When the Commissioner told Craigavon Borough Council to apologise to a Tandragee businessman and “make a consolatory payment of £200” after ruling that he had been unfairly treated, it failed to do so.

Almost two months passed before the council finally issued an apology and when that came the commissioner, Mr Tom Frawley, was so unimpressed that he ordered an altogether more contrite second attempt.

In addition, he was incensed to learn that as a result of an administrative error, the council had sent the victim a cheque for £20 rather than the £200 he had directed.

The initial complaint came from Mr Lawrence Foye, who alleged that his company, Biomass Energy Enterprises, had been denied the opportunity to tender for a council contract for biomass boilers. Others, he claimed, had enjoyed an unfair advantage in that they were aware of the contract before it was advertised. When the advert finally appeared, he had insufficient time to respond to it.

Mr Foye’s claim of “an injustice as a result of maladministration by Craigavon Borough Council” was upheld by the Commissioner of Complaints. In a lengthy analysis, Mr Frawley dissected the claims and counter-claims point by point, finding against the council in most instances.

His summary included the words, “I have reached the view that, as with its failure to treat Mr Foye in a manner comparable to other interested parties, the council’s handling of Mr Foye’s complaint constitutes maladministration”.

Elsewhere in his summing up he stated, “To present my Office with incomplete information represents, I believe, further evidence that the council’s administrative handling of this matter falls well below that which could reasonably be expected of a public body.”

In conclusion the commissioner ruled, “I have found the council’s actions in placing Mr Foye in a disadvantaged position from his competitors in terms of them having prior knowledge of a public advertisement constituted maladministration.

“I am highly critical of the poor handling of this case by the council which in itself caused an injustice to Mr Foye. I recommend that the Chief Executive apologise in respect of the administrative failures of the council.

“I would also expect the council to learn from this experience so that similar circumstances can be prevented from arising again.”

MAYOR

Two months later no apology had been forwarded. It only came when Mr Foye mentioned the matter to the Mayor, Councillor Robert Smith, at a function.

Mr Foye said, “Clearly the Mayor was embarrassed and his reaction left me in no doubt that he was unaware of what had happened.