Guest blog by Chris Naylor, COO & S151 officer of Barnet Council

LBB Letter 131111.pdf by MisterMustard

Guest blog - Cricklewood Green

The Green Space (Green Isle)

The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Development has learned that under revised plans to go before Barnet planning committee in January 2014 the green space outside B&Q (known as the 'Green Isle') will be built over in Phase one. Despite Cricklewood Town Team having popular plans to plant trees and utilise part of the space for a market in the short term, this green space has been parcelled up and sold for high density development as part of the Brent Cross Cricklewood development over a mile away.

The green space on Cricklewood Lane will be covered by a five storey building, right up to the pavement line. Phase one could begin within 3 years.

The view towards the bridge now

The view when the green space is built on

Lesley Turner, Barnet resident and BXC coalition member says:

This green space was given to Cricklewood community at the end of the eighties, as compensation or section 106 planning gain, when Food Giant (now B&Q) was built on the site. The Green does not belong to Barnet but to Cricklewood and we have asked Barnet to see the original 106 agreement. We will be challenging Barnet over the legality of the disposal or change of use of this land.

Lia Colacicco, Mapesbury resident and member of the BXC coalition added:

Cricklewood Town Team identified that Cricklewood needs a landmark at its centre, and a town square. The Green Isle is our only public space, used for the Silk Road festival and other community events and now it will be snatched from us. This piece of land is totally unrelated to the BXC development a couple of miles away, but has been wrapped up with it to gain outline planning permission. Barnet Councillors should be held to account for this stealthy disposal of green land. It is a generic piece of land to the developers, but means everything to us and needs to be unwrapped from BXC, or become the subject of a land swap. The site might not be pretty now, but look at how Mapesbury Dell has been transformed.

Once excavated it would be a real asset to the community as a plaza or other open space.

Fiona Colgan from the Groves Community Action Group said:

My neighbours and I have written to our councillors and MP to strongly oppose the plan to build on our only local green space. Cricklewood spans three boroughs - we are asking Brent and Camden councils to call Barnet to account.

Accommodation in the Groves is very high density and Cricklewood Lane gets very congested and polluted so this green space is particularly important to us but it's clear that everyone in Cricklewood would benefit if this land was retained as our 'town green’ at the heart of our community. I think Barnet needs to explain why the green space in front of B&Q wasn’t included in its calculations of green space. Those of us who live in this part of the borough often feel overlooked by Barnet who do not seem to realise that we need green space as much as those who live in the wealthier, leafier parts of the borough to the North.

The Coalition group urges people to attend the public consultation this week:

Consultation on Tuesday 12 and Wednesday 13 November from 11am to 8pm at Hendon Leisure Centre, Marble Drive, NW2 1XQ.

Comments need to be sent to nicola.capeli@barnet.gov.uk by 6th December

An on-line petition has been launched to save the Green Isle LINK

Further information on the Brent Cross Coalition website: LINK

The curious case of the £16.1 million payout to Capita: a joint statement from the Barnet bloggers

Dear Councillors

Throughout the history of the One Barnet outsourcing programme, statements by the leader of Barnet council, Cabinet members, Conservative councillors and the senior management team have all maintained that as a fundamental commitment to the NSCSO contract Capita would make a large ‘upfront’ capital investment.

The necessity of this investment by a private sector partner was given as the reason why the authority refused even to consider an in-house option as an alternative to privatisation of council services.

If an in-house option had been adopted, not only would many local jobs have been saved, all efficiencies made through better management of such functions as procurement would have been retained by the authority, as opposed to a limited amount capped in the contractual agreement with Capita. By ignoring this option, it is arguable that the statutory duty of the authority to make the best use of taxpayers' money may have been breached.

We have now learnt that not only has Capita failed to make the promised capital funding but that in August, in a complete reversal of  policy, the Leader of the Council sanctioned the payment to Capita of £16.1 million of taxpayers’ money held in the authority’s reserves, in order to cover the cost of the capital investment.

We believe that not only have the leadership, Conservative members and senior management team of Barnet Council promoted the need for privatisation, and the contract with Capita, on a totally false premise, they have continued to mislead residents by misrepresenting the facts, and maintaining that capital investment is to be given by the company, rather than admitting that money has been taken from the authority's reserves and paid to Capita for this purpose.

After the Cabinet meeting of 6th December 2012 which approved the contract with Capita, Councillor Cornelius made this claim in a statement published on the BBC London news website. Council leader Richard Cornelius said the combination of a saving to the taxpayer of a million pounds a month and an £8m investment in technology by Capita made it a "very, very good deal for the Barnet taxpayer".

bbc news website

This misrepresentation of the truth has continued even after the payment £16.1 million was formally authorised by the Leader of the council.

The business model approved by Cabinet on 6th December 2012 stated clearly that this investment was to come from Capita: how can it be lawful, therefore, that having approved the contract on this basis, we now find the reverse is true, and that taxpayers are paying for the investment?

If there is any financial argument for such a fundamental change, why has the authority not been open and transparent about this new agreement, and sought approval through the appropriate procedures?

