Hazy Payments

a Hays (geddit!)

Mr Mustard is looking forward to his Xmas gift from Paul Hughes, the external auditor, as he has just submitted his fifth Notice of Objection and that is going to lead to even more audit fees as this is extra work which was not included within the scope of the fixed external audit fee. Mr Mustard is conscious that it is your money (and a tiddly bit of his own) that he is causing to be spent so if all of his objections are found to be baseless (surely not because they are all serious and significant matters) then he will rein himself in next year.

Here is the covering email:

29 July 13

Dear Mr Hughes

I fell over some information at the weekend that I had been searching for. That has enabled me to send you what was going to be my original objection and which relates to the cavalier way in which any old supplier has been paid as if they were a supplying agency with a contract with Hays to supply staff when they weren't. Thus there is no proper contractual basis on which Hays were paid for supplies by unauthorised suppliers. This will be a large sum of money that has been unlawfully paid out.

I attach my Notice of Objection and two lists of supplying agencies provided to me under Freedom of Information by Haringey Council who set up the contract with Hays to which Barnet Council were joined and by which terms they are bound. Prior to asking Haringey Council I asked Barnet Council for a list of suppliers under the Hays contract and they didn't have one. How any manager could sign off an invoice without that basic information is an example of shocking mismanagement.

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

and here is the text of the objection:


29 July 2013



Mr P Hughes
Grant Thornton
Melton St
London
NW1 2EP


Dear Mr Hughes

The London Borough of Barnet
Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2013
Fifth Notice of Objection

1 Failure to properly apply PAYE to an office holder

Payments for the interim provision of Mr Andrew Travers to act as S151 officer and Deputy Chief Executive were £82,000 through his service company Halliford Associates Ltd and Hays and to a lesser extent Comensura for the period from 1 April to 3 December 12.

I refer to these notes on the HM Revenue and Customs website

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/esmmanual/esm2502.htm

It is quite clear that Mr Travers held an office, the statutory office of S151 officer and therefore his emoluments should have been subjected to PAYE and could only have been paid directly to himself. The Accounts include payments to Hays and Comensura (for onward payment to Halliford and then for distribution by Halliford as the shareholders of that company saw fit) which are therefore unlawful and should be reclaimed from Hays and Comensura and repaid to Mr Travers directly after the application of the PAYE regulations.

2 Multiple payments to Hays which are not covered by the contract

From when the practice started, in about March 2009 of employing interim managers through service companies (although "interim" could be 2 years or more) payments were made and shown, in some cases, on the over £500 spending lists. For some reason, possibly the interest shown by bloggers, from April 11 these payments were then routed through Hays as that anonymised the payments on the over £500 lists. Whatever the reason there would need to be a contractual basis for the payments. Had the individuals been paid under PAYE as Hays's own temps there would not have been a problem. As there were service companies acting as the supplier of the individual in many cases then these service companies would need to be supplying agencies of HAYS and that is what has been overlooked by the council. Quite simply Halliford Associates Ltd was not a supplying agency of Hays and as far as I can see never became one. You'll need to check the Comensura contract, which started on 1 October 12 when the Hays one ceased, to see if that has the requisite service companies as properly authorised suppliers.

I attach the lists of supplying agencies who have contracted with Hays to supply staff as at March 2008 and 29 March 2012. Given the impending contract end date with Hays of 30 September 12 there is no reason to suppose that the service companies suddenly all signed contracts with Hays to supply staff after 29 March 12.

What this means is that payments to Hays in respect of the following list of service companies in 2012/13 were unlawful as no contract existed and the same was the case in 2011/12.

The below is not an exhaustive list, and may contain some service companies which had ceased to supply, but that is a question that can only be answered by reference to records that are not available to me as a member of the public although they will be relevant to 2011/12.

