The Ombudsman has decided to make public a complaint lodged with his Office back in 2007 against the
Awtorità dwar
it-Trasport ta’ Malta (ADT) as it was then known, now Transport Malta, as an example of how public authorities ought not to treat
citizens
Ever felt small in your dealings with public, so called “authorities”? Console yourself, even the Ombudsman had that feeling, in dealing with the deservedly maligned Malta Transport Authority (ADT), today defunct, and its equally overweening Malta Transport Authority.
They are both excoriated in a report by the Ombudsman who was so infuriated by the treatment he received at their hands that he made public a particular complaint lodged in 2007 to give “an example of how public authorities ought not to treat citizens”.
The Ombudsman, former Chief Justice Joseph Said Pullicino, said that for several years a resident in Qawra complained, first with ADT and later with Transport Malta, about bad workmanship of road alignment works done in his street by a contractor on behalf of the ADT. As a result considerable amount of surface runoff found its way and flooded his garage after every downpour, causing substantial damage to his property.
During the Ombudsman’s investigation the key facts behind this grievance were never contested by ADT or by Transport Malta. There was no doubt that complainant suffered this nuisance for years on end, at least since 2004, and ADT accepted responsibility for the bad workmanship that was responsible for water runoff that flooded his property and undertook to carry out remedial works. However, some time later ADT came up with the pretext that it had no funds and at a subsequent stage told complainant that it would issue a call for tenders for these works. Unfortunately, however, this turned out to be an empty promise.
Complainant was deeply upset, the Ombudsman says. Not only was he unable to make use of the garage since the electronic instruments of vehicles parked inside ran the risk of becoming defective because of high humidity levels but the situation continued to deteriorate as the years passed. Despite various assurances by ADT and by Transport Malta management, nothing ever took place to remove this inconvenience.
“This indifference was in evidence too in the way that ADT, and later Transport Malta, reacted to the Ombudsman’s intervention. In January 2008 the ADT sought to justify its lack of action by stating to 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 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 by the Ombudsman’s Office, during an onsite meeting 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. Although some time later the appointment of a new Director for the Network Infrastructure Directorate held prospects of a breakthrough, this never materialised.
This situation led the Ombudsman in mid-August 2009 to seek the intervention of the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications 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 although no explanation was ever forthcoming what this report entailed. Several months again passed and works remained outstanding,” the Ombudsman says.
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.
September 2009: enter the engineer responsible for the Roads and Infrastructure Directorate who confirmed to the Ombudsman that works to release complainant from his predicament 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 the Ombudsman’s Office on the matter.
Sheer arrogance
“Feeling that the whole situation had reached the point of no return, 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. Even this letter was ignored and the only reaction by Transport Malta was a computer-generated acknowledgement,” the Ombudsman reports.
The Ombudsman says in his report that 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”.
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, the Ombudsman says.
“On several occasions public authorities that enjoy a measure of autonomy fail to appreciate the role of the Ombudsman to safeguard citizens and their rights. This failure to cooperate on their part reflects a lack of awareness of the work done by this Office in its role as a mediator when things go wrong between citizens and the public administration. Although public bodies form an integral part of the public administration and are obliged to serve citizens fairly, at times these authorities convey the impression that in their view the work done by this Office undermines their autonomous status and that since the recommendations of the Ombudsman have no executive force, the ombudsman institution can be taken lightly.”
At times, he adds, this attitude leads officials in these authorities not to cooperate with the Ombudsman; not to reply to requests for information from his Investigating Officers; and even to ignore efforts by his Office to establish contact. These officials seem unwilling to appreciate that the function of the Ombudsman is not only to support an aggrieved citizen but also to contribute towards improved standards of public administration. 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.
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 recalled that the Public Administration Act, recently approved by Parliament, extends a measure of protection to citizens even in their relationships with autonomous institutions set up by law.
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. This inertia was in sharp contrast with the stand by the authorities who unreservedly agreed that complainant’s grievance was justified and even undertook to remedy the defective works for which they were ultimately responsible.
The Ombudsman insisted that there can be no justification whatsoever for this attitude by public corporations. Citizens are not concerned – and rightly so – with bureaucratic complications that at times abound in public bodies. Citizens are only concerned – and again, rightly so – that whenever those in office accept responsibility for any defects for which they are liable, they should make amends as soon as possible.
According to the Ombudsman, 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.
In the Ombudsman’s words, this grievance was justified and complainant’s stand was vindicated while the incompetence shown by the authorities was deplorable.
The Ombudsman concluded that in ordinary circumstances he would not have hesitated to limit his conclusion to a declaration that Transport Malta should assume full responsibility for the slipshod works that caused so much distress to complainant and undertake repairs in the shortest possible time. He pointed out, however, that circumstances surrounding this case had far-reaching implications and it was his duty to go beyond such a simple declaration.
According to the Ombudsman this episode was more serious given that the public authority responsible for this appalling situation, despite its repeated promise to carry out the necessary repairs, had persistently ignored not only the Ombudsman’s investigation but also, and perhaps more importantly, the justified claims of an aggrieved citizen. This attitude by a public authority needed to be remedied by an apology and by the award of compensation.
The Ombudsman therefore recommended that Transport Malta should issue an apology to complainant for the way in which for several years both its predecessor and itself had trampled on his rights and that repairs should be carried out forthwith under the direction of competent technical personnel. 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.
Final opinion
The Ombudsman stated in his Final Opinion that he had no alternative but to bring these issues to the attention of the political authorities responsible for Transport Malta since he was convinced that as a result of an intervention at the political level, public bodies will in future seek to honour their obligations towards citizens in a more caring and responsible manner. For this reason the Ombudsman submitted his Final Opinion to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications to draw their attention to his recommendations on this complaint for any action that they would consider appropriate.
The Ombudsman says that following the submission of his Final Opinion the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications was quick to react.
In a letter to the chairman of Transport Malta the minister commented 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 followed the cue and apologized 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 pointed out that he would seek to ensure that following his intervention the case would be resolved as soon as possible.