The Saturday List #345 - Five useless companies and the corporate failures that have cost me a fortune

Time to name and shame a few useless organisations, who have cost me a fortune with their incompetence and uselessness. 

1. BT Since January, we've had problems with our business phones and Internet. This is down to a massive cock up by BT, who sold us a fibre internet upgrade, which the local exchange couldn't support. Over the last week we've had three weeks without Internet and now we have no phone service. Every day we are promised "It will be fixed by tomorrow". We've even been told it's fixed but it hasn't been. It's probably cost us over £5,000 in lost business, especially as we couldn't take credit card transactions.

2. Santander Bank. When we redeveloped our studio and built our new reception in 2012, we needed to raise around a million quid in finance. We had a cast irpon business case. We went to our own bank, Santander and they said "We don't lend for this type of 'speculative development' ". We tried other banks, with no success. I was then introduced to a Mortgage broker, who for a fee of £8,000 said he could arrange a loan. Guess what? He introduced us to our own bank, Santander, who apparently have a specialist department that do just this type of lending. You couldn't make it up. Needless to say, we built the building and it has far exceeded our rather conservative projections in our business plan. 

3. Purple Parking. In October 2020, we went on holiday to Madeira. We left our car with Purple Parking. We collected it from Heathrow on our return and as we drove, I noticed that all manner of things weren't working, including the headlights and heating. The next day, my mechanic inspected the car. It had been attacked by Squirrels whilst parked. It cost nearly £1,000 to fix. Purple Parking refused to take any responsibility and said we had to report it at the time of collection. I was disgusted, not least because their operative, who returned it from the remote car park would have known it was damaged. Don't touch them with a bargepole.

4. The RAC. I'd been an RAC member for over twenty five years. Each year I paid £100's for the privelige. Last May, the battery on my Vauxhall Corsa failed. The RAC replaced it. The bloke who did it said "I've got a super heavy duty battery with a lifetime guarantee". It was £110, far more than a normal battery (I can get them for £40), but I needed the car and so I took it. The battery failed in September. I contacted the RAC, the same bloke came and said I needed a new battery. I asked about the warranty. "Sorry mate, you've not done enough miles, the warranty is invalidated". I complained. No joy. I asked them for my money back, they said as I'd had a call out, they wouldn't. So I've left, all those years and that's how they treat you? If they'd simply changed the crap battery, I'd have carried on paying the hundreds for another twenty years. What a complete bunch of twats. 

5. Jetline Cruises. We were meant to have the holiday of a lifetime in October 2020, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Fransisco, a cruise and seeing a few of my fave US bands. Covid struck. We had paid over £8,000 for the privelige. We understood that there were problems. Last year, when it became clear that we weren't going, we asked for a refund. They fobbed us off. On three occasions, they told us they'd pay. They didn't. It was only when we paid the Small Claims Court over £500 to take out a claim, did they begrudgingly return our money. An awful company. Avoid. 

Capita Confirmed as One Barnet preferred bidder

The following email was sent by acting CEO of Barnet Council, Andrew Travers to all staff today

From: First Team [mailto:First.Team@barnet.gov.uk]
Sent: 22 November 2012 11:09
To: AllStaff
Subject: NSCSO Preferred Bidder announcement

Capita have been confirmed as the officer recommendation for preferred bidder for the NSCSO project and trade unions are currently being briefed. Staff immediately affected will be receiving a detailed briefing this afternoon.

Details of the recommended bid will then be published in Budget and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee papers this afternoon and I will be sending you more details later.

Andrew Travers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congratulations to BT on dodging the bullet of the ire of the residents of Barnet

Hello Capita Hello BT

Dear Capita and Dear BT,

Congratulations to whichever one of you has lost the One Barnet Contract and commiserations to the winner.

The Barnet Eye welcomes the winner to the wonderful world of scrutiny, Barnet blogger style. Expect a massive rise in your media profile.  Did you ever wonder why CEO Nick Walkley walkleid off the job? Have you not been watching the TV or reading the papers. More people working in News, media and papers live in Barnet than anywhere else in the country. That is why Barnet Council cock ups always get lots of coverage. I'd suggest that you should notify your shareholders that they will be finding out plenty about the company they own in the coming days, weeks, months and years.

And to the loser, you lucky old sausages, you have dodged a bullet !

Signed

Rog T  on behalf of the bloggers of Barnet

What happens when Barnet Council sign the One barnet Contracts

Last night a question was asked at a communicty group meeting, where members were discussing opposition to the One Barnet program. That question was "What will we do if Barnet Council is stupid enough to actually sign up to the ten year, billion pound outsourcing contracts? Would all of the people campaigning against the project simply spend their nights in front of the telly watching Eastenders.

Sadly the question was asked at 8.30pm and the booking for the hall had expired, so no answer was given. I was surprised that the questiobn was even asked.

I speak for no one but myself, but let me tell you what this blog will be doing. First let le tell you why. I was born and raised in Mill Hill, my parents are buried here and all of my children have gone to school here. Most of my friends are local and I have a business here. Whatever happens I have no plans to go anywhere. all I want is the best for my neighbourhood.

That means that retiring from blogging and opposing this madness is not an option. So how will this blog react.