Halliford Associates Ltd
Jacquie McGeachie HR Consulting Ltd
CCMPS Ltd
Renouval Ltd
Murphy's Solutions Ltd
Chas Dowden Solutions Ltd
Advance HR Consulting Ltd
Advantage Ltd
Lesley Meeks Associates Ltd
ANZ UK Teachers Ltd
Classroom Ltd
GJR Associates Ltd
Judd Farris Ltd
Keith Baxter Ltd
Prospects Staff Bureau Ltd
Huxley Associates / Sthree Staffing Uk / Sthree UK

Please request a public interest notice under s8, The Audit Commission Act 1998. A copy of this Notice of Objection has been sent to Mr C Naylor and to Cllr Monroe Palmer, Baron Palmer of Child's Hill, OBE, FCA. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely


Mr Mustard

Now we simply have to sit back whilst the bean-counters at Barnet Council, the legal department probably, the external auditor himself, the Chief Operating Officer who is on holiday (sorry, this wasn't deliberate but you shouldn't assume Mr COO that the council won't get any serious objections - this isn't sleepy Barking & Dagenham you know)  and the Chair of the Audit Committee, Monroe Palmer, who is a senior and highly experienced chartered accountant who knows how many beans make five (tell me next time we meet Monroe, it won't be five will it?) work out a plan of action and then execute it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Lower Tax Bill

picture credit: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/

The question is "Is the new Interim Assistant Director of Customer Services" paying PAYE like any other employee would?"

Roll back to May 10

East Sussex County Council

That was when Bill joined ESCC as Interim Director of Governance and Community Services and he stayed there until July 2011. Mr Mustard looked on the over £500 lists published by ESCC, they give slightly more detail as to the category of spending but less in that there isn't a payment date. All Mr Mustard could find in those 15 months was a payment under ref 45005338095 of £780 which either slipped through the net or was some sort of expense claim. It is very odd that payments to Jacquie McGeachie at Barnet Council also failed to appear on spending lists ( as Mr Reasonable found out ). This sort of expenditure seems to just fall off lists; it's not as if councils are trying to hide anything, is it?

If we look at the published accounts of ESCC for the year ended 2010/11 we find reference to Bill's post and that £125,119 was paid in that year and that Bill was "engaged via an agency". ESCC coyly didn't say which agency.

It is apparent that the payments ended up with Murphy's Solutions Ltd, in which Bill Murphy holds 100% of the shares, as the company was only formed in April 2010 and so the figures on the balance sheet are unlikely to relate to any other source of income.

Murphy's Solutions Ltd Accounts to April 11

Now to Barnet Council

Mr Mustard has been making various enquiries under FOI. One of these was as to who was paid on the payroll and who via Hays. Bill Murphy is paid by Hays. Non PAYE staff, like the £1,000 a day Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Travers, are no longer paid directly to their service company, in his case Halliford Associates Ltd but via Hays. This makes the payments harder to follow. Bill Murphy is paid by Hays and so they are probably paying Murphy's Solutions Ltd (although Hays are not automatically subject to FOI so Mr Mustard can't easuily find out).

Conclusion

Bill used to be what Eric Pickles MP would call a "Town Hall Tax Dodger" and he probably still is, at least until 1 April 2012 when Barnet Council are likely to change their arrangements once again.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Here Today Gone Tomorrow - AD of Commercial Assurance

Nothing but trouble ( in procurement? )

Now if we go back to Walkley's warblings of August 2011 Mr Mustard blogged the following:

Welcome this week to Mick Stokes who joins us as the Assistant Director of Commercial Assurance.  Mick has specific responsibility for corporate procurement and I’m sure you all know how critical this role is at this time. Welcome Mr Stokes the fastest joiner into the blog ever. You are either very good & very brave or you are mad to try and sort out procurement in Barnet Council - it is a disaster, the biggest poisoned chalice imaginable and you need to watch out for the ceremonial sword if things don't go well. Hopefully that also means we have one less consultant ( Chris Malyon - CCMPS Ltd ) but he probably got a sideways transfer onto a One Barnet project - lots of jobs for One Barnet old boys.

OK Mr Mustard was wrong. Mr Malyon has gone back to Eastleigh (why does Barnet Council insist on using people from so far out of town. Mr Malyon wasn't paying PAYE so could, when he was here, claim his travel and/or accommodation costs against his tax bill but that little ruse is fast becoming unpopular with government and the people - it always was with the bloggers.) having used Barnet as the filling in a Capita / Serco sandwich.

It looks to Mr Mustard like things didn't go well in procurement for Mick.

