Barnet Alliance for Public Services wraparound

click to enlarge, back to return

You can browse the local Times paper on this link.

A blind date with Richard Cornelius.

No Plan B

So towards the end of the clip you will hear, if you can blot out the heckling, Richard Cornelius say that there isn't a plan B because there have been other plans considered and not adopted. 

The heckling does include one telling remark that in-house bids have not been considered which is incredible; to discount an option without even considering it. If nothing else leads to a Judicial Review of the One Barnet madness, that will.

 Blind Date

Do you remember this amusing show? A quick recap.

The show had a format similar to the show known in Australia as Perfect Match or in the US as The Dating Game. Three singles of the same sex were introduced to the audience. They were then questioned by a single of the opposite sex, who could hear but not see them, to choose with whom to go on a date. Before the decision 'Graham' (replaced on the final series by Tommy Sandhu), who was never seen, gave an amusing reminder of each contestant. The couple then picked an envelope naming their destination, although the "random choice" was fixed as all envelopes contained the same destination. The following episode showed the couple on their date, and interviews with them about the date and about each other. Locations ranged from Bognor Regis or a date in an ice cream factory to Anguilla or the Maldives.

If Richard were to appear, after he had heard the first two girls Amanda & April, say, (options A) he would choose one and not hear the third girl who sounded like the girl next door, Belina.

Where do you suppose the destination envelope will take us all with Richard? It isn't going to be an office block in New Southgate, Mr Mustard's money is on an outsourcing centre in Bangalore. Exotic and apparently cheaper but dearer in the long run.

His blind date Miss April, exotic and alluring during the courtship, now refuses to do certain acts as they weren't agreed during the show, and keeps asking for more and more money to keep their relationship on track. The relationship ends in bitter recriminations and an expensive divorce.

Richard returns, batter and bruised by his blind date experience, to the girl next door and all live happily ever after.

Cue audience applause.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Flawed Council Tax Consultation

Changes are afoot in Council Tax support which have been driven down to local level by the government along with a 10% funding cut. Speaking purely as a debt collector it is a stupid policy to try and get people on low incomes to give some of it to the council when they are struggling to feed themselves.

Barnet Council are consulting, in so far as they consult about anything, and they have done it in a biased way. They have produced options where cuts could be made and of course most people will blindly follow the suggestions. You need to throw the consultation questions in the bin and start with a clean sheet. Mr Mustard has written and a few days still remain for you to do the same. Feel free to borrow any of Mr Mustard's points that you agree with.

The Guardian seem to agree with Mr Mustard. It is not a good idea to try and get poor people to pay small amounts of money. It just isn't practical.

Send your thinking here.

---

Dear Sirs

I have read your consultation document of 24 October 2012 which I believe to be flawed.

It is predicated on the assumption that the desired budget savings all have to come from reducing the amount paid out to claimants. This is not the case. There are two other options.

1. You could maintain CTS at its current levels and increase Council Tax. That is after all the point of Council Tax. We all pay in so that a safety net is provided to those, who for whatever reason, need the help of society to have the necessities of life.

2. You could cut other items of spending such as on Consultants.

2a. You could become more efficient. I now hold an email in which a council officer says they are prepared to "pay any price" for a certain service to be provided. That bespeaks of wanton waste in council offices.

In so far as your features are concerned I comment as follows, using your numbering.

Feature 1. Removing exemptions and discounts for empty properties and second homes, and charging a premium on properties left empty for 2 years+.

An empty property makes very little call upon the services of the council and so for it to have a discount is entirely reasonable so I am not in favour of this being taken away. Occupiers of second homes call upon the services of two authorities at different times and a discount of 10% is quite low compared to the average 50% decrease in demand from such occupiers so I am not in favour of any change here. I recall that you sent me a survey form in respect of empty properties. I did have a property empty for 3 years as it took me two years to get the council to agree the slope on the rear roof (you have no policy about elegant mansard roofs and are content to led hideous looking dormers spring up all over the borough) and then another year to completely rebuild the house. During that time I was occupying and paying Council Tax at the adjacent property and I am sure that similar situations occur and that there is a good reason for long-term empty properties to remain empty. If you published the results of that survey I would be pleased to be sent a link to them. I am not in favour of any chance here either. I would prefer the focus to be encouraging people with a carrot to bring properties back into use not to hit them with a financial disincentive (the stick).