First of all, whether the winner is BT, Capita Symonds or anyone else, that company will be in ths potlight. The first thing I will do is to purchase shares in that company and encourage as many other people in Barnet to do the same. This is not because I think they are a good investment. It is so that as a Shareholder we can attend the AGM and table motions. As a legal part owner of the company that confers all sorts of rights, which I for one plan to take up with a vengeance.

Secondly I intend to make sure that EVERYTHING that happens is given the widest possible audience. If we are going to have a multi national company running the council, I will make sure that they get away with nothing. Any cock ups will result in the maximum publicity possible.

The third thing I will do is make sure that the worlds knows all about the people who took the decision and what the effects of their actions are. In this day and age, google is an important tool for employers, when they check out prospective candidates for jobs.  The people who have made this decision will have a very interesting google profile. For the avoidance of doubt, this will simply be an accurate reflection of what is going on and how good they are at making decisions.

The fourth thing I will do, is to make sure that every citizen of Barnet knows exactly who is to blame during the council elections in 2014 and the general election in 2015. Mike Freer was the architect of this project. When the bills come in and the services are cut, his name will be all over it. As will Matthew Offord who was his deputy when the One Barnet project was initiated. They may think they can walk awaya nd wash their hands. Think again chaps.

\My prediction is that in three years time, whichever company wins  the One Barnet contract, they will have a hugely damaged image. They will find it significantly harder to get future contracts, which will impact their share price, because the world will know all of their cock ups in Barnet and how much it costs.

My second prediction is that the Conservatives will be massacred in the council election and lose the council in 2014.

My third prediction is that Mike Freer and Matthew Offord will lose their seats in Parliament in 2015. I predict that Theresa Villiers, who sensibly is giving her council chums as wide a berth as possible will hang on. I suspect that Freer and Offord may actually cost the Conservatives dear in that election and David Cameron may come to regret not sorting Basketcase Barnet Council out in 2012, when he had the chance.

Pam Wharfe's latest update on the One Barnet fiasco

From: Law, Lucy On Behalf Of Wharfe, Pam
Sent: 24 August 2012 16:37

DRS Joint Venture proposal – Staff Update

Following my DRS fortnightly email last week I have set out further details on the joint venture below:-

What is the decision making process around the joint venture?

The joint venture has been an option considered by the project Board over the last 2 years and has featured in the options appraisal and business case.  Although initially our preference was for a Strategic Partnership, the JV has developed as a progressively more attractive option following detailed discussions with bidders.  As a result the project Board recommended to Corporate Directors Group that this be formally advanced in discussions with bidders and indeed is currently our preferred option.  Following evaluation the final option, along with the preferred bidder, will be presented as a recommendation to Cabinet in the New Year. Cabinet will then take the final decision on whether to award the contract, the preferred bidder and the joint venture approach.

What does the joint venture approach mean in practice?

A new organisation would be formed by the Council and the successful bidder.  The Council would have a minority interest in this organisation and would appoint a small number of individuals to the senior management team of the new organisation.  This organisation would then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.

Does this reduce any of my TUPE rights?

No.  In scope staff would TUPE into the joint venture organisation, and this would be on the same conditions as have been previously set out.  The obligations of the joint venture organisation would be backed up by the successful bidder’s parent company.

Who would my employer be?

The joint venture organisation.

Bidders have made reference to potential career opportunities in their organisations, does the joint venture limit these?

No.  The joint venture organisation would operate in many ways like any other organisation in the successful bidder’s group of companies.  There is no reason why the use of a joint venture company would limit the opportunities this could provide to staff.

Why use a joint venture approach for DRS?

As a result of being a part owner of the joint venture organisation and through having representation within the senior management team the Council would have more say in the organisation.  In addition the joint venture would allow us to share more easily in any commercial success the organisation has.  This is important to us as the DRS bidders and ourselves are confident that there are significant commercial opportunities in the delivery of DRS services both within Barnet and outside of the Borough.

What if the joint venture organisation is unsuccessful and becomes insolvent?

The joint venture organisation will have a contract with the Council for the provision of DRS services, and, as with a non joint venture approach this contract will be backed up by a ‘parent company guarantee’ which provides a legally binding obligation on the commercial parent company to fulfil the performance of the DRS contract.  It is likely that were the joint venture organisation were unsuccessful that the commercial parent company would provide further resources to the joint venture company to ensure it continues to function to service the DRS contract.  Such a situation could reduce the value of any investment by the Council in the joint venture company however the Council is only intending to invest a nominal sum (which could just be £1) and it is not obliged to provide any further assistance in the event of failure, unlike the commercial parent company which would be obliged to deliver the DRS contract.

Kind regards,

Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration

London Borough of Barnet

2nd Floor Building 4, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

0208 359 7988

www.barnet.gov.uk

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Barnet Eye must conclude that the people within the Council are rather naive.  The statement "It is likely that were the joint venture organisation were unsuccessful that the commercial parent company would provide further resources to the joint venture company to ensure it continues to function to service the DRS contract." demonstrates the level of this delusion. The reason the joint venture company would become insolvent is because the parent company would see it is not making any money. Why on earth would the shareholders of the parent company sanction throwing good money after bad. That is not how private companies work. 

It is also interesting to see that the council intends to only have a minority stake and not make a financial investment in the company. This is a very important question as the shareholding of the company will demonstrate control and where the dividends from the JV go. It appears that the bidders are keen simply to use the JV as a vehicle to escape from liability and association with a risky venture. There is also the implication that the bidder can further dilute the councils control and shareholding of recapitalisation is required. 