The rumours are Mick that you were brought in as you worked with Andrew Travers at the LDA. Now that might just be co-incidence but as there are now a number of other ex LDA staff in procurement at Barnet the coincidence might soon stretch a bit thin. Mr Mustard knows of three but if you, dear reader, know of any, do please send an email in confidence from a private email address to mrmustard@zoho.com

The LDA is being closed so their staff have to go somewhere. No need for you all to head to Barnet now is there?


It looks like Mick caught that nasty allergy to PAYE that has been going around. Mr Stokes is a Director of JDA Procurement Consultancy Ltd which was only incorporated on 7 June 2011 ( company number 07660750 ) and is registered in Loughton which, for once, isn't a million miles from Barnet. The word is that £600 a day was paid to Hays HR. Mr Mustard also hears that you have gone off to help with the Olympics; you should enter for the sprint, the speed you high-tailed it out of Barnet you are bound to get gold.

How is the contract situation now in Barnet Mick? Did you get everything under contract before you left? No, Mr Mustard thought not. Will it get better now? Absolutely not. Here is a Q&A from the last full meeting of Council on 24 January 2012


Question 15 Councillor Alan Schneiderman
What is the latest update on the percentage of contracts that are / are not in place for all Council suppliers
 

Answer by Councillor Daniel Thomas
Of the suppliers on the Corporate Register, 89% have a contract.

 

Only contracts above £25,000 have to go on the register. Sadly the question as to what percentage of eligible suppliers were on the contract register was not asked but we still have 11% non compliance some 9 months after the problem came to light. A glacial rate of progress.

We will have to wait and see what happens next.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

PAYE - an open letter to Nick Walkley

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:38 AM
To: 'Walkley, Nick' ( he was out-of-office at that time )
Cc: 'Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative'
Subject: My idea #6 - PAYE




Dear Mr Walkley

This is an open letter from Mr Mustard.

The wheeze of paying staff as if they are self-employed consultants is starting to look like a very bad idea following the Ed Lester (Student Loans Company) furore and Barnet Council are probably going to figure quite highly in the newspapers because heavy use has been made of this artificial device.

I have been asking FOI questions about the tax status of various "employees" and will keep on doing so until the whole story is out. I am sure that lots of other people (and I don't just mean the famous five Barnet bloggers) will be asking lots of similar questions and the performance of the over-stretched and under-resourced FOI section is going to suffer.

You might like to consider the wisdom of getting this sorry saga over and done with, and save the FOI section having to answer multiple similar questions, if you were to come out and say that the practice has now been stopped in Barnet. You should publish a list of the people who have had their tax status reviewed giving their name, title, old consultancy rate and new salary (I am sure they are all on more than £58,200 p.a. so count as senior employees whose salary details fall due for disclosure)

Yours sincerely

p.p. Mr Mustard

Three cheers for Uncle Eric ( The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP )

The famous five Barnet bloggers are, despite their different political views, fans of Uncle Eric since he nailed his colours to the openness and transparency mast.

Photo credit : Martin Argles of www.Guardian.co.uk

The dubious tax treatment of local council employees had been the subject of countless blog posts. Then David Hencke turned up the Ed Lester, Student Loans Company situation and the hare was running. David Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury extended the scope of a review for top civil servants and now Eric Pickles has stepped in and ordered a review at local authorities. Barnet Council executive suite must be an interesting place today. 

Eric Pickles: 

New local pay guidance to help tackle tax avoidance
Published 16 February 2012

Government rules to open up Town Hall pay practices and senior salaries to public scrutiny now include measures to root out any inappropriate tax avoidance arrangements, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles announced today.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander has set out the Government's commitment to tackling all forms of tax avoidance. As local government is also paid from the public purse Mr Pickles has issued new statutory guidance that addresses the matter.

The Localism Act requires councils to publish and be accountable for their pay policies, helping to ensure that local remuneration arrangements - particularly for chief officers - provide value for money for the whole of the public sector.

The Government's associated guidance on Openness and Accountability in Local Pay published today now states that authorities should review the terms of senior appointments, particularly where arrangements could be perceived as seeking to minimise tax payments.

