Transport Malta “systematically ignored” the Ombudsman investigating a serious complaint by a Qawra resident, a damning report reveals.

The report described the saga leading to the Ombudsman’s final opinion as “an instance of sheer arrogance at its very worst and an example of how a public authority should not treat citizens”.

“Here was a certificate of inefficiency, incompetence and arrogance by a national authority; here was a glaring example of the insensitive and undignified way in which an authority treated a citizen who sought justice and respect for his rights,” the Ombudsman, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Said Pullicino, wrote.

The case goes back to 2004 when bad workmanship by a contractor carrying out road works on behalf of the then Public Transport Authority (ADT) in Qawra caused the complainant’s garage to flood every time it rained. After three years of excuses and at least one “empty promise” by the authority, the complainant, who is unnamed in the report, turned to the Ombudsman for help but this did not change much.

Three years later, not only was no action taken to remedy the situation but in his report the Ombudsman chronicles a list of episodes in which his office was completely ignored or dismissed with unsatisfactory replies by the authority and the Transport Ministry.

“The feeling of the situation had reached the point of no return and in the last week of August 2010 the Ombudsman warned Transport Malta management that unless this case would be resolved by mid-September 2010 he would issue his Final Opinion.” Nothing changed, even after this final warning. Throughout, the Ombudsman’s office was given all sorts of excuses.

At first, the authority blamed one of its directors, saying he had failed to reply to internal memoranda about the matter. To the Ombudsman “this admission was clear indication ADT had no control over its own employees...”

Eventually, the authority agreed to issue a call for tenders to adjust a faulty culvert but, in the words of the Ombudsman, “all round lethargy continued to prevail”.

The director who the authority had complained about had changed in the meantime but even this did not change anything for the complainant.

In 2009, the Ombudsman’s office protested with the permanent secretary at the Transport Ministry but this approach also “failed to produce any tangible results and the explanation that was proffered this time was that a technical report was awaited before works could be taken in hand although no explanation was ever forthcoming what this report entailed”.

Also in 2009, the Ombudsman was told by the engineer responsible for road works the repairs would be made but even this promise was broken. Moreover, from then on “...the authority even started to ignore in a systematic manner communications”.

In his considerations, the Ombudsman questioned the uncooperative attitude of the authority vis-à-vis his office but most of all lambasted the “undignified way” in which they had treated the complainant who suffered damages to his garage, which he could not use for years because the humidity would damage electronic parts of his car.

“They seem unaware that citizens should be at the centre of their service provision and that at all times they are bound to provide efficient service to the country at large,” Dr Said Pullicino said.

He pointed out the transport authority had exposed itself to a damages claim in which the odds of a successful outcome were heavily stacked in favour of the complainant.

Before publishing the report, he wrote to the Office of the Prime Minister and the Transport Minister, relaying his findings.

Transport Minister Austin Gatt responded promptly and in a letter to the authority’s chairman said he was “perturbed” that Transport Malta had failed to reply to a communication by the Ombudsman.

He was also concerned that, at one point, the authority merely blamed its own network infrastructure directorate instead of assuming responsibility for the situation and that, despite assurances to the Ombudsman the problem would be solved by the end of 2008, nothing had happened.

Dr Gatt also instructed management to identify the employees responsible, see whether disciplinary action was in order and carry out the road repairs immediately.

The Ombudsman had already asked for the authority to apologise to the complainant but welcomed the minister’s instructions.

The Ombudsman also ordered a nominal compensation of €500.

The authority then decided to take action and issued an apology. However, for the first time, it denied responsibility for the flooding. Instead, it blamed defective construction work on the boundary walls of the garage in question, which the complainant was aware of because he had taken legal action against the builders.

However, the authority undertook to adjust the water culvert.

The Ombudsman pointed out this was the first time the authority denied responsibility and noted that at several instances Transport Malta had undertaken to carry out the works and even set deadlines. The Ombudsman let it be known he would be monitoring progress.