Feature 2: Working age claimants will be required to pay a minimum contribution to their Council Tax.

This is the most ridiculous idea. The examples in Appendix C show that a person on Jobseeker's allowance might have to pay some council tax because they happen to be of working age. Council Tax Support is about your financial needs not about how old you are. I am absolutely against this feature not just because it isn't very logical but also because the administrative cost of collecting small amounts will be so high compared to the sums involved. The system should be based upon financial need.

Feature 3: Removal of the second adult rebate for working age claimants.

Some worked examples of this would have been helpful. It sounds unfair to change this.

Feature 4: Reducing capital limits.

I note that people going into care homes are allowed to retain up to £23,250 and therefore a reduction in respect capital savings of a different type of societal support from £16,000 to £8,000 is a move in the wrong direction.

Feature 5: Limiting the level of support for higher banded properties to D or E.

Somebody who used to be quite well off and has fallen on hard times will try and hang on to a home that might have been theirs for decades. They happen to need support which might only be for a few months to a year. They will also have other bills which are greater for light and heat as the property is large and so all you will do with this proposal is run up unpaid Council tax debt. If the person has a low income then they won't be able to afford to pay Council tax whatever size house they are in. I am against this proposal.

Feature 6: A simpler system of non-dependant deductions.

I am all in favour of simplification. I have looked at Appendix D. I am not in favour of making adults in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance (not "Job Seekers Allowance" as it appears in the consultation document) pay more, or those who are working less than 16 hours per week, or those on maternity, paternity or sick leave.

Summary.

In summary therefore I am against all of your options as I think you have started from completely wrong financial and moral standpoints and are running a flawed consultation.

Note: page 3 of the consultation document contains an email address to write to of CouncilTaxSupport@barnet.gov.uk from which my response was rejected.

This is the correct email address.

---

Also of concern is that people whose benefit will be cut will only know this in March, when their Council Tax bills come out for April.

That does not give people much time to find an extra £5 a week (or whatever) from the limited income that they must only have in order to qualify for council tax benefit.

Update: Here is what our own Lord, Lord Monroe Palmer had to say on the subject in the House of Lords (Monroe makes, as usual, perfect sense)

My Lords, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, say in debate on the previous amendment that we must stand up for poor people. That is what I, in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, ask noble Lords to do today. I hope that noble Lords from all sides of the House will do that.

Like other noble Lords, I welcome the £100 million. It is good, but it is transitional. It is good for this year, but it is not the solution for the future.

Points were made about the collection of small sums from people who could least afford it. Comparisons were made with the suggestion that a single-person discount should be varied if the local authority concerned wished to do so. Perhaps noble Lords should look at the simple arithmetic. Let us say that someone who is paying council tax lives in an authority where the council tax is £1,000 per annum. I will keep the figures simple. With a 25% discount, the single person will have a bill for only £750. If the local authority changed the 25% to 20%, instead of having a bill for £750, the council tax payer would have a bill for £800.

If their house was more valuable and highly rated, for example at £2,000, the council tax payer who got a 25% discount would pay £1,500. Under the 20% solution of the noble Lord, Lord Best, they would pay £1,600. One does not have to break one's brain to see that they would accept this. They would probably not even look at the calculation. They would see that on a bill of £1,000 they were paying £750 and now have a bill for £800. Perhaps they would realise that they had a bill for an extra £50. However, they are used to paying council tax, which does not normally stay the same every year. On £2,000 the bill would be £1,600 rather than £1,500.

This is money that local authorities such as my own, Barnet, would find pretty easy to collect. They collect it from those who are used to paying council tax. They may not like council tax-who likes it?-but they know that they have to pay it. Let us compare that with people who have not paid council tax. My noble friend Lord Jenkin said the situation was rather like that of the old community charge and poll tax. These people will suddenly get a bill because they will not get the whole of their discount. The bill could be £1 or £5 per week. How difficult will it be for any local authority to collect the small sums-and how will that be, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, standing up for poor people if those poor people have to pay that sum of money in what is already a hard society at the moment?