It specifically states that councils should vote on salary packages for employees greater than £100,000 a year. Councils should also publicly justify any big bonuses, above inflation pay rises, or the recruitment of staff already in receipt of public sector retirement or severance money.

Elected councillors have until the end of next month to approve pay policy statements that should include explicit local policies on all the above practices and whether or not they intend to permit any of these sorts of arrangements.

At a time when the public are worried about the cost of living and all parts of the public sector should be making savings, this action will give taxpayers the clearest evidence possible that value for money has been considered in pay policies.

Eric Pickles said:

"Opening up the pay deals of top Town Hall jobs to public scrutiny will mean taxpayers know with certainty their interests are being protected.

"Local people have a right to know whether any Town Halls allow tax arrangements that could short change the public purse; whether bumper bonuses are being awarded to poorly performing workers; or whether pay is being hiked up for execs who've boomeranged from post to post.

"The door to council pay practices is being unlocked by the Localism Act - local authorities must now publicly endorse their pay practices by next month. Doing this will reassure residents that local pay is fair, fit for purpose and fully 'democracy proofed'."

Mr Pickles has previously called for council chief executives earning over £200,000 to take a ten per cent pay cut and those earning £150,000 - more than the Prime Minister - to take a five per cent pay cut. Independent research has found that between January and June 2011 newly appointed chief executives were earning on average 19 per cent less than their predecessors.

Here is the guidance:

Openness and accountability in local pay: Guidance under section 40 of the Localism Act

There are some interesting points in the guidance. 

Para 14 might allow for the ridiculous and excessive pay levels to be curbed.

Para 22 could mean that Nick Walkley does not get paid for being the returning officer and the chief Executive at the same time even though he can only properly do one job at a time.

Para 24 Value for Money. Some senior officers are certainly not worth what they get paid. Salaries should max out at £100,000.

Para 28 seeking to minimise tax payments. Plenty of evidence of that in Barnet.

Well done Uncle Eric, commonsense has prevailed.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Blindingly obvious but Barnet Council can't see it. PAYE for employees.

NEWS FROM UNISON LONDON REGION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2012
UNISON CALLS ON ERIC PICKLES TO INVESTIGATE BARNET COUNCIL
UNISON, the UK’s largest union, is calling on the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, to launch an immediate inquiry into the use of consultants at Barnet Council after public sector tax avoidance hit the headlines in the case of Ed Lester the Head of the Student Loans Company.

The union believes that the proper employment and procurement practices have not been followed exposing the Council to significant reputational and financial risks.

Eric Pickles has already had to step in and reprimand the council, after local residents and Barnet bloggers exposed the METPRO Audit scandal when METPRO a private security firm were awarded a contract at a cost of over a million pounds - without a tendering exercise, written contact or any proper invoicing - to ‘keep an eye’ on local bloggers.

Laura Butterfield, Regional Organiser at UNISON, said:
“We are really concerned that proper procedures have not been followed at Barnet Council. Over the last two years Barnet Council has employed a long list of consultants including the Deputy Chief Executive and Assistant Director of HR. Only an immediate inquiry can clarify the correct processes were followed. Given Danny Alexander’s intervention in the Ed Lester case last week how can we ensure that future cases are avoided unless all public sector employees are employed through the correct processes?”

UNISON’s key concerns
· The Council has failed to comply with its Contract Procurement Regulations (CPR) and Financial Regulations by employing consultants without any procurement/selection process being followed.– which exposes it to significant reputational and financial risks .

· The Council does not have accurate and complete centrally held contracts register and effective monitoring arrangements so are unable to confirm if this is an isolated incident.

· The Council does not have a complete, centrally held register of contractors showing who is employed, on what basis and at what cost.

We recommend that all spend over the stated threshold in the CPR be reviewed and matched to a central contracts register (in development) in a timely basis. This register needs to be drawn up in full and maintained.

Back in February 2011 the local UNISON branch submitted a report to all 63 Barnet Councillors on 10 February where they made the following recommendation

Recommendation
The Council undertakes as a matter of urgency a review of all payments to staff not employed directly by the Council.