The authorisation to add £16.1 million to the capital programme in order to pay for the capital investment was made on 5th August this year by Councillor Richard Cornelius, in an action defined as a 'non key' decision.

Barnet council wesbite

According to the council's own constitution, key decisions are those that are 'significant in financial terms or in their effect on communities comprising two or more wards'.

Clearly the decision to remove £16.1 million from reserve funds in this way most certainly is a key decision, and departs in the most fundamental way from the business model approved in December.

Quite incredibly, on 6th August, the day on which the contracts were signed, and the very next day after the leader signed off the £16.1 million to cover the capital investment, Barnet Council issued a press release: 

Press release

in which it is stated:

"Capita will also make an £8 million pound investment in technology to improve council back office services".

What is that statement, other than a deliberate misrepresentation of an unpalatable truth?

We note that the explanation of the NSCSO contract on the council's own website, updated after 5th August, continues to maintain falsely that an upfront investment will come from Capita: see here -

NSCSO details

Capita will make an upfront investment which will provide improved Information Technology and telephone support to improve council back office services.

In regard to the approval of 5th August, the constitution says:

When key decisions are to be discussed or made, notification is published at least 28 days before. If these decisions are to be discussed with council officers at a meeting of the Executive, this will generally be open for the public to attend, except where personal or confidential matters are being discussed. The Executive has to make decisions that are in line with the Council’s overall policies and budget. If it wishes to make a decision that is outside the budget or policy framework, this must be referred to the full Council to decide.

Unless the change of policy, and a radical change to the terms of the business model represented by the decision to use reserve funds for a capital investment payment to Capita has been formally agreed through the relevant constitutional procedures, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the payment may well be unlawful, and as residents, taxpayers and citizen journalists in Barnet we object in the strongest terms to what would appear to be a serious breach of the regulations that are supposed to protect our best interests, and we ask you to instigate an immediate investigation into the issues we have raised.

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

(The famous five have become four as Citizen Barnet has sadly left the borough. She still maintains close links with all her old friends.)

Mr Mustard has the hump

look at the sign carefully

When you get a parking ticket you enter onto a treadmill that goes helter skelter through a number of rotations and woe betide you if you miss a deadline as then you lose and have to pay up or the bailiffs will be round pronto to take your car away.

If on the other hand the council owe you money, which they are meant to repay within 28 days, time stands still and NSL move like a snail.

Here is the history of the matter:

On 13 June, Mr Mustard submitted an appeal to PATAS for a PCN given out in Bittacy Hill which he thought was a Saracens Zone PCN (he was only given one page of a letter to work with, no PCN, no copy appeals, nothing else) and he ran up a 5 point appeal which was, it turns out, pretty much all wrong. We will call his client "Mrs R". He instructed Mrs R by letter to tell him if she received the evidence pack, a bundle of 50 to 100 pages which sets out the council's case. 

The address of Mr Mustard was the one put in the PATAS form for service of documents.

Once the hearing date was known he reminded Mrs R about a big bundle of papers she might receive.

The appeal was due to be heard, as a postal appeal, on or after 16 July.

On 11 July Mr Mustard emailed PATAS to tell them that he had not been served with an evidence bundle and asked for the PCN to be cancelled for that reason alone.

On 19 July the appeal was heard and was lost on the balance of probabilities. Not really a surprise except that the adjudicator didn't seem to have seen the email of 11 July.

The decision gave 28 days for the PCN to be paid. Mr Mustard paid the £110 himself as he had blundered.

An adjudicator's decision can only be challenged on limited grounds. Mr Mustard wrote and asked for a review on 19 July "in the interests of justice" as the council's case had not been seen by him. This time he asked to attend in person so as to argue the merits more extensively than can be done on paper.

PATAS agreed to carry out a review and set a date of 6 September.

At the review Mr Mustard discovered that the evidence pack had indeed been sent to Mrs R, and the adjudicator agreed that was a procedural impropriety and so the Review was granted. That meant that the PCN itself was back in play for an appeal and the same grounds of the service of the evidence pack at the wrong address was enough to count as a procedural impropriety and the PCN was cancelled. Thus Mr Mustard was due his money back. 

(If Mr Mustard had seen the evidence pack when produced he would have realised his appeal was all to cock and done a new one.)

On 10 September, Mr Mustard asked Barnet Council's agent, NSL, to refund him within 28 days and provided a copy of his receipt. Silence, no response.

On 14 October, Mr Mustard reminded NSL that a refund was due. More silence, still no refund.

It cannot be equitable that if you owe the council money that you are obliged to pay it within 28 days or face a 50% increased charge initially and then a vastly increased charge by the bailiff on his/her visit, £400 to £1,500 being common amounts depending on if you are merely clamped or if you have your car removed and yet if the council owe you money they don't even have the politeness to acknowledge your correspondence. There does appear to be a dearth of good manners within the parking process.

Maybe Mr Mustard should clamp the mayoral limousine to force repayment?

