Barnet Council and the £16.1 Million "GIFT" to Capita PLC

Back in August this year, The Barnet Eye exposed a scandal at Barnet Council. Our diligent trawling through Delegated Powers Reports revealed that Barnet Council had given Capita PLC £16.1 million worth of Council assets. |We also revealed how there had been no democratic oversight. You can read the story here http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/161-million-investment-transferred-to.html

Realising that this was a major scandal, The Barnet Eye sent an open email to every Barnet Councillor. You can read the letter here http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-leader-of-barnet-council.html  - We also copied the Section 151 officer at Barnet Council, Mr Andrew Travers, who happens to also be the CEO.

Remarkably, I didn't get a single response from anyone involved with running the administration. I also copied the local press into the email. There was not a dickybird from them either. One might think that no one cares about such a scandalous act? Well fortunately for the Barnet Taxpayer, quite a few people do. Behind the scenes, all manner of people have been looking at the issue. It appears that the fears of the Barnet Eye were not without basis.

We now have a legal opinion on the transfer. The key points are

Here are two questions which need to be asked.

1. Is the expenditure within the budget (capital programme) agreed by Council? 

We know it isn't because it was passed in a hasty DPR

2. Is the level of expenditure greater than 500k and is it significant, i.e. impacting on two or more wards?  

If the answer is yes, then it is a key decision. 

It is clear that it is a key decision. In legal terms the expenditure could be ultra vires ( i.e. unlawful depending on exactly how it was taken) if they haven't made the decision properly.  As far as I am  concerned, as a  council tax payer, I intend to raise the matter again with the Section 151 officer, internal and external audit.

It is possible that the Council has breached its own rules and possibly the Local Government Act 2000 in the way the decision was made. A key decision is one that involves a lot of money or affects more than one ward. It must be in the forward plan or covered by an urgency exception – if not it would have to go to full council . The Council report is recorded as not being a key decision.

See here http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903 I have seen no evidence it was in the forward plan so next question was it treated as urgent? It is at least possible that the decision is ultra vires.  If this is right it should be referred to the s151 officer, District Auditor and could be challenged in the courts by anybody with locus standi – probably a council tax payer.

So anyway, yet again the Barnet Eye is in a position where we have to write to the Leader of the Council, The Section 151 officer and the chair of the Audit committee. There are a lot of people looking at this now. This is one scandal that cannot be buried under the carpet.

Here is the email I have sent
--------------------------------

Dear Mr Travers, Councillor Cornelius and Councillor Palmer,

 

I am writing to you as a concerned Barnet resident and Council taxpayer. On the 29th August 2013.  am eamiling you in your role as Section 151 officer, Leader of the Council and chair of Audit . I sent you the email attached below. I received no satisfactory response concerning this issue.

 

I have taken legal opinion and it seems my fears were not completely unfounded. As you will recall, this massive transfer was done as a DPR without any democratic oversight. Given the sum and the effect, it is clearly a key decision. The legal opinion I have received states the following

 

"It is possible that the Council has breached its own rules and possibly the Local Government Act 2000 in the way the decision was made.  A key decision is one that involves a lot of money or affects more than one ward.  It must be in the forward plan or covered by an urgency exception – if not it would have to go to full council .

The Council report is recorded as not being a key decision.

See here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903

I have seen no evidence it was in the forward plan so next question was it treated as urgent?

It is at least possible that the decision is ultra vires, i.e. unlawful depending on exactly how it was taken. "

As this is an extremely serious matter I am asking for an urgent response to the following three questions

 

1. Is the expenditure within the budget (capital programme) agreed by Council? 

2. Is the level of expenditure greater than 500k and is it significant, i.e. impacting on two or more wards?

3. Has legal opinion been sought as to the legality of this transfer and what did that opinion state?  

Barnet Council is the legal custodian of taxpayers money. It has a duty of care to look after this money and not squander or give it away. The Council also has a legal obligation to act legally and to be transparent in its dealings with suppliers and taxpayers. The council studiously ignored answering my previous email on the subject. Whether this was just a matter of bad manners or whether there was a darker reason is not at this moment clear. What is clear is that Barnet Council owes me an apology for not replying and an explanation for what has been going on. If everything has been done in a completely satisfactory manner, then there is no reason why the council cannot show this.

