 |
| www.motifake.com/ |
It almost doesn't matter whether
- Barnet Council lied to Mr Mustard or
- were simply uselessly ignorant of the facts or
- couldn't be bothered to find out as it's only that pesky blogger again or
- if management misdirected an employee or
- some other answer.
So let us start with the question. Mr Mustard (a former employee of the Inland Revenue) has been tracking down all the employees who think they can dodge PAYE and not surprisingly Barnet Council try to stymie the investigations at every stage. Mr Mustard was scenting blood when he asked this question, which was asked after other similar ones had failed, his ref #1197 (numbering started at 1000, not at zero)
Dear Sir or Madam
Please provide for all temporary employees of any kind ( interim / temporary / consultant / acting / service companies / any other description ) being paid at the rate of a senior employee ( i.e. annual rate of £58,200 and above or £4,850 a month ) the amount that was paid to Hays in respect of work done during November 2011 giving for each such person or service company:-
the name of the service company and the respective employee doing the work, or of the employee if they do not have a service company, and title of the post they are carrying out
the amount paid in each case
the number of days worked in November 11 in each case.
Yours sincerely
Mr Mustard
6 January 2012
Now the reason that Mr Mustard had to ask this question was because payments like those of £1,000 a day that were formerly being paid to Halliford Associates Ltd ( for Andrew Travers the Chief Finance Officer ) were, after 1 April 2011 being paid through Hays to try and get them covered by a legitimate contract, the Contract Procedure Rules presenting difficulties every time a new person was taken on who was allergic to PAYE. The answer to this question would have got them all out in the open.
Payments to Jacquie McGeachie HR Consulting Ltd of over £130,000 in 2010/11 were simply not on the published lists as Mr Reasonable established.
Now hear comes the main content of the non-answer with emphasis by Mr Mustard:
Payments to Jacquie McGeachie HR Consulting Ltd of over £130,000 in 2010/11 were simply not on the published lists as Mr Reasonable established.
Now hear comes the main content of the non-answer with emphasis by Mr Mustard:
Response
All payments to Hays for the services of temporary employees appear on the over £500 spend list. As you already know, the council has a contract with Hays whereby Hays supplies the council with temporary employees.
Information about the individuals employed, amount paid and hours worked is not held by the Council but by Hays. We are therefore unable to provide the information you are requesting as this is held by a third party – Hays.
Information about the individuals employed, amount paid and hours worked is not held by the Council but by Hays. We are therefore unable to provide the information you are requesting as this is held by a third party – Hays.
30 January 2012
The officer who answered was quite junior and Mr Mustard knows they get put upon by senior management and so he has withheld the name of the officer who replied. He did have to reply to them though to express his displeasure at the pathetic non-answer he had received as it beggared belief. Here is what he sent:
Dear Redacted
I note that you hold a relatively junior position and I think that you must have been instructed what to say in your email so please do not take this email personally.
You have not answered my request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act as you have not answered it at all.
You claim that the payments are listed on the over £500 spend list. The 616 individually listed amounts paid to Hays HR in November 2011 total £693,669. The names of the temporary employees are not provided nor the names of the service companies which many of the senior executives get paid through. Therefore it is impossible for me to answer my own question. Could I have done so I would not have asked it.
There is a general duty on you under the Freedom of Information Act to be helpful. You have not been.
As to the second part of your non-answer I am now most concerned about the financial management exercised by the council. The following six employees ( and possibly others ) are paid through a service company and/or Hays
| Julie Taylor | Assistant Chief Executive |
| Chris Palmer | Interim Assistant Director Communications |
| Bill Murphy | Assistant Director - Customer Services & Libraries |
| Andrew Travers | DCE & Chief Financial Officer |
| Jacquie McGeachie | Interim Assistant Director - Human Resources |
| Mick Stokes | Assistant Director Commercial Assurance |
It surely cannot be the case that Hays simply pays these individuals ( via their service company ) any amount that they ask for. I understand from a different FOI answer that each person submits an invoice to Hays in order to get paid. Hays then invoice the council.
There must be some sort of audit trail which enables the council to be sure that they are paying the correct amount to Hays otherwise there is nothing to stop one of these individuals making an innocent error and invoicing for 5 days in a particular week when they only worked 2 of them.
Please reflect on the response that you have given and decide if you wish to stick with it as it evidences a complete lack of financial control, or please now answer the question as asked.
This is not a request for a formal review. It is a request for my original questions to be answered in an applicant and purpose blind manner in accordance with the FOI legislation.
Yours sincerely
Mr Redacted ( aka Mr Mustard )
30 January 2012
It was only 10 days ago that Mr Mustard sent that difficult to answer email and so the council, especially the senior management, are still trying to put a plan together for extricating themselves from the quagmire and send a reply. Their predicament has just got worse. Look at this email exchange ( ref #1191 )
Dear Sir or Madam
The council use Chris Palmer as interim Assistant Director of Communications and he was originally supplied via Renouval Ltd although is now ( since 1 April 2011 I think ) paid via Hays.
Please tell me:
1 The first date of employment
2 The efforts made to fill the post in the 6 months prior to the answer to Q1 whether via recruitment agents, newspaper or specialist magazine advertisements, the council website or any other source whatsoever and tell me the cost of each method and supply copies of any printed advertisements.
3 Please provide a copy of the signed contract with Renouval (signatures redacted) which should have been in place since the answer to Q1
4 I note that the appointment was initially for 1 year. Please provide a copy of the written contract extension or new contract. How long is the new appointment for please?
