Mrs H complains the Coal Authority produced a mining report in 2013 that did not contain details of a mineshaft close to her property
14. When we consider complaints, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and, we have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
15. The Coal Authority was formed in 1994. Previously it was the National Coal Board & British Coal Corporation. On its formation, the British Coal Corporation provided the Coal Authority with rationalised plans (i.e., plans based on the original mine abandonment plans) and the British Coal shaft register. Under The Coal Industry Act 1994, the Coal Authority has a responsibility to update its records when new information is available.
16. Mrs H tells us that when she paid for a mining report in 2013, the Coal Authority did not include details of a mineshaft located within five metres of her property. The Coal Authority completed the report on 30 April 2013, and Mrs H believes that at the time the Coal Authority completed the report it was in possession of an Ordnance Survey (OS) map that showed a feature listed as an ‘Old shaft (mine)’ on or very close to her property. As such, she believes that the Coal Authority wrongly ignored and excluded this information in its 2013 report.
17. Mrs H tells us that the mineshaft on her property is recorded on numerous OS maps, reaching as far back as the 1800’s. These maps are held by the Coal Authority and other public domains.
18. Mrs H says that when she was informed by her neighbour about the mine entry on her property, she checked local OS maps and saw this feature had always been listed on historical OS maps for the area. She believes the Coal Authority made a mistake as it missed this information when it issued a report, saying there were ‘No known coal mine entries within, or within 20 metres of, the boundary of the property’, when a simple check of the local OS map would have shown there was one present.
19. We cannot determine whether the Coal Authority has acted in a way which is ‘negligent’ in its duty of care, as Ms H tells us, as only a court can make such a finding. However, we can consider whether there is any indication that maladministration has occurred.
20. We understand Mrs H’s disappointment at finding out there is a disused mineshaft under her property, and we can recognise this would cause her a great deal of worry about possible financial loss if she decides to sell her property in the future.
21. On 21 February 2021 Mrs H formally complained to the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority replied to Mrs H’s complaint on 6 April 2021. In this initial reply, the Coal Authority said: ‘Whilst I accept your comments that the mine entry is recorded on ordnance survey plans it is not feasible for us to have reviewed the different sources or plans to proactively check all mine entries. As part of our work it was only in 2019 that we were able to update the records for your property having reviewed the information and verified the source. Following this review, we updated the data as required under statute (Coal Industry Act 1994). Having reviewed the above information and the processes which were followed I do not believe that any negligence has taken place’.
22. As she remained dissatisfied with the complaint reply, Mrs H further questioned the Coal Authority asking why it had not reviewed maps in its possession.
23. In its reply to this further question, the Coal Authority told Mrs H that the initial information provided was taken from rationalised plans that were based on the original mine abandonment plans and the British Coal shaft register. British Coal provided these documents in 1994 when the Coal Authority was formed.
24. The Coal Authority says the mineshaft in question was not identified on the shaft register, which means that it had not been captured by British Coal and that no OS maps or records relating to the mineshaft were transferred to the Coal Authority.
25. The Coal Authority tell us that its mining reports system can only use the information within its records to produce reports. This will only include OS mapping if it was part of the original record or if the system was updated following a formal mine entry review.
26. In her complaint Mrs H refers to OS maps as being ‘held by the Coal Authority’. This shows that she understood the Coal Authority held all OS maps for the country and specifically the area covering her home address.
27. The Coal Authority tells us that it updated its records in 2019 as a result of a local investigation into an unrelated issue. During the investigation it obtained a first edition Ordnance Survey 1:2500 County sheet for the area in question. As a result of viewing this plan, it noticed a feature annotated as ‘Old Coal Shaft’ in the vicinity of Mrs H’s property. The Coal Authority then added this previously unrecorded feature to its database.
28. This information shows that the Coal Authority only obtained the relevant OS map for Mrs H’s address in 2019, and therefore the Coal Authority was not in possession of the OS map when it completed the original report in 2013.
29. The Coal Industry Act 1994 sets out the powers given to the Coal Authority by the Secretary of State. Within the Act there is no legal responsibility for the Coal Authority to search all available sources to update its records on a proactive basis. Therefore, it does not have a legal responsibility to obtain all OS maps, and search them for any features that may enable it to update its systems with new information in the way that Mrs H describes. What the Coal Authority does do is update its systems when it becomes aware of new information from its incident response work. The Coal Authority say it updates its systems in this way to be proportionate and use the limited resources it has most effectively.
30. The Coal Authority tells us that its mining report system uses the information in its records to produce reports. It only includes information that was part of the original record, unless there is a reason for the system to be updated, following a formal mine entry review.
31. A mine entry review is a different process to the one the Coal Authority follows when compiling a standard report, like the one Ms H requested, and would include a search of OS records as well as other information sources. This is why the mine entry review in 2019 identified the mineshaft, but the 2013 report request did not.
32. The Coal Authority can carry out a formal mine entry review for many reasons. The most common reasons are:
· A reported hazard in the area · A query on its data received from consultants/developers · A homeowner query following the purchase of a mining report · An internal query regarding a site from its Planning or Permits Departments · An application for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment in the area · A query from one of the Coal Authority’s third-party data licensees.
33. A homeowner or prospective buyer requesting a mining report is not an action that would trigger a formal mine entry review. Therefore, the fact that Mrs H requested a mining report would not mean the Coal Authority would include a search of all OS records to complete the report, in line with its process.
34. The following statement was included in Mrs H’s initial 2013 mining report. It is clear and transparent about the evidence referred to in compiling the report: ‘This report is based on and limited to the records held by the Coal Authority, and the […] Subsidence Compensation Board’s records, at the time we answer each search’.
35. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say public bodies should ‘spend public money with care and propriety’. Considering that it would not be cost effective or feasible, with its limited resources, to review all the different sources or plan to proactively check all mine entries, we can see the Coal Authority has acted in line with this Principle.
36. We note that if an individual seeks a more comprehensive review of any evidence relating to mines, than what exists in the Coal Authority’s files, it is open to them to explore other professional specialist avenues, including legal advice.
37. It appears likely that Mrs H misunderstood the limits of the Coal Authority’s role when she requested her 2013 report. As such, her expectations of what that report would and should cover were greater than what the Coal Authority could provide. This clearly led to disappointment for her later on, and we recognise the information she received from her neighbour must have been very worrying and upsetting.
38. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ also say that in their decision making, ‘public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation’. As the Coal Authority has no legal obligation to comprehensively review all the potential different sources or plans to proactively check all mine entries, we cannot be critical that it has not in this case. The evidence available indicates it has acted in line with its role, as set out in the relevant Act which gives it its powers.
39. We have considered not only the Coal Authority’s obligation set out in the Act but where ‘Our Principles of Good Administration’ say ‘When taking decisions, and particularly when imposing penalties, public bodies should behave reasonably and ensure that the measures taken are proportionate to the objectives pursued, appropriate in the circumstances and fair to the individuals concerned’.
40. The Coal Authority has appropriately explained why it would not be reasonable or proportionate for it to take any further action to review all the different sources, or plan to proactively check all mine entries and why it did not do this in Ms H’s case.
41. Therefore, based on the evidence available to us, we are unable to see any indications of a failing by the Coal Authority. As such, we will take no further action on this complaint.