| Synopsis: |
This consultation paper deals with the question: when and how should the individual be able to obtain redress from a public body that has acted in a substandard manner? The Commission believes that, in principle, claimants should be entitled to obtain redress for loss caused by clearly substandard administrative action. But it also realises that special consideration should be given to the role played by public bodies when considering when and under what terms they should be liable for such losses. Part 3 of the paper analyses the mechanisms currently available for aggrieved citizens: formal complaints procedures; external non-court avenues, such as tribunals and public inquiries; public sector ombudsmen; and, court action. The vast majority of cases are handled effectively in the first three mechanisms. The appropriateness and effectiveness of court action is investigated, looking at judicial review and private law.In private law the analysis focuses on the torts of misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and negligence. Part 4 highlights certain defects in the law relating to court-based remedies.In both public and private law, the Commission finds a strong argument for the reform of court-based administrative redress, and suggests specific reforms. To encourage the role of the ombudsmen, in part 5 the paper suggests the creation of a power to stay actions, encouraging claimants to submit suitable claims to the ombudsmen before taking court action. Secondly, it suggests that access to the ombudsmen be improved by modifying the 'statutory bar' and removing the MP filter in relation to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Part 6 examines potential costs and benefits for public bodies, possible statutory immunities and caps for individual claims. There is a need for more data on the resource implications of the suggested reforms. |