A couple of months ago it was reported that several Liverpool City Officers had used special powers (no they are not the X-Men) to give themselves an £18,000 shelter over their cars in staff car park at the back of the Municipal Building.
This was all done on the pretext that some people who had used the car park had gotten bird crap on the cars and were suing the council for damages. So in order to save the council money they decided to spend the money on the shelter.
The first thing that occurred to me was if the car park is predominently by high ranking council officials, were they the ones who were suing the council (get on the phone to Franz Kafka for god’s sake).
The other thought that went through my mind was how can Liveprool City Council be held laible for actions of wild birds.
Does this now mean that if I park my car outside of your house and a bird craps on it you are then have to pay me damages?
This all sound really fishy.
If the officers in question had just come clean and said “we dont want birds crapping on our cars, can we have a shelter…er…. please?” then this whole thing would not be so annoying, but to dress it up as being done for the benefit of the poor visitors who use the car park seems a bit far fetched to say the least.
So under the freedom of information act I written and asked them for a few details (copy of letter sent)
5th April 2007
Dear Sir
I am making a request under the freedom of information act about the £18,000 spent on the cover for the car park at the rear of the municipal car park.I am obviously asking questions based on the reports in the media t the time so wome of the questions are to either confirm deny or clarify these reports.
1. It was reported that council officers took the decision to build the cover without any consultation or dialogue with councillors; if this was so what section of local government law did they invoke to mandate them to make the decision?
2. It was reported that the decision to spend the money was made because there had been claims against the council for damage to cars in the car park by pigeon droppings. The inference in the media was that a large number of claims had been levelled at the council, which seems odd given the car park is a private one.
3. Can you inform me as to whether this was the case and how many claims were made, who made the claims and for how much the claims were, and whether they were settled out of or in court. I would also like to know if any of these claimants were council employees.
4. I would like to know whether there were any signs erected in the car park disclaiming any damage caused to vehicles not being the responsibility of the owners of the car park, like in many public and private car parks. If signs were present what was the text on these signs?
5. Finally if the council did bow to the threat or actual law suit for damages, what part of civil law or precedent would accommodate liability being prescribed against a local authority for the actions of wild birds defecating. If it is proximity to a building then presumably if I was walking down Whitechapel walking past Rex Makin’s Office and a passing feral pigeon decides to crap on me I could sue Mr Makin for the dry cleaning bill and the psychological damage done to me?I have already asked these questions by email but have not had any response.
I would expect a response within seven days or I will be forwarding this letter and a covering letter to the local authority ombudsman.
Yours Sincerley
Have I got too much time on my hands or what?
I’ve had an acknowledgement but no reply yet, I’ll keep you informed