It is interesting that the Council officers seem to believe it is there job to tell the councillors what to do. It also appears that the timetable has changed yet again. 

One wonders what the unsuccessful bidders make of all this. It seems that were excluded and then the ground rules were changed. A genuine joint venture would have shared control and shared investment. This particular scheme and the rushed announcements, made via emails late  on a Friday afternoon stink of panic. 

As it seems that the mantle of opposition is falling to the bloggers, this rather suits us. It gives us time over the weekend, to consider our strategy and response. What seems like a cunning ruse by the Council Officers, does indeed play to all the strengths of bloggers, allowing us to organise at times convenient to us. 

And organise we will. The Officers of Barnet Council do not seem to recognise the fact that the reason that the bloggers of Barnet are so committed is because we are long term residents who love Barnet and the surrounding area. We do not see  it as a convenient place to boost our CV's. We blog because we live here and we have a stake in the Borough. Our friends live here. We see the effects of the Council's stupidity on our friends and families.

This week two of my daughters were sitting GCSE's at local schools. Both got outstanding results. It was also my 50th Birthday. I was born at Edgware General hospital as were two of my children. The third was born at Barnet General. My parents are buried at Hendon Cemetary. My business is in Barnet and I employ ten people. These are the reasons I write this blog. Most of my close friends run their own business. My parents started the family business in 1948 in Bunns Lane and it is still running. I also have a cousin my age who lives in the care of Barnet Council, as she has Downes Syndrome. These are my motivations. I cannot fathom the motivations of the people within the council who get paid by us, the taxpayer and are using our money to divest profits and control from council services, to multi national companies, who have no interest in the Borough beyond making money for shareholders. If anyone believes BT and Capita Symonds are interested in anything other than making as much money as possible from you and I and our taxes, then you really don't understand what private companies are all about. 

Earlier today I posted a blog joking about how the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius will be remembered. Sadly, I suspect that it will be as a man who was completely out of his depth and who lead a very inept regime which made some extremely bad decisions. I hope I am wrong.

Believe nothing you read about Barnet Council in the Barnet Blogs !

Today the horrible truth dawned on me that I've wasted the last four and a half years of my life writing this stupid blog. Over the past week, it has become patently clear that no one in Barnet Council really has a clue what is going on. The senior officers says one thing, the Leader says another and the Deputy Leader says something different again. The Barnet Eye has our own little cabal of employees and councillors who tell us the odd snippet of information, and we get envelopes stuffed full of interesting papers through the post occaasionally.

The point is that if the organisation itself hasn't got a clue what is going on, what on earth is the point writing a blog about it? I rather feel that it is like the football pundits in the Sun. If Manchester United play Manchester City, one will predict United to win, One wuill predict City and one will predict a draw. That way, the Sun can always say "It woz the Sun that got it right" and print highlights from the article.

So is Pam Wharfe right that One Barnet is now going to be a joint venture? Is Richard Cornelius right when he says that No decision has been taken and it would need a pretty convincing case to change tack? Is Dan Thomas right that a Joint Venture is safer?

Search me. Here is my best guess though ** Pleae read this with caution ** I believe that the bidders are getting cold feet. They are worried about the reputational damage. they know that the Barnet bloggers have the ear of Eric Pickles and they know that Barnet is a media hotbed. Why on earth would Capita and BT want to run the risk of destroying their reputations? They have been religiously checking this blog on a daily basis several times, re reading old blogs etc. They can see the future, even if Barnet can't. They know that a joint venture guarantees profit and minimises risk. As there is no risk at all, they can experiment with no fear of losses. Who are the bidders actually in dialog with? Not Richard Cornelius, he's been on holiday and he only works one day a week at NLBP. Not Dan Thomas, why on earth should they bother with him? Nope, they've been talking to Pam Wharfe. So who would you trust to know their intentions and desires?

That is why I believe that even though Ruichard Cornelius doesn't know it yet, that is what Nick Walkley will tell him to sign off on. And I believe that is what will happen unless something rather unexpected happens, like a certain well known councillor, wiith a reputation to build, stabs dear old Richard in the back and nicks his job. And of that happens, anything could happen. So don't believe a word you read here.

Exposed - The conspiracy to rob the people of Barnet

I was forwarded an email being circulated by the senior management of Barnet Council regarding the One Barnet outsourcing program. What it contains is truly staggering. Until now, I've been totally unable to work out exactly why anyone would want to persue such a policy. As the old adage goes, follow the money. This email makes it 100% clear what is going on. Here is the email :-

_____________________________
Dear colleagues

Dialogue update

As with the last message, there is no specific news to report on dialogue other than it is continuing to progress well. This week’s meetings have included legal/commercial and technical sessions covering the bidders’ financial models, their emerging commercial development plans which provide details of new investment and income streams, insurance matters and our approach to resolving conflicts of interest in relation to service delivery. We have also been discussing the bidders’ Service Improvement Plans which set out how the services will be delivered and enhanced over the course of the contract.