 

For the absence of doubt, I will be posting this open letter on the Barnet Eye blog, along with any official response.

Regards

Roger Tichborne

www.barneteye.blogspot.com

 

 

 

From: Roger Tichborne

To: Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative

Cc: cllr.a.brodkin@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.campbell@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.cornelius@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.mittra@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.strongolou@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.tambourides@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.coleman@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.evangeli@barnet.gov.uk; cllr.b.gordon@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.salinger@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.schama@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.c.omacauley@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.c.rogers@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.c.salinger@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.d.seal@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.d.yawitch@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.e.greenspan@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.g.cooke@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.g.johnson@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.g.old@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.g.sargeant@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.h.rayner@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.j.hart@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.johnson@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.tambourides@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.j.tierney@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.k.mcguirk@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.l.rutter@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.m.braun@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.m.shooter@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.houston@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.r.thompstone@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.turner@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.s.khatri@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.s.rajput@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.s.sowerby@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.z.zubairi@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.ioannidis@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.finn@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.h.hart@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.w.prentice@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.harper@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.hutton@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.moore@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.schneiderman@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.slocombe@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.sodha@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.perry@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.b.rawlings@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.c.farrier@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.d.longstaff@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.d.thomas@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.cohen@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.marshall@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.j.scannell@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.m.cohen@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.m.palmer@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.p.coakleywebb@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.cornelius@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.rams@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.s.palmer@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.t.davey@barnet.gov.uk ; Travers, Andrew

Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:13 AM

Subject: Open Letter to the Leader of the Council - Objection to the misuse of the DPR mechanism to approve One Barnet transfer

Dear Councillor Cornelius,

I was appalled to find a DPR signed by yourself, authorising an investment of £16.1 million with Capita, to underwrite the NSCSO project, signed on the 5th August. The text of the DPR makes it clear that this DPR was necessary as a result of the the failure of your administration to properly consider the issues associated with the One Barnet project and the work necessary to implement it. It is simply unimaginable that an organisation such as Barnet Council can forget, for a period of eight months, to properly account for £16.1 million worth of assets in a major transformation project (I refer to this DPR http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s10212/NSCSO%20Capital%20Investment.pdf ).

The Delegated Power Report mechanism was introduced to ensure the smooth running of the council to implement minor, non contentious issues. It was not devised as a means for the administration to hide major cock ups or to transfer huge sums of money to private contractors. All along the official line taken by Barnet Council is that the One Barnet project has been properly scrutinised and the army of highly payed lawyers have ensured all paperwork is watertight. To find out that this supposedly professionally run project has failed to properly account for a £16.1 million transfer of assets is shocking to say the least.

The question one has to ask is that if the council can overlook the need to properly account for and sign off the transfer of £16.1 million worth of assets, what else has been missed? Perhaps the most shocking revelation in this sorry piece of underhand chicanery is the revelation in the event of the failure of Capita to deliver the required services to the appropriate standard, the mitigation is for the council to carry on using the Capita service. This is made entirely clear from the risks register section. This is the text contained. As the signatory of this report, are you seriously trying to convince us that continuing to use a failed supplier is a mitigation?

3.2 There is a risk that, on termination, the Council has invested in assets, particularly in respect of IT, that, given they are located in shared services locations offsite from Barnet, the Council cannot continue to use in the future. This risk is mitigated by obligations on the contractor to provide licences for the continued use of these applications following termination of the agreement

I am not in the least surprised to see that such a DPR was snuck through at the height of the holiday season, when the council officers would assume no one is looking. I am however most surprised that you would participate in this ruse bysigning it.

This issue clearly needs to be discussed at full council I have copied the councillors of Barnet into this correspondence in the hope that some of your colleagues are as troubled by this as I am. As I am sure you are well aware, I have had fundamental issues all along with the One Barnet process. This failure and the exposition of the risks and mitigations has simply confirmed my belief that this officer lead initiative is fundamentally undemocratic and dangerous.

Please not my full objections have been voiced in this blog -http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/161-million-investment-transferred-to.html

Yours sincerely

Roger Tichborne

www.barneteye.blogspot.com

PS Please note that as I believe this to be a matter of public interest, I have copied Barnet CEO, Press, Barnet Bloggers and trades Unions into this correspondence.  I have also published this correspondence on my blog.