We have yet to hear from noble Lords on the Labour Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Best, suggested that they were against this change. My noble friend Lord Tope said that it would be inexplicable if they were. I try to see why they might have that attitude-if indeed they do. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has changed his mind. If they do have that attitude, I ask why. The only solution I came up with-perhaps it is cynical-is that they want it to fail, and poor people to suffer. I cannot believe there should be a political motive to make people suffer to make a political point when the aim of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is to protect poor people. I support the amendment.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

....we are willing to pay any price....

http://hiddlesquotes.tumblr.com/

Executive summary:

It is impossible to get some people to follow the rules at Barnet Council, it is the law of the jungle when it comes to procurement. Senior management have failed.

Some background:

The council paid over £1m to an unlicensed security guard company (MetPro - ooh not typed that name for a while - a stink takes a long time to disperse) without a contract being in existence.

This led to the production of a Procurement Action Plan (Mr Mustard christened it PAP and pap it certainly is) which Nick Walkley presented to the Audit Committee on 16 June 2012.

Before he did so Mr Reasonable was able to speak for 5 minutes and one thing he said was "the management culture is flawed".

The soon to be ex CEO Nick Walkley said he was concerned that departments knew and did nothing (has anything changed since?).

The now mayor, Brian Schama, said that the council cannot rely on systems that compliance is done.

Andrew Travers said that he accepted that core processes are fundamental. He is the line manager of all contracts. He takes full responsibility for sorting it out. The action plan is to be implemented by September 11.

Mr Mustard sees from his 12 pages of longhand notes that later on in the meeting Nick Walkley said "have to change the culture" (you didn't manage it Nick and now you are on your bike) and he also spoke about "finishing what we started" (oops, One Barnet not finished).

Cllr Geoff Cooke said "we have to make the officers buy in".

Cllr (Lord) Monroe Palmer said "people too busy not doing their job".

The 6 September Audit Committee saw the arrival of Mick Stokes (he's already history) to present an update on the PAP and the traffic lights were all blue (closed) or green (on target). No blogger, who was present, thought the plan was satisfactory (whitewashed in blue & green is an unusual combo). The plan included the embedding of Contract Procedure Rules in information systems and monitoring routines. Instructions were issued to all relevant staff by email on 20 July 11 regarding new procedures and controls which will also be included within staff training.

At this meeting Mick Stokes told the committee that potential cavalier spend is restricted and constrained (did he leave because he found it wasn't?).

Monroe Palmer (he is so good, he really should be listened to more) said he "doesn't want to be bitten again" (by poor procurement controls).

On 26 October 2011 Mr Mustard put the cat amongst the pigeons by sending the following email to Pam Wharfe, the interim director of parking and other stuff.

---

Dear Ms Wharfe

Part 4 of the council's procedure rules says that for a contract with a value of £75,000 to £156,442

Request three(3) or more written competitive quotations but must have minimum 2 returned. Less than 2 bids returned then repeat competition.

Please can you tell me why you have signed DPR 1419 in breach of that very clear rule.

The Procurement Code of Practice says that a supplier should not get more than 25% of its business from the Council. What percentage of the turnover of R M Countryside Services Ltd emanates from Barnet Council?

---

On 9 November he wrote again

I note that the council has a 10 day target for replying to correspondence. I hoped that having raised such an important point, especially after the Procurement Action Plan was presented to the Audit Committee, that a reply would already have been received to my below email. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

---

On 28 November, failing a response, he turned his enquiry into a complaint. 

This caused a reaction and he got a reply the next day, part of which was

I have reviewed the issues you have raised about this contract. I have thought carefully about the withdrawn tenders and I am content that officers still achieved value for money by using the term contractor who did competively (sic) bid for the work. My overriding duty is to secure value for money and the best available option for the council (5-1) and I think that officers had reasonably sought a good price for the work using a competitive process.

On 5 December Mr Mustard wrote again (why do the council think they can fob Mr Mustard off, he just keeps on going?)