In addition to enhancing service delivery we also believe that the DRS project has great potential to generate new commercial opportunities, both in Barnet and further afield.  As a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services.  The Joint Venture approach does not change the approach to TUPE of staff or weaken any of the commitments given - staff would TUPE into the new organisation rather than to the commercial partner.  We shall provide further information on the Joint Venture in the next week however as ever you are welcome to ask any questions you may have regarding this or other elements of the DRS procurement’

Staff Group

The latest DRS staff group took place on Thursday 9 August and was attended by representatives from all your services. Make sure you speak to your rep if you want more detailed feedback or to raise any questions at the next staff group meeting. Martin Cowie has also been continuing to visit teams across the DRS service cluster to speak about the project and answer questions. If you haven’t yet had a briefing with Martin, let me know and we’ll make sure a suitable time is organised.

Also at the group meeting, a series of further questions were asked about various aspects of the project. The answers to these will be shared on the intranet over the next week.

Data cleanse

As you know, over the summer all DRS in-scope staff are having to take part in a data cleanse of their HR information; the data that will be transferred to the new provider after contract award. Environmental health and strategy and regeneration staff have completed their data cleanses, and next up is staff in Highways, Planning, Development and Building Control. Your line managers will take you through the process. They are being provided with the relevant forms on Monday 3 September and they must be returned by Friday 21 September.

Workshops

We still have places available at the TUPE workshops for staff and managers, as well as the Change and Me sessions. These workshops will run up until November and have already been on for more than a year. They are set to continue until November, by which time we will be approaching mobilisation.  During mobilisation we will begin to talk to you about how the transfer will affect you personally, but it would be a very good idea to have attended one of these sessions before that time.

The times and dates of the workshops are as follows:

Managers’ TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 2 – 2-5pm
• 2 October – Training Room 4 – 9.30am-12.30pm
• 14 November – Training Room 2 – 9am-12noon

Staff TUPE workshops

• 4 September – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 4 October – Training Room 4 – 1-2pm
• 1 November – Training Room 5 – 12noon-1pm

Change and Me workshops

• 24 September – Training Room 3 – 2-3pm
• 17 October – Training Room 3 – 10.30-11.30am

To book a place on any of these sessions, email onebarnet@barnet.gov.uk.

Use that same email address if you have any further questions between now and the next newsletter, about the DRS project. Have a great weekend.

Kind regards

Pam Wharfe

Interim Director Environment, Planning & Regeneration

London Borough of Barnet

2nd Floor Building 4, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

0208 359 7988

www.barnet.gov.uk

_____________________________

The key statement, which lays bare what is going on is "As a result we have decided to form a Joint Venture organisation with the successful bidder, which provides an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and at the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control.  What this means is that the successful bidder and the Council will form a new organisation in which both have an interest.  This new organisation will then contract with the Council to provide the DRS services. "

This means that a new company is being set up, which is jointly owned by the Council and the "successful bidder". We have already seen Barnet Council setting up such companies. The first thing that happens is that a board of directors is formed. Past experience of the council doing this has shown that senior council executives are appoined to the board. Now you may think that there is a conflict of interest (I certainly do). The same council executives who are making the decisions to form these companies are also appointed to the board, presumably on huge salaries and with juicy share options. It beggars belief that people can set themselves up as directors of a company with a turnover of a hundred million pounds a year at the expense of the Barnet taxpayer.

There is an even more dangerous side to all of this. The companies are presumably going to be limited liability enterprises. This means that Capita Symonds or BT have no exposure to failure. They own shares in the company, so if it all goes swimmingly, they make the profits, but if it fails and goes bust, they have no exposure  whatsoever. In a normal outsourcing exercise, the successful bidder takes a degree of risk. Multi national companies such as BT are unlikely to go bust, so there is a degree of protection for the taxpayer. With this model, the only thing which is being outsourced is the profits. It also means that if and when it all goes wrong, BT or Capita Symonds can say "Not us guv, we were only shareholders in the company".

We can sum up the whole One Barnet program with two questions.

Q: Who stands to gain from this arrangement?
A: The directors of the new company (many of whom are involved in setting up the company, whilst working for Barnet Council) and the shareholders of the "successful bidder".

Q: Who is left with the risk?
A: The Barnet Taxpayer, who if the "joint venture" fails, will have to pick up the tab.

I don't know about you, but the whole thing sounds to me like a conspiracy. This "joint venture" is riddled with "conflicts of interest". The fact that the bidders are unwilling to accept any risk at all, but are more than happy to accept the profits is truly staggering. Is there no one within Barnet Council who is prepared to speak out and call a halt to this attempt to rob the taxpayer?

Ms Wharfe talks about transparency. As this "joint venture" will be a private company, it will be exempt from FoI legislation, so there will be no transparency at all. 

I call on the Leader of the Council, Richard Cornelius to call a halt to the whole debacle immediately.

G4S - A lesson for BT and Capita

This morning it was announced that G4S's share price has continued to plummet. The companies share price has lost £700 million as a result of the Olympics fiasco. There is an important lesson for the bidders involved in the One Barnet program from all of this. G4S will not loose £700 million as a result of the Olympics cock up. As I understand it, they will still get their £50 million management fee. The reason the share price has dropped through the floor is because they now have a national reputation of non delivery.

If you are working for any organisation and G4S are bidding for the contract, would you hire them now? It may well be that they would do a fine job, are far cheaper than the competition and have put the best bid in, but they have lost trust. If we analyse why, the reasons are fairly obvious. They were blinded by the glow of a large contract and didn't think through whether they had the skills or resources to meet the needs of it.

