Month: January 2010

Revised policy on covenant release

by

Revised policy on covenant release

Following a ruling from the District Auditor earlier this year on the legality of charging a resident for the release of a restrictive covenant, the Parish Council has sought fresh legal advice. In the light of this advice, it is now drawing up a revised policy on covenant release, which it hopes will be seen as fair, equitable and consistent.

Here you can view the Parish Council’s revised policy:

Covenants Policy

Covenants_Legal_Advice

Background

In 1973, the Parish Council took over several pieces of land from the now-defunct Riding Mill Estates company, together with responsibility for restrictive covenants on some properties in the village. Since then, the Parish Council has sought to charge residents for lifting restrictive covenants affecting their properties. This policy has been the subject of some dispute within the village.

The District Auditor was recently asked to give a ruling on whether the Council was acting unlawfully in charging for the release of a specific covenant. He confirmed that the Council had acted in a way consistent with the advice they had received from their solicitors and from the District Valuer, and was therefore acting lawfully. He did, however, ask the Parish Council to seek legal advice on the enforceability of its covenants, and use this advice in formulating a revised policy for managing covenants. The Parish Council has now received this advice, and is using this as the basis for a revised policy.

Policy on vexatious communications

by

Policy on vexatious communications

This Policy covers vexatious demands and/or repeated requests for information including Freedom of Information Act requests.

Under this policy the Council will consider repeated requests for information or variations of the same request, on a single issue, to be vexatious and unacceptable where the Council has already answered the request. Where excessive use of the Council’s time is being made in dealing with such requests, no response will be made except to inform the member of the public making such request that the requirement is unreasonable.

Taking into consideration the context and history of a request, a decision as to whether it is vexatious will be made on one or more of the following criteria:

  • Can the request be fairly seen as obsessive?
  • Is the request harassing the Council, or a Councillor or the Clerk?
  • Would complying with the request impose an unreasonable burden?
  • Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
  • Does the request lack serious purpose or value?
  • Where the communication of the member(s) of the public is considered vexatious, the person(s) will be informed and given the grounds for such decision.

If the conduct or correspondence of a member of the public or of a group of persons acting together is considered vexatious, the Council may refuse to respond to communications from that person or group of persons for a specified period of time or may limit the amount of such correspondence that will be dealt with.

Complaints policy 2010

by

Broomhaugh and Riding Parish Council – Complaints policy 2010

A

  1. A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction by one or more members of the public about the Council’s action or lack of action or about the standard of service, whether the action was taken or the service provided by the Council itself or a person or body acting on behalf of the Council.
  2. This complaints policy is intended to be
    (a) well publicised
    (b) helpful and receptive
    (c) not adversarial
    (d) fair and objective
    (e) quick, thorough, rigorous and consistent
    (f) decisive and capable of putting things right where necessary
    (h) regularly analysed to spot patterns of complaint and lessons for service improvement
  3. 3 At all times the rules of natural justice will apply

B

  1. A complaint against any Councillor individually should be made in writing to the Clerk (or, if the complaint is against the Clerk , to the Chairman)
  2. The Clerk will refer the complaint to the Chairman (unless the complaint is against the Chairman, in which case the complaint will go forward under B 4 (below)).
  3. The Chairman will seek to deal with the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant
  4. If the complainant is not satisfied (or if the complaint is against the Chairman), the complaint will be referred to the Council, who will seek to satisfy the complainant
  5. The complainant, if not then satisfied, may seek redress elsewhere, eg the County Council.

C – PROCEDURE UNDER B4

  1. The complainant must put the complaint in writing, backed up with documentation or other written evidence of his or her claim
  2. If the complaint is referred to the Council under B4 above, a meeting shall be set up with the complainant (and a representative, if desired) and the Council.
  3. The Council shall consider whether the circumstances merit the exclusion of the press and public
  4. The Complainant should outline his or her case and then questions may be asked by the members of the Council.
  5. The Clerk or a nominated officer shall explain the Council’s position and questions may be asked by the members of the Council and the complainant.
  6. The complainant and other parties with an interest shall leave the room while the members decide by majority vote whether the complaint was justified.
  7. The complainant will be notified within 7 days of the Council’s decision and of any action to be taken if the complaint is upheld.
  8. There is no further right of review or appeal within the Council following conclusion of B4 (above).