---

Dear Ms Wharfe

You have repeated the supposed value for money for your actions which I have already discredited. You are in breach of the Constitution. This is what the council website says about the Constitution ( which includes the Contract Procedure Rules ).

"This Constitution sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that these are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people"

You are bound by the Constitution as otherwise there would be little point in its existence. On what grounds are you ignoring the rules and continuing with a contract that has not been lawfully made?

---

and the highly unsatisfactory response was:

I have nothing more to add.

Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration

You might be adding something later!

The final piece of background is the report of the Task & Finish Group on contract monitoring. It was presented to the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 29 February 2012. Mr Mustard was in the public gallery.

Monroe (Mr Mustard is a big fan of Lord Palmer) agreed that more robust monitoring was needed. He also said that "people who place the orders disregard the rules" (proof to follow Monroe) and "officers simply do what they think is right" (even when it is wrong). He asked if the service areas were buying in? Monroe was worried about "people doing what they want" (bang on again).

The smoking gun

Mr Mustard asked on 27 April 2012 to see emails about the use of RM Countryside. He got his answer on 10 October 2012 (the longest 20 days ever). There were over 30 pages of emails. Mr Mustard showed you one yesterday and there are 3 more today. The other pages, not released by Mr Mustard, simply show in general the topsy turvy way in which goods are purchased in Pam Wharfe's directorate.

emails about paying any price for parking meter removal

Well look at that.

"Haven't heard back but we are willing to pay any price to have one or both of them start removing ASAP!"

Any price! Any at all, just choose a number and the council will pay it. That is Mr Mustard's money you are spending Barnet Council. If it is going to be wasted Mr Mustard can do it himself.

You can see some people trying to follow the rules. The Highways Manager knows that Pam Wharfe has asked Audit for advice. He also knew that Declan (his boss, the Assistant Director of Highways & Transport (a no. 2 to Pam Wharfe) was reviewing the RM FOI question. Now that was Mr Mustard's question and he should simply receive factual answers and not have his questions subjected to review meetings where risk is minimised.

The interim Parking Maintenance Manager knew that RM were up to their limit. They did not have a contract and had been given a purchase order for £30,000 both of which were rule breaches but at least he knew he had already gone far enough.

Other quotes were being sought but they were for more money. The net should have been cast wider.

The problem is that Cllr Brian Coleman, at that time the Cabinet Member with irresponsibility for parking, simply wanted meters gone and was asking for RM Countryside to be used. Mr Mustard does not have any proof that Brian was told that they were over the spend level for RM (you can form your own conclusion on that point).

How could Pam Wharfe have written to Mr Mustard that she was content that her officers obtained value for money when they were prepared to pay any price? any price!

Yours frugally (unlike the council)

Mr Mustard

Rules - what rules?

Somehow, Mr Mustard has never been here.

Barnet Council have not been to this restaurant either because they don't know about Rules.

There is a little known rule at Barnet Council that no supplier should be more than 25% of the turnover of any supplier so that, as the current Mayor Brian Schama remarked at a meeting which was receiving the report of the procurement task & finish group (or some other ruddy meeting), no supplier becomes dependent upon the council for its survival (the mayor used to be a big time Director so understands about supplier dependency; now he plants trees and cuts ribbons).

Look at this oh so wrong email

It is pointless redacting information already given to me by the council

So we have an interim parking manager, not even a permanent member of staff, fretting about the staff of a supplier. Well Mr Dolan what you should really have been worrying about was the interests of council tax payers and whether or not you were breaching council procedures on procurement rather than RM Countryside. Why were they put first?

We can't ask Mr Dolan if anyone ever told him what the procurement rules were as he only stayed from August 2010 to May 2012 (far too short a time for anyone to do a proper induction) and is now to be found at Peterborough City Council where he is the Interim Parking Manager (will any of these interims ever get a proper job?).

Talking of interim parking managers look at this lovely reference for Mick:

 

“Michael was taken on to plug a short term gap but has proved so useful that we have not only extended his contract but broadened the scope of his role to harness his experience. He is keeping a raft of projects moving along, seeking advice as necessary and reporting back clearly and concisely at key stages. I have no hesitation in recommending his work, and am happy to elaborate where necessary” June 4, 2011

John M., Interim Parking Manager, London Borough of Barnet

Who could John M be? Yes, you guessed it, our old friend John McArdle who used to work for NCP before he came to Barnet Council and is now to be found working as a consultant at NSL Ltd whose name used to be NCP Services Ltd.