You may ask, where are the similarities between the Olympic security and the One Barnet program. They are clear to see. Barnet is now the largest London Borough. The CEO Nick Walkley has committed the Council to be the first to become "a commissioning council". In other words the scale of what is being attempted in Barnet is way beyond any other outsourcing. The complexity of the contract is such that they've already spent £9 million on consultants reports and want another £10 million to finish the work. That is £19 million pounds just to figure out how to do it. The project has ground on for four years, delivering nothing,.

The money spent so far could have saved every shut library, day care centre and paid for the continuation of sheltered housing wardens. In short, all of the cuts in Barnet have simply paid the fees for One Barnet consultants. What have they produced? Reports recommending more reports, done by themselves. The fact that this wasteful project has gobbled up £9 million so far is a scandal in itself, but merely shows the difficulty of what is being attempted. Mr Walkley and Conservative cabinet member such as Councillor Robert Rams claim there is "no alternative", but their quiet clearly is. The Association of Public Service Excellence have demonstrated this. Mr Rams tried to describe  APSE as a "left wing organisation", without actually bothering to check what they are and who they work for. They have delivered real savings to councils of all political flavours up and down the country.

Anyone who has bothered to look (and trust me, Barnet bloggers have), know that Barnet Council is riddled with inefficiency. Yesterday, three Barnet bloggers went to see the Borough auditor to discuss concerns regarding the procurement process in Barnet and to discuss specific contracts. The response of the auditor? He sent one home, because he could only cope with two people at a time.

Yesterday evening, at the Cabinet resources committee, Councillor Jack Cohen gave an impressive speech detailing how Barnet Council had rejected a bid for Hendon Football Club's old ground of £3.5 million in favour of a lower £2.8 million bid from a property developer. Councillor Cohen rightly asked why the council, in a time of desperate financial need, was not trying toa chieve the highest price?  He also detailed all manner of shenanigans going on with the property company which is buying the ground.

This is yet another example of waste in Barnet, which the council clearly lacks the organisational abilities to deal with. So lets sum up the situation. BT and Capita are bidding (as G4S) did, for huge contracts, of great complexity, on a previously unprecedented scale. Barnet Council (as it is now clear with the London Olympics) do not have the track record or the management skills to successfully administer the project. This has been demonstrated in Barnet by Metpro, Aerodrome Road, the SAP fiasco, RM Countrysides to name but a few. Perhaps the one thing which BT and Capita think may be different is the level of public interest in Barnet Council compared to the Olympics. If this is the premise they are working under, they should think again. The list of national, regional and local TV, Radio and press coverage of various Barnet issues is endless. I have personally been involved with the following over the last few months, the BBC One Show interview, ITV Tonight used my film footage, I wrote an article for th Gaurdian, I was interviewed by the Evening Standard, and have been featured in a weekly basis in the local press (so much so that when I wasn't in the paper a few weeks ago, my aunty rang to see if I was alright).

If BT and Capita think "well that's only a few stroppy local bloggers", think again. Every major news organisation has offices in London, as well as hundreds of independent documentary makers and other freelance journalists. More live in Barnet than anywhere else in the UK. The power of such people can be demonstrated by the Stephen Lawrence case. Stephen's father Neville knew the editor of the Daily Mail. As a  result Stephens case was kept in the public eye until justice was done. If BT and Capita think that a massive story on the doorstep of the worlds media will be ignored, think again. The first cock up which hits a major news producer or editor in the pocket, or affects their parents, children or friends, will result in a media frenzy, which will make G4S look tame.

I produced this graph to help illustrate the possible effect on the shareprice of BT and Capita if OneBarnet goes TU.

Having seen £700 million wiped off G4S shares as a result of the Olympics cock up, I do wonder if I was a tad optimistic? Still I don't own shares in BT or Capita anymore, so what do I care?

The Barnet Graph of Doom - special version for BT and Capita Shareholders

In the 21st century economy, a companies reputation is one of their most important assets. Wheras fifty years ago, scandals and cock ups were only really noted when they ended up in court or on the paghes of the Financial Times, in todays economy, visible cock ups are accessable at all our fingertips by simply doing a google search. A simple google search for "One Barnet BT" and "One Barnet Capita" will reveal page after page of blog entries, none of which are particularly complimentary. Any council wishing to consider going down the outsourcing route, will see the potential for alienation from the voters, if they follow the One Barnet model. 

What does this mean for the shareholders of BT and Capita? It means less profits. Of course the One Barnet project will give them healthy profits, but what will it do for the chances of the companies developing more local authority business? Well I am not sure if the shareholders of BT and Capita Symonds are aware, but there are more journalists, TV producers and TV presenters living in the London Borough of Barnet than anywhere else in the UK. That is why stories such as the Metpro scandal have made the pages of National Newspapers. That is why the One Show interviewed me with regards to the closure of Friern Barnet. That is why the Guardian get myself and Mrs Angry to write articles. That is why ITV Tonight have used footage from films I've made in their documentary. That is why BBC London radio interviewed me when we released the film "A Tale of Two Barnets". 

There have been major problems with outsourcing contracts around the UK, such as Sefton Council, and South West One. The difference with these and Barnet is that these aren't media hotspots in the way that London is. Recently we had Jonathan Ross opening a new library in Hampstead Garden Suburb. Esteemed film director, Ken Loach gave the introduction to the film "A Tale of Two Barnets". We had a bevvy of celebrities attending the screening of A Tale of Two Barnets at The House of Commons, including Eastenders star Joe Egan, Footballer Gary Peake and Eastenders and Bill Star Russell Floyd. Russell Floyd made an impassioned speech about the need for accountability at the showing. 