Furthermore we recommend that the Council refer to the HMRC Guidelines in particular the advice to be found here that explains that “It's your responsibility to correctly determine the employment status of your workers - that is, whether they're employed by you or self-employed. This depends on the terms and conditions of your working relationship with each worker.

It's important to get your workers' employment status right because it affects the way tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) are calculated for them. And it determines whether or not you have to operate PAYE (Pay As You Earn) on their earnings.”

Read full details here

For comment or more information please contact Laura Butterfield – 07718 520 850 / l.butterfield@unison.co.uk

 

End

Information links

1. Student Loans chief to pay tax at source
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16854187

2. Pickles attacks Barnet CouncilPickles v Barnet Council

Lamentable lie or ignominious incompetence?

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. 

 as lying or not knowing are nearly as bad as each other.

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:

---

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.

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

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 ( 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?

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard
7 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 )

---

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

Jacquie McGeachie - post #2

payments were missing off the over £500 lists for 2010/11

So Jacquie McGeachie started in Barnet as the interim ( for now ) Assistant Director of Human resources in about January 2009.

Here is a short blog which Mr Mustard has borrowed, with permission, from Mr Reasonable

---

It has puzzled me for some time that Barnet Council's Head of HR is nether mentioned in the list of senior officers salaries nor mentioned in the supplier payments. Following the submission of a Freedom of Information request I can reveal that Jacquie McGeachie HR Consulting Limited was paid £140,803.28 in 2010/11. (Although the annual accounts say £133,975 - whichever, it is a lot of money)

I think it would be terribly helpful if all the senior officers who are paid as consultants were listed in the official list of senior officers salary that are included in the council's annual accounts. This is something I shall be taking up with the Auditors, Grant Thornton when I meet them in a couple of weeks.

---

Mr Reasonable's meeting with GT did result in interims/consultants who occupy staff posts being listed in the statutory accounts. Well done Mr R.

What is immediately apparent, if you refer back to Mr Mustard's blog of yesterday, is the absolutely massive jump in the amount paid for the services of Jacquie McGeachie by at least £30,000 This time rather than go through an agency Mrs McGeachie formed her own Limited company on 2 January 2009, Jacquie McGeachie HR Consulting Ltd ( number  06781904 ). 

Did she suddenly become a much better HR person because the job was 50 miles further south?

Is London Weighting really that high?

Did Barnet Council really need to pay that much?

Was there no-one in London who could have done the job?

Why do most of the senior management live outside of the borough?

How much has been paid in 2011/12? This much in the first 4 months:-

Timesheet ID	Week ending	Charge £
95457	08/04/2011	2,875
95456	15/04/2011	2,875
95460	22/04/2011	2,300
95455	29/04/2011	1,725
95461	06/05/2011	2,300
95462	13/05/2011	2,875
95463	20/05/2011	2,875
95464	27/05/2011	2,875
97051	03/06/2011	2,300
97052	10/06/2011	2,875
97053	17/06/2011	2,875
97054	24/06/2011	2,875
98410	01/07/2011	2,875
98411	08/07/2011	1,725
98412	15/07/2011	1,725
98413	22/07/2011	2,875
98414	29/07/2011	2,875
Total for 4 months		43,700
Annual equivalent		131,100

It is evident that this is a rate of £575 a day. A good number of 3 and 4 day weeks as well. The whole of HR must be under control. Is she worth it? Come back tomorrow to find out.

Hays have processed the payments since 1 April 2011. This is possibly a desperate late attempt to sidestep Barnet tender or EU procurement regulations as there is a framework agreement in place for temporary help from Hays. You could think of Jacquie McGeachie as a glorified temp, if you wanted to.

Why would someone earning this much money want to sidestep PAYE ( Pay as you Earn tax which applies to employees ) when they are holding a staff position and would still have plenty left in their pocket at the end of the month? Probably because their transport costs are high and if they can convince HM Revenue & Customs that they are a contractor and then set more of these off as allowable expenses against tax ( employees cannot claim any home to work costs against tax ). 

Did Mr Mustard ever tell you that he used to work for the Inland Revenue in PAYE. It was a long time ago but the principle has not really changed. If you are an employee you pay PAYE except in Barnet of course, which is a blog for another day.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard