The Ombudsman today highlighted an example of how public authorities should not treat the people, saying a case of minor road repairs had remained as a standstill for double the amount of time needed for the City Gate project.
Retired Chief Justice Joseph Said Pullicino also accused Transport Malta and its predecessor the ADT of 'sheer arrogance at its very worst'.
The case goes back to 2007 when a resident of Qawra reported a case against the then Transport Authority (now Transport Malta) to the Ombudsman.
For several years the resident had been complaining to the ADT about bad workmanship of road alignment works which was causing a considerable amount of rainwater to flood his garage.
The facts were were never contested by ADT or by Transport Malta. Since 2004, ADT accepted responsibility for the bad workmanship and undertook to carry out remedial works. Later, however, it said it had no funds. Promises that a call for tenders would be issued were not kept.
This indifference was also in evidence too in the way that ADT, and later Transport Malta, reacted to his own intervention, the Ombudsman said.
In January 2008 the ADT sought to justify its lack of action by telling the Ombudsman that the Director of its own Network Infrastructure Directorate (NID) consistently failed to reply to internal memoranda urging him to treat the matter with urgency.
"To the Ombudsman this admission was a clear indication that ADT had no control over its own employees and was unable to implement in an effective and timely manner works that the Authority itself undertook to carry out."
As the months passed by and the Ombudsman continued to insist upon the ADT management to carry out these repairs as had been promised to complainant, the works remained pending. In the meantime complainant’s garage continued to be flooded every year during the rainy season.
After persistent prodding, in October 2008 ADT officials agreed to issue a call for tenders for works to adjust the lower part of the culvert and create an outlet for surface water runoff collected in this section. However, despite a promise by the NID Director to complete works by the end of 2008, all round lethargy continued to prevail and again nothing happened.
This situation led the Ombudsman in mid-August 2009 to seek the intervention of the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry for Infrastructure and to protest strongly at the way in which his Office was being treated by Transport Malta. This approach too 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. Several months again passed by and works remained outstanding.
When responsibility for road maintenance works passed from ADT’s Network Infrastructure Directorate to the Roads and Infrastructure Directorate of Transport Malta, the Ombudsman immediately demanded an investigation to establish why this complaint was persistently ignored. However, even this direct approach to the new management of Transport Malta faced a brick wall.
In September 2009 the engineer responsible for the Roads and Infrastructure Directorate confirmed to the Ombudsman that works would get under way soon. However, by mid-2010 these works remained pending while at this stage the Authority even started to ignore in a systematic manner communications sent by this Office on the matter.
In the last week of August 2010 the Ombudsman warned Transport Malta management that unless this case was resolved by mid-September 2010, he would issue his Final Opinion. Even this letter was ignored and the only reaction by Transport Malta was a computer-generated acknowledgement.
"This detailed chronology of events can only lead to one conclusion: this was 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 said.
"This situation is even more appalling since for a long time an innocent citizen had to suffer the consequences of slipshod works done on behalf of a public authority that in turn failed to show any concern for damage caused by these works to the private property of an upright resident. This attitude is unacceptable and censurable. Equally reprehensible was the attitude shown by this authority towards the Office of the Ombudsman while its investigation on this grievance was under way..."
"This situation has repeatedly led the Ombudsman to insist that every autonomous public authority should be accountable not only towards citizens but also towards the country. Citizens have every right to demand that officials entrusted with the reins of public administration are bound by rules and standards that apply in the public service which safeguard the fundamental right of citizens to good administration."
The Ombudsman pointed out that up to the date of his Final Opinion, no action was taken to repair a water culvert and a pavement in a public street during a period that was equivalent to double the amount of time that is required to complete the City Gate project in Valletta.
the Ombudsman SAID this was an instance where a citizen could have taken legal action against the public body concerned for this undignified treatment, with the odds of a successful outcome heavily stacked in his favour.
CALLS FOR APOLOGY AND COMPENSATION
In his Final Opinion, the Ombudsman called on Transport Malta to apologise to the resident and for the repairs to be carried out forthwith. He also recommended that Transport Malta should award complainant a once-only nominal payment of €500 to cover moral damages suffered as a result of his abysmal experience.
The Ombudsman submitted his Final Opinion to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for the Infrastructure.
The Minister for the Infrastructure (Dr Austin Gatt) was quick to react.
He wrote to the chairman of Transport Malta saying that he was alarmed to note that while the organization accepted responsibility for defects in road works that gave rise to this grievance, for several years it failed to solve the problem. He also showed his concern that in January 2008 the ADT, as the precursor to Transport Malta, merely blamed its own Network Infrastructure Directorate instead of directly assuming responsibility for the situation and that despite assurances to the Ombudsman that the problem would be solved by the end of 2008, nothing had happened.
The Minister was also perturbed that TM management failed to reply to the Ombudsman’s letter in August 2010.
The Minister wrote that: “The Ombudsman’s Office is not to be treated in this manner and I believe that the authority should make a formal apology to the Ombudsman.” He instructed TM management to identify the employees responsible for this situation and to consider whether disciplinary action was called for and at the same time to take the necessary repair immediately in hand.
On his part the Ombudsman too was quick to appreciate the Minister’s directive to Transport Malta to take appropriate measures and pointed out that to his knowledge the issue of instructions by a Minister to a public authority to issue an apology was “a welcome first”.
TM management apologised to the Ombudsman for its lack of response that it attributed to weak follow-up procedures that had already been addressed rather than to any lack of respect for his Office.
The management also submitted a technical status update on the matter.
It denied that it ever accepted responsibility for run-off water that entered complainant’s property and insisted that in 2008 as a sign of goodwill it sealed the service culvert in the footpath adjacent to this property and carried out rendering and cleaning works to prevent further water seepage even though in its view the water that found its way to complainant’s basement could not be attributed to this culvert.
According to TM management the problem was due to the basement walls below street level that were not double wall construction while the gap between these walls and the rock face was filled with construction waste and there was no membrane in place to prevent water seepage. Recalling that complainant knew of these defective works and had taken the builder to court, TM insisted that it was his responsibility to seal his property against water ingress.
Nonetheless, TM management stated that since complainant continued to insist that the service duct was the source of the problem, its engineering staff had prepared an estimate of the cost for an extension of this culvert to drain surface water runoff to a reservoir on the opposite side of the road. The quotations that were submitted, however, were higher than its estimate and the call for tenders had to be issued again.
In his reaction the Ombudsman accepted the apology by Transport Malta and stated that he would pass this apology to complainant to whom it was also, if not primarily, due. He wrote that he was pleased to note that finally there were indications that TM meant to implement the necessary repairs and warned that his Office intended to monitor progress.
The Ombudsman also wrote that he had never suggested or hinted that ADT or Transport Malta be held accountable for damage that was not caused by works carried out on their behalf or for damage for which they were not responsible. He added that he was quite surprised that it was only now that TM management was putting forward all these explanations that were never even remotely suggested or referred to during all the years that his investigation was under way.
For correctness’ sake and to establish the commitment by both ADT and by TM to execute repairs that would solve the problem, the Ombudsman referred to the several occasions that his Office was told that these works would be completed by the end of 2008. Even in September 2009 TM informed his Office that internal preparations had reached their final stages and that works would be taken in hand by the end of the month while in January 2010 the NID again informed the Ombudsman that works were due to start soon.
The Ombudsman concluded that once TM management had given several commitments that works beyond the mere rendering and sealing of a water culvert would be carried out, he could not but conclude that both ADT and TM seriously failed to meet their obligations towards complainant and for several years chose to ignore their responsibility for damage caused to his property.
The Ombudsman said he would ensure that following his intervention the case would be resolved as soon as possible.