Taxpayers may not recoup damage bill (From The Northern Echo)

Taxpayers may not recoup damage bill

7:48am Thursday 26th February 2009 in News Exclusive By Lauren Pyrah, Deputy Business Editor

TAXPAYERS may be unable to regain the £780,000 it cost to repair a damaged gas pipe after it emerged a council is not in legal talks over who should foot the bill.

Information released to The Northern Echo following a request under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Darlington Borough Council has spent an extra £32,000 on legal and engineering advice regarding who is liable for a 100-year-old pipe, which was damaged during town centre pedestrianisation works.

The same request also revealed that the council is not in any legal talks, but the council said it is investigating the possibility. However, it declined to say who it is considering taking legal action against. If no other party is found to be liable, it will be impossible to recover the public money spent.

In January 2006, the gas pipe was hit by a digger in Darlington town centre. It cost the council £780,000 to divert it.

In 1995, it was estimated that the controversial Pedestrian Heart scheme would cost £6.9m, funded by One North East and the borough council, but it eventually cost £9.22m.

The Freedom of Information Request revealed that the council paid an additional £15,000 for an investigation by a forensic engineer and has so far spent an extra £17,000 on legal fees.

Retired engineer Raymond Smith, who lives in Hurworth, near Darlington, has spent nearly three years on a oneman crusade to prevent the taxpayer footing the bill.

After amassing files of correspondence and reports on the case and attending numerous meetings, the 79-yearold has come to the conclusion that public money should not be used to pay the bill.

He is disappointed the case has taken so long to resolve.

He told The Northern Echo: “This has been going on since 2006. It is now 2009. We still haven’t got a result and the legal costs are on-going.

“The last issue of Town Crier was asking for comments from ratepayers about the various areas of cutting costs, such as the aviary. What is that, compared to £780,000? It is a disgrace. I feel very strongly about this.”