Where did Mick work from April to July 06 as a Divisional Director - yes, you guessed it, NCP Services Ltd.

I do hope that he didn't have anything to do with the award of the parking contract to NSL Ltd as this would just be too much of a co-incidence.

Did any other supplier have any realistic chance of getting the contract? Would they have done a worse job? Judging from what Mr Mustard has seen so far, no.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

New short film in Barnet - 28m well spent

Stolen from Mrs Angry as Mr Mustard was out helping get rid of a sofa for a talented but poor young musician and putting together another one they had been gifted (now they have one of Mr Mustard's and one of his co-directors) and didn't have time to write his own intro.

Just a reminder that in a week's time the premiere showing of the second Barnet film, 'Barnet - the £1Billion Gamble' will be taking place at the Phoenix cinema, East Finchley, at 6pm. (More interesting Barnet synchronicity there, of course, with our occupied library having been reclaimed for the community by a community squatter named ... Phoenix' ...) Be warned: there is a risk that not all of Mrs Angry's rambling contribution was thrown on the cutting room floor where it no doubt deserves to be. (and Mr Mustard will be doing his worst to camera once again)

The film's producers have issued the following press release:

Press Release - Monday 15th October 2012

 

On Monday 22nd October at 6pm, the world premiere of a new film, 'Barnet - The Billion Pound Gamble' will be shown at the iconic Phoenix Cinema in East Finchley. The film has been made by acclaimed US film director Charles Honderick and exposes the chaos being wrought by the policies of Barnet Council.

 

Local residents are interviewed and explain just how difficult life has become.

 

A family with a child suffering severe disability tells how no appropriate accomodation has been provided for eleven years.

 

Users of day centres explain how cuts to transport have affected them and how they get charged £1.20 for a cup of nescafe.

 

Local traders tell the tale of how the parking policies have forced them to the brink.

 

Award winning film director Ken Loach explains how outsourcing destroys local economies. A host of experts explain how the One Barnet programme is doomed to failure, it is a Billion Pound Gamble, where private companies will pick up fat cheques, local residents will get shoddy services and local taxpayers will be left to pick up the bill.

 

The film also features shocking scenes filmed inside the Town Hall as uncaring local councillors dismiss the concerns of residents and laugh as important decisions, which will cause misery for thousands, are passed without proper debate.

 

The official trailer for the film has been released today and can be viewed on the film website

- http://www.billionpoundgamble.co.uk

NSL - Not a Satisfactory Letter

click to enlarge, back to return

Do you suppose that councillors jump for joy when they get one of Mr Mustard's regular emails because then, at least, they find out what is going on, and going wrong, in their own authority. It would please Mr Mustard if he knew that some of them had got there before him but he never gets an email back saying thank you and that the matter is already in hand. Hey ho.

On Friday Mr Mustard sent councillors something to think about over the weekend. He writes to all 63 councillors so that they are equally informed although it is only the "select" bunch in the Cabinet who have any real power and the senior officers and faceless consultants are the real power behind the throne (sorry if you are now picturing the cabinet sat on the toilet, as the throne is otherwise known) and keep councillors well supplied with paper. If you haven't ever been to Committee Room 4, here is a picture of it, fortunately not in use.

Committee Room 4

Will meetings of the Cabinet ever be the same again in your mind's eye?

Anyway, having digressed, here is Mr Mustard's missive.

---

Dear Cllr Cornelius and team

Out-sourcing = Drop in service standard

You are the public face of Barnet Council. You are responsible for policy and for ensuring that officers carry out your chosen One Barnet policies. Officers have suggested that the council out-source parking enforcement to NSL; the cabinet voted on it and agreed. Look at the attached actual letter (in two formats, scans 44 & 45) written by an NSL employee in Croydon (Barnet parking back office staff were all dispensed with by NSL in May 2012 and Worthing only do the scanning) and tell me if you are happy with how this portrays Barnet Council because I certainly am not; the letter is comprised of hideous nonsense. The letter was not addressed to me, let us pretend it is to Bill Smith.

