncovered drain situated in the car park of one of its stores. After investigating the claim, breach of duty was admitted but the Claimant was put to proof as to the manner and happening of the accident.  It was the Claimant’s case that she had been dropped off at the store by her mother and partner.  She alleged that she fell in the car park a few minutes later and after phoning her partner, he returned to pick her back up.

The Claimant’s partner and mother both provided witness evidence in support of the Claimant’s case.   The evidence from the three witnesses was found to be riddled with inaccuracies. Notably, the Claimant was not even able to identify the exact location of the defect.

Forbes at Trial: Father and Daughter School Tripping Claim Fails

Saleem & Rizwan v Rochdale Borough Council

In October 2017, the First Claimant was taking his daughter, the Second Claimant to school.    It was alleged that as they walked through the school grounds, they both tripped and fell in the missing part of a dilapidated grate.  They brought a claim for personal injury pursuant to section 2 Occupiers Liability Act 1957.