At the least he should get £165 back. Will he? Will he even get an apology? or will a sensible member of the parking client side now read this blog, see that the PCN number is AG20537719 and make an immediate refund. If NSL have paid Mrs R in error then it is up to NSL to get their money back from her and not wait to repay Mr Mustard who has no financial connection with her.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Update 6 November 13

From a council officer.

On 10/09/13 the Council were made aware of the direction to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. For reasons unknown the officer who is responsible for the logging / updating appeal statuses was not able to log the updated appeal status on to the case, it was raised with the team leaders whose responsibility it was to raise it with our software provider. 

From what I can tell nothing has happened since then. I am currently investigating why this failing has occurred.

I confirm that I have this morning updated the case to reflect the new appeal status and have initiated the refund process. When I have confirmation that the refund has been successful I will let you know via email

I apologise on behalf of the service.

Mr Mustard has now asked if anyone else is in the same boat, due a refund and hasn't had it. He did have a case last month where the elderly lady (80+) had paid after filing an appeal at PATAS as she couldn't sleep for the worry, won her case and then got her £60 back within 2 weeks so Mr Mustard was simply unlucky? If you are due a refund, send an email to barnet@nslservices.co.uk

Metaphorical Bonfire at Hendon Town Hall tonight

The turkey rag a.k.a Barnet First magazine

Mr Mustard's lack of enchantment with Barnet First, a publication by Barnet Council, which strikes him as rather a waste of money and trees, has just multiplied ten-fold.

Let us examine one line from this "column"

The major investment brought to the council by these contracts will do just that.

For more than 2 years we have been told that Barnet Council couldn't afford to develop services in-house because they cost too much and because the necessary capital investment wasn't available. Huzzah, like some shining white knight appearing on the horizon just in the nick of time, appeared Capita waving a big cheque to fund the investment.

Are they a Charity? no, they are a mega-corp with over 500 companies registered at Companies House

Do they help council's out of the goodness of their heart? No, they do it to make money, pure and simple (and not an objectionable principle, that is why Mr Mustard does what he does for a living)

Have they given us £16.1 million which they have plucked out of the pockets of other boroughs to give to Barnet? No, it would be absolutely wrong to do such a thing.

NSCSO Capital Investment - Barnet Council DPR by MisterMustard

So there is your answer at the bottom of this page and the start of the next. On the very first day of the contract Barnet Council gave Capita a thumping great cheque for £16.1m to pay for the investment that Capita were supposedly making. Don't blame Capita, all the mis-representation has, ironically, been by our own representatives.

Mr Mustard has been against the One Barnet contracts all along, not on ideological grounds as he himself provides an out-sourced service, but on the grounds that he didn't think they would be better quality or better value or provide any savings that a competent management couldn't make by themselves. One Barnet could be renamed the "we council wallahs can't be bothered in Barnet" contract, although that doesn't so glibly roll off the tongue.

So having been sold a turkey we might as well listen to the Turkey rag to cheer ourselves up again.

How long before your turkey votes for Christmas, eh Richard (Cornelius)? Only 198 days until your flock of turkeys are stuffed.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

p.s. Don't believe everything you read in the papers is a well known saying of which Barnet First is proof.

Parking - An abusive relationship

http://thisisabuse.direct.gov.uk/

Mr Mustard abhors violence whoever it is directed at. He has some hesitation therefore in comparing the abuse heaped on this lady by the council and NSL over such an essentially trivial matter as a parking ticket which should pale into insignificance as compared to the necessity to leave her home with her children. Here is a recent adjudication report, it is not a very nice thing to have to read, apart from the result:

The Appellant attended in person. The Authority did not appear and it was not represented. The date of the alleged contravention was 26 September 2011. A Notice to Owner was issued on 3 November 2011. The Charge Certificate was not issued on 8 April 2013. There was no explanation for the delay.

The Appellant had explained that over that period, she and her children had to leave the family home to escape an abusive relationship and her ex-husband had been using the vehicle. This explained why the Appellant was not able to engage with the enforcement process through no fault on her part but irrespective of the reason, a gap of 18 months between the two stages of the enforcement proceedings is not acceptable. The Authority said that there is no statutory time bar to the issue of a Charge Certificate. This is correct but there is a duty on the Authority to act fairly and this include acting expeditiously.

The PCN cannot be upheld. I am allowing the appeal.

The council know Mr Mustard's view on chasing PCN from 2011 as the external Auditor is still considering his objection to the signing off of the March 2013 Accounts. 

It is a breach of Human Rights (Article 6) to leave a delay of this length in the processing of a parking ticket, it has been described by other adjudicators an an abuse of process. The council know that Mr Mustard reads all of the PATAS reports and so knows exactly what is going on. If they don't want to read blogs that say that the decisions on appeals are being made by heartless, unfeeling, uncaring mercenaries then they need to start making some more sensible, compassionate and considered decisions.

If the person who says no to an appeal had to appear at PATAS and tell the abused in person why they were suffering further abuse the number of self evidently unjust and unreasonable decisions would tumble.

This is the fault in a system where the person who makes the corporate decision to reject an appeal hopes the council will profit by it.

It's all about the money.

Yours in abject disgust

Mr Mustard