This letter was issued in response to a second stage appeal, the formal representation stage, following the issue of a parking ticket (PCN) for parking across a dropped kerb which was only one kerb stone wide and hard to see.

I have redacted the name but the address was headed with Mr BILL SMITH. The whole of the name & address was in capitals except for the abbreviation "Mr"; why? Call me old fashioned but I find it overly familiar to put the person's first name in the address, or indeed at all from a public servant to a member of the public, I think it is more proper to write to Mr B Smith.

Then the salutation was "Dear Mr BILL SMITH" (capitals are the equivalent of shouting) and in addition I think that this should be "Dear Mr Smith".

The date of issue shows a date and a time to the milli-second not just a date. The merge field needs to be properly formatted.

Now to the actual content. I have added numbers for ease of reference to each sentence.

1.    The word "the" is missing from in front of Notice. It would be simpler to write "Thank you for your letter of xx/08/2012."

2.    The main snag is that the location of the "special enforcement area" is not specified. Do you know what parts of the borough are a "special enforcement area"? Did you know that you can't park across a dropped kerb in a special enforcement area and no road markings are technically required although they are desirable. The crossover concerned was not marked with any lines on the road. To answer the question I posed to you: the whole of the borough is a "special enforcement area". If you didn't know that are you happy to penalise motorists who break this rule or do you perhaps think that yellow lines should go across all crossovers?

3.    What absolute garbage. Have you ever parked "a special enforcement" whether on a carriageway (one word not two) or anywhere else. Attempting to summarise S86 of the Traffic Management Act is a tall order (it is attached).

4.    True, he/she took a photograph so why not mention the actual evidence, viz "The photograph taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer at the time shows your car parked across a crossover which is a parking contravention."

5.    So this sentence effectively says "By parking the vehicle in Barnet...". The pathway was not blocked. One partially lowered kerbstone was parked across. I am not sure that it can be "inaccessible" to cross something, only to enter it. Footpath is one word not two.

6.    What would it be inaccessible to enter or leave? presumably the footpath.

7.    So the whole of Barnet "(the special enforcement area) has been lowered to meet the carriageway"... "to assist vehicles entering or leaving". Entering or leaving what?, I hear you ask. There are bollards at this location to stop cars driving along the wide cycle path to Glenthorne Rd.

8.    "By parking in this area" which refers to the special enforcement area i.e. Barnet, "a contravention has occurred". Not exactly clear.

9.    This will be the subject of another email very soon when I have an authority letter from the motorist. There is a litany of errors with the processing.

10.    I would add the words "and is" after the £110. Nice to see it without the .00 pennies for a change.

11.    Oh dear this is too vague and wrong. A penalty charge is not a "fine" and the amount of £165 should be mentioned as the amount of the next stage penalty.

Not a resounding justification of the outsourcing decision I would suggest.

Less money? Yes.

Better service? Most definitely not.

Have a nice weekend.

---

The people who write letters rejecting parking ticket appeals are called Notice Processing Officers and an NSL job advertisement that Mr Mustard found from 2010 disclosed a salary of £16,167 p.a. and it probably hasn't increased much since. When the task was carried out by Barnet Council the post was called Information Officer, somewhat of a misleading job title Mr Mustard always thought, Appeals Clerk would have been much better but the in-house days are gone, at least until they come back. Information Officers, there were 16 of them, were paid on the SCP 24-27 scale, which is from £22,608 to £24,711 and Mr Mustard would suggest that given the complexity of parking law, that was not an unreasonable amount to pay. The salary mid-point is £23,660

NSL are given 50% of any cost savings that they make. They got rid of all 16 Information Officers when they took over and moved the jobs to Croydon and employed new cheaper people. Thus they get a bonus of 

16 * (23660 - 16167 ) *50% = £59,944 each year for 5 years, or £300,000 of our money.

What do we get. Cr*p letters. This is what One Barnet is all about, grubby money-saving by slashing staff wages and not caring about the consequent service level.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

p.s. If you have had a worse letter than the one above please send it to mrmustard@zoho.com