All of this media activity has taken place even before the contracts have been signed. The eyes of the world will be on the contracts and how they perform. APSE and Professor Dexter Whitfield have already identified many deficiencies in the process of letting the contracts and the likely savings. 

It may well be that the board and the shareholders of Capita and BT think that One Barnet is worth the risk. They may be party to information that the council have hidden from everyone detailing how the project will be a rip roaring success. It may be they've seen a secret version of the business plan, which shows that they will confound the critics and there will be no problems and no adverse publicity.

The Barnet Eye hasn't seen any such evidence and Barnet Council has produced none. If the project goes wrong and the project attracts widepspread national media coverage, then BT, Capita Symonds and any other associated company are likely to get a pounding in local, regional and national press, radio and TV.

Companies which attract pariah status, generally suffer a massive drop off in share price, become undervalued and end up getting bought by rivals for peanuts. If  I was a BT or a a Capita Symons Shareholder, I'd like to see some evidence that the company I part own has condisered how to mitgate this in relation to One Barnet. If they haven't I've helpfully produced a graph to show what could happen to the shareprice if it all goes wrong. It is based on the famous Barnet Graph of Doom.

As a matter of public record, I used to own shares in Capita. I have no plans to buy any in the near future.

Please note, this graph is not based on anything other than my gut feelings as to what will happen. Shares can go up as well as down and the Barnet Eye is not qualified to give financial advice. We merely publish this information for the army of small shareholders in Barnet and beyond, so that they can have a chat with the companies they part own, for reassurance as to the company strategy regarding their public sector contracts.

Where is the business case for the One Barnet project?

Councils all over the country are looking for ways to save money. The government has imposed drastic cuts on their budgets and every council knows that they will have to try and make do with far less money. In some ways this is not a bad thing. The cash they spend is our cash, it is paid for by our taxes. Challenging councils to improve their efficiency is not evil, it is common sense. If they can cut out administration and deliver the same quality services that is a good thing. If they can use modern technology to "work clever" that is a good thing. If there is duplication in staff or services overlap, these should be consolidated

Then there is outsourcing. There are two cases where this should be considered. Firstly where a new service is being developed and an outside organisation already has a working model which can be transposed at lower cost, without the related start up costs of building systems from scratch. The second case is where there is a clear, low risk model for outsourcing supported by a robust business case. The business case should be based on hard evidence and not guesses of revenue that the council may accrue if all goes well. There should be no costs hidden from the business case (such as legal costs) and it must demonstrate the customer experience will not be degraded. Once such a business case has been developed, then the council should be in a position to open it to challenge from organisations such as trades unions. If it is robust, it will survive and any criticisms will be rebutted.

The One Barnet project is the culmination of four years work. What does the fact that no one is allowed to see the full business case tell you? Barnet Trades Unions have engaged various experts such as Dexter Whitfield and APSE, all of whom have deemed the project "risky".

One aspect of the project which has been completely understated is the risk brought about by change. This week we've seen the effects a minor computer software change at RBS/Nat West had on their business. Customers were left without banking facilities for days on end. People were left in jail, rent wasn't payed, home moves weren't completed. Why? Because someone in the organisation underestimated the impacts of change. One Barnet is a project which completely changes the way the Council is run. If it fails, tens of thousands of vulnerable people could be affected. Where is the detail which tells us this can't happen? Where are the contingency plans, if a contractor fails?

Most of all, who bears the risk? The answer to all of these should be in the business case. Sadly we are not allowed to see it. Why?

One final word. Bidders such as Capita Symonds and BT are licking their lips at the prospect of big contracts with guaranteed profits. Have they done a downside analysis? If the changes fail to deliver, there are an army of armchair auditors in Barnet. The world will soon be made aware. Over 2,000 people have now seen the film "A Tale of Two Barnets" which explains in laymans terms the problems with One Barnet project and the implications for the residents of Barnet. Many people, who would normally support "cost cutting measures" have expressed their concern. If the companies are happy to take a big contract for big profits, based on a dodgy business case, they will reap the whirlwind of bad publicity and reputational damage when it goes wrong and unravels.

One question which BT, Capita Symonds and all the other bidders should consider. There are more TV producers, documentary makers and people involved in the media living in the London Borough of Barnet than any other London Borough and probably anywhere else in the country. That is why Barnet is so regularly featured in programs such as London Tonight and The One Show.

Although this isn't the way the world should work, whilst these companies may get away with cock ups at Sefton Council, and the world at large won't notice, you can bet your bottom dollar a cock up in Barnet will have a completely different impact on their business.

Beware if you want to do business with Toxic One Barnet Council

Yesterday the Barnet Eye posted details of a DPR assigning a contract of not more than £74,999 to Addleshaw Goddard, a legal firm.This is what Addleshaw Goddard say about themselves

Welcome to Addleshaw Goddard. If you want to find out more about us, you should find it here. Our key facts give you a snapshot about us and our external profile, our Client Serviceswill tell you what we do, who we do it with and how we've helped them, and our international pages talk about our global capability. 

