Coal Authority failed to deal with mine shaft query

What happened

The Coal Authority told Mr J there was a mine shaft located on his property. Mr J told the Coal Authority it had got the position of the mine shaft wrong. The Coal Authority did not consider Mr J's information and took no action. Mr J tried to sell his house, and the Coal Authority provided the prospective buyer with a mining search report that indicated that there was a mine shaft on the property. The prospective buyer pulled out of the purchase. Mr J complained again, more than once, to the Coal Authority saying it had got the position of the mine shaft wrong. The Coal Authority looked at Mr J's information and decided the mine shaft was not located on Mr J's property. But the Coal Authority did not fully look into Mr J's complaint because it focused on its legal liabilities. The Coal Authority said that while it was now satisfied that the mine shaft was not located on Mr J's property, it was not liable for any additional costs Mr J had incurred.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. When Mr J challenged the location of the mine shaft the Coal Authority should have looked into it. It should also have flagged the data so it was not released in mining reports until the matter was resolved. The Coal Authority did neither of these things. That was maladministration.

The Coal Authority was not customer focused when it responded to Mr J's complaint. It did not identify the mistake it had made or consider the impact this had on Mr J.

We did not find those mistakes could be linked to what happened to Mr J's property sale. Mr J put his property on the market without receiving any indication from the Coal Authority that the recorded position of the mine shaft had been changed. We found the Coal Authority had caused Mr J frustration and inconvenience by not handling his complaint properly.

Putting it right

The Coal Authority apologised for failing to act on Mr J's original concerns and for failing to handle his subsequent complaint properly. It paid Mr J £150 in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused.

It also reminded relevant staff of the circumstances under which they should review data about a mine shaft location.