A False Economy: Investigations Into how People are Recompensed for Government Mistakes
The Stationery Office, Oct 15, 2012 - Architecture - 16 pages
In 2010 the Planning Inspectorate were required to reduce their spending by 35 per cent by 2014-15. That meant finding headline savings of around £9 million per year. Planning Inspectorate's management board identified the removal of the ex gratia payment scheme which then had an annual budget of £250,000 as a saving option. They decided to close the scheme. This report describes how that decision affected four complainants
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
500 in recognition challenged that decision claims for financial Company C’s consider claims considered afresh consolatory payment Dame Julie Mellor decided that Company demolish his home despite their previously error ex gratia payment false economy Investigations financial redress financial remedies ﬂawed footpath should become government mistakes government organisations grant planning permission gratia payment scheme High Court HM Treasury guidance inconvenience incurred Inspectorate properly consider Inspectorate responded positively Learning Points maladministrative Managing Public Money motocross track offer any payments Ombudsman recommended Ombudsman’s investigation Ombudsman’s Principles paid his costs Parliamentary Ombudsman person affected back Planning Inspectorate apologised Planning Inspectorate caused Planning Inspectorate failed Planning Inspectorate held Planning Inspectorate properly Planning Inspectorate reconsidered Planning Inspectorate responded Planning Inspectorate’s approach Planning Inspectorate’s decision Points A false poor service previously published guidance properly or fairly public inquiry pursuing the redetermination put things right recompensed for government redress in future remedying complaints unless the Ombudsman upheld