5 I cannot find a DPR. Please provide a pdf of it or provide a link to the exact page on which it can be found.
6 How many other companies were invited to tender for the service?
7 Please explain how Hays know that they can pay a consultant such as Mr Palmer/Renouval Ltd and be confident that the council will accept their invoice as correct i.e. what I am asking to see is the paperwork trail that has to be in place to facilitate correct payment and please provide just one example from the last 6 months e.g. a timesheet that Mr Palmer/Renouval Ltd ( as the case may be ) has to get signed in order to be paid or whatever documentation provides an audit trail of time worked and ensures that the council pays the correct amount for services received.
Would it be too much to ask to have straight answers from a professional FOI officer please and not have the answer worked upon in any way by Mr Palmer himself? He cannot change the facts and I will look behind the presentation in any event. You may provide him with a copy of the answer.
Yours sincerely
Mr Mustard
29 December 2011
Now the eventual reply sadly didn't come from a professional FOI officer (although the acknowledgement did come from a Governance Officer, the one who is too shy to reveal their name), nor did it obviously come from the subject of the question Mr Chris Palmer but nearly as bad, it came from someone in his department who is junior to him and it was a most illuminating answer:
Dear Mr Mustard
Request for Information under FOIA
I am writing in respect of your recent enquiry for information held by Barnet Council under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
In response to your questions:
1 The first date of employment
As Head of Media, 5 May 2009. Contracted through Marina Perotta Associates. From 6 April 2010, in post as interim AD (Comms), following a service restructure. Contract to Renouval Ltd to supply services. It was felt that Mr Palmer was essentially fulfilling the role of AD (Comms) so it was appropriate to appoint him on an interim basis while the council goes through a restructure.
2 The efforts made to fill the post in the 6 months prior to the answer to Q1 whether via recruitment agents, newspaper or specialist magazine advertisements, the council website or any other source whatsoever and tell me the cost of each method and supply copies of any printed advertisements.
Given the specialist nature of the post the council spoke to several recruitment agencies and interviewed a range of candidates, eventually appointing Marina Perotta Associates to provide Chris Palmer to fulfil this role on an interim basis.
3 Please provide a copy of the signed contract with Renouval (signatures redacted) which should have been in place since the answer to Q1
Attached.
4 I note that the appointment was initially for 1 year. Please provide a copy of the written contract extension or new contract. How long is the new appointment for please?
The new contract is through Hays. This is an interim appointment for 12 months at a time with a one-month break period, depending on the council’s requirements.
5 I cannot find a DPR. Please provide a pdf of it or provide a link to the exact page on which it can be found.
Please find attached a DPR on the restructure of the Chief Executive’s Service from 19 May 2010 and the General Functions Committee paper from 19 November 2009.
6 How many other companies were invited to tender for the service?
In the first instance it was felt that Mr Palmer was fulfilling the role of AD (Comms) and would be a suitable interim appointment. This post is now filled through Hays Limited. I understand you have previously received a copy of the council’s contract with Hays Limited. Indeed; not seen it yet though.
7 Please explain how Hays know that they can pay a consultant such as Mr Palmer/Renouval Ltd and be confident that the council will accept their invoice as correct i.e. what I am asking to see is the paperwork trail that has to be in place to facilitate correct payment and please provide just one example from the last 6 months e.g. a timesheet that Mr Palmer/Renouval Ltd ( as the case may be ) has to get signed in order to be paid or whatever documentation provides an audit trail of time worked and ensures that the council pays the correct amount for services received.
Hays invoices are checked against the council’s SAP system before being signed off by the appropriate director.
We trust this satisfies your request.
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review within the next 20 working days by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email foi@barnet.gov.uk).
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745; website: www.ico.gov.uk).
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review within the next 20 working days by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email foi@barnet.gov.uk).
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745; website: www.ico.gov.uk).
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely
Johnathan Schroder
Internal Communications Manager
Internal Communications Manager
Chief Executive's Service
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7954
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7954
7 February 2012 ( somewhat late; an apology was not proffered )
Mr Mustard will come to the rest of the answers on another day but for now he picked up on the answer to point 7.
Dear Mr Schroder
Thank you for your email.
Your response to Q7 isn't providing any detail whatsoever. SAP is just a piece of software (albeit a large one).
What document or documents are the Hays invoices checked off against please?
Thank you for your email.
Your response to Q7 isn't providing any detail whatsoever. SAP is just a piece of software (albeit a large one).
What document or documents are the Hays invoices checked off against please?
Yours sincerely
Mr Mustard7 February 2012
Dear Mr Mustard
In relation to your last email, our administration system, SAP, contains a record of Chris Palmer’s presence at work, and electronic invoices submitted by Hays are checked against this record prior to being signed off.
Kind regards
John.
Johnathan Schroder Internal Communications Manager
Chief Executive's Service London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP Tel: 020 8359 7954
7 February 2012 ( that's more like it; clarification on the same day )
7 February 2012 ( that's more like it; clarification on the same day )
So there we have it; two completely different explanations. Mr Mustard is satisfied that the final explanation is the correct one as it is the only logical way of working. It does make the earlier answer look pretty sick. With a bit of luck someone with some sense in the upper echelons of Barnet Council will grab enquiry no #1197 and get the information out sharpish. Doubtless it will come with some tortuous wording that attempts to convince me that black is white.
The council would do well to get its house in order now and put every employee who should be paying PAYE, onto the payroll, so that when HM Revenue and Customs eventually got round to North London Business Park, which they will, the interest and penalties are not so steep.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.