I was interested to see that the Barnet Eye had about 20 hits yesterday from the Addleshaw Goddard domain. This isn't surprising, given that we'd mentioned them in a blog. Most companies are very keen to see what is being written about them and hope that all coverage will be as positive as possible. According to the Barnet Council DPR, the firm had advised Barnet on a contract to replace street lighting and were again being engaged as this contract had run into issues with European tendering rules. Barnet have re-appointed the firm to advise on the issues raised. The Barnet Eye asked the question as to whether they were the best firm to take forward the case, given their previous involvement. It may come as no surprise to Barnet Eye readers that we have our own legal advisers (who give us free advice in exchange for the odd beer). They called yesterday to inform me that this was actually quite right and proper in this case and would be the most cost efficient way forward. The reason being that they are fully conversant with the contract and could hit the ground running. Another firm would have to start from scratch and incur a huge cost to the taxpayer, coming up to speed. Such legal issue crop up all the time and firms are not instantly dropped whenever there is a problem. If they were, then nothing would ever get done and legal costs would be enormous.

This seems to be a reasonable explanation as to why the firm were used. As was also pointed out, we have no idea at this stage whether the issue is a minor technicality or a major problem, that will presumably only become apparent as the complaint is processed.

What the issue does highlight is the way that the One Barnet project has become toxic for all involved. Barnet has a team of five highly committed political bloggers who pore over every One Barnet related DPR and other council paper. They have a huge team of informants within the council (and it's suppliers) who point us in the direction of the things Barnet don't want us to know. We use FoI requests to glean information and have become adept a making sure no stone goes unturned. We also get bundles of secret paperwork delivered to our doorsteps. Sadly Barnet Council consider information that other more open Tory Councils such as Windsor and Maidenhead put in the public domain, to be to important to share with the taxpayers.

Companies spend a fortune on PR and advertising, to ensure that potential clients and business partners know that they are good firms and do a good job. What any firm wishing to get work from Barnet Council on any One Barnet related outsourcing project should realise is that there is an enormous amount of public scrutiny in Barnet. Any firm involved in any project which goes pear shaped is extremely likely to find itself mentioned when the problems come to light. In this day and age, any sensible customer will at least do a quick google search on potential suppliers to see what sort of public image they have. This blog typically gets a very high rating, as you'd expect with over half a million hits and links to it from the Guardian, the BBC and a stack of other respected media outlets. Every blog we post gets displayed promenantly on the Guardian's London pages. The Barnet bloggers have dozens of other hits on a daily basis from various local, regional and national news organisations. Over 30 stories broken on this blog have been featured in other established media. Two of these have been on Prime Time TV - The parking protests on an ITV Tonight documentary and the Friern Barnet Library protest on the One Show on BBC 1.

Barnet Council has never released details of the business case for the One Barnet program. In fact, their own accountants said there wasn't one. Every major detail of the program which the Barnet bloggers have analysed appears to be flawed. The Association for Public Service Excellence described the project as flawed and risky. If you are involved in a company bidding for work on the project - Capita Symonds, BT, EC Harris, etc, you run the risk of all manner of bad publcity. Do not for one second believe that issues will be swept under the carpet, because they won't.

The Barnet Eye knows for a fact that Barnet Council has had to have many meetings in the offices of it's legal advisors for fear of leaks to bloggers. What does this tell you? Surely if the case stacked up, they would be shouting about it from the roof tops. The Barnet Eye believes that the One Barnet project is toxic and the reputational damage which firms face should be a primary consideration for these companies when bidding on it.

It is worth also making the point that the Street Lighting contract which Addleshaw Goddard advised on was not a One Barnet outsourcing project. It was a small (in comparison) deal of several million pounds. The One Barnet deals are £250 million an £750 million. The sad truth for all companies working on all outsourcing projects is that they are likely to be tarred with the same brush. Mud sticks

BTINTERNET - A fault or an outage?

Last night I had some urgent work to do. To do this I had to be online between 11:30pm and 04:00 am this morning. Having had a rather pleasant curry, I got home, made a cup of tea and went to connect and commence my task. As I tried to access the site I needed to visit, I got a "BTINTERNET UNAVAILABLE" message and a special screen informing me to ring an 0845 number for a service update (charges apply).

I did this. I got a recorded message telling me the number had changed. So I'd paid a charge and had to ring another number. I rang this number and waited 5 minutes for someone to answer. I explained that we've been having intermittent problems with connection all week. He asked for my name. I said it's Roger Tichborne. He said "That name is completely different to the one on the account". I explained that it couldn't possibly be as I'd had the phone since 1987. He said he could only speak to the account holder. I explained I was the account holder. After much discussion, it emerged that the account had my father's initials (who died in 1987) on it. So in BTWORLD, two initials = completely different. Anyway, having got past the first hurdle, I then asked if there were any service problems. He explained that we had to follow the procedure. The procedure was to plug the laptop into the Ethernet cable and reset the hub password. I duly did this. The connection still didn't work. By now it was past midnight and I was meant to be on the phone to someone. I then asked if he could check the service status. He said OK and then said "Some users are experiencing problems". I replied "I know". I asked if I was one of these users. He said "Yes". I asked when the service would be restored. He replied "BT engineers are working on it". I explained that I was working and had an urgent job to do. I needed to know. He said "It will be at least 4 hours". I asked "How do I get compensation". He replied "You are not entitled to compensation because it is an outage. You only get compensation for faults". I asked "What is the difference between a fault and an outage". The chap, who clearly was working in an offshore call centre helpfully explained "A fault is a fault and an outage is an outage". I helpfully added "Can I explain the difference to you. It is the same as the difference between a BTINTERNET customer and an EX BTINTERNET customer". Luckily for me I have a good friend who I was able to ring, who despite having been at work until 10pm and who just wanted to get to sleep, was able to step in and do what had to be done. I'm going to be treating him to a slap up lunch as a thank you.

By the way, if any BTINTERNET sales people are reading this, I had an email conversation with another friend of mine, Sue this morning. She told me she was planning to swap from Virgin to BTINTERNET. She has changed her mind.

So how has BTINTERNET affected my Friday night

a) I could have had a few beers and enjoyed myself if I'd known I couldn't work
b) I've lost out on payment for a job
c) I've let someone down
d) I've put a friend of mine to great inconvenience
e) I've got to buy my friend an expensive slap up lunch as a sweeetner
f) I've got all the hassle of having to get a new Internet provider
g) I was up half the night anyway, seething with anger

I ask you this. It was broken. Engineers had to mend it. How can it not be a fault. If it was a planned outage, why didn't BTINTERNET ensure all of their customers knew that there would be no service in advance. It's called customer service.

All in all a costly and very frustrating night. Thanks BTINTERNET and adios.

Barnets guilty elite make me hope I die before I get old

A comment from someone over the weekend made me sit down and think. They asked me this question. The person who asked was a disaffected former Tory voter who works for Barnet Council. It is clear to anyone who has followed the Freer regime and the shenanigans of Brian Coleman, that the Tory Party in Barnet has LOST THE PLOT COMPLETELY.

Disastrous policies such as the Warden Cuts. Bad decisions such as Iceland and Aerodrome Road. Making Coleman Mayor, in a severe recession, when we all know he'll try and spend his way out of it on cabs with our money. Officers with tellies on their desks, junkets to the USA & Cannes. The list is endless.

The question my friend asked me? "Who do you think is really to blame?" Well firstly, it's not me. I didn't vote for them. What about all of the people who did vote Tory? Well actually they voted for a party lead by Brian Salinger, who was deposed by Freer shortly after he won the Election. How would you feel if David Cameron wins the next election and the next day all of his MP's dumped him and replaced him with a hard righter (or the bloke with the Duck House on expenses). That's what Barnet's Tories did. But did they? How many Barnet Tories actually voted against Salinger? Well there are 33 of them. A minimum of 17 and a maximum of 31, given that it's likely that Salinger & his wife had some confidence. Wikipedia says there are 329,000 people in Barnet. 31 at a maximum lumbered us with Freer. That is less than 0.001% of the population.

The people who put Freer in, the 17-31 Tories, not only cocked a snook at the electorate, they will soon be responsible for Corporate Manslaughter. Freer's keynote policy is abolition of the Sheltered housing wardens. Rather than have a local warden, who can pop in and keep an eye, they will get a "lifeline". This is a panic alarm. My mum had one. When she broke her hip, she wasn't wearing the button (it's on a necklace around the neck). She'd had a wash, taken it off and forgotten to put it back on. Luckily, I visited 45 minutes after her fall. The elderly often do things such as this. Highly paid consultants just don't understand this.

There is another scenario, they've not considered. What if the phone line breaks? Then the lifeline doesn't work. This happened to my mother twice in the last 5 years of her life. Then they will be completely alone and utterly exposed.

Then there is one last scenario, which the council haven't mentioned. Many of the residents, more than anywhere else in the country are of Jewish extraction. Sadly there are sick individuals who may see them as a soft target. A live in warden can keep an eye out for dodgy individuals. Who will be the eyes and ears when they are gone.

All of the above scenarios are easily predictable. If an on site warden prevents just one death that would have happened under the new system, Barnet is resposnible for Corporate Manslaughter. This is a criminal offence.

Mike Freer in his disgracefully misleading blog, suggests that the warden cuts mean a better care package for the 55,000 other people aged over 65 in Barnet. This is hogwash for the following reasons.

a) Many people over 65 are fit and active and require no care package at all - they are fit and healthy.

b) The council has a duty of care to provide this service already to anyone who needs it. Barnet already have to do this. If Freer is saying they are currently failing the vulnerable in Barnet after 7 years of Tory administration, he should admit it.

c) The money they've spent on Consultants to draw up reports on future shape, would have funded retention of the wardens and paid for a floating warden service.

d) Other budget savings have been identified, which would negate the need for cuts. The reason that these were dismissed out of hand is because they suggested cuts to allowances for Freer's mates on the Council, who staged the coup that elected him. Many council's have adopted an "allowance cap". Mike Freer is extremely popular with the 11 Tory Cabinet members as under his leadership, Barnet Council has lead the way in paying the maximum possible.

One other thing really disturbs me about the new plans for sheltered housing. The bloke drawing up the future shape scheme for Barnet Council is a chap called Max Wide. He works for BT and is on secondment to Barnet. My friends at the Council, tell me he has Mike Freer's ear. Is it any coincidence that the wardens are being replaced by a scheme which makes extensive use of telephones? BT paid for Mike Freer to participate in a Leadership Scheme called Vital Vision. Where is he leading us - to a land where people are replaced by called centres. Press 1 for a Heart attack, 2 for blocked Drains, 3 for a nutter burning your house down or hold for an operator who will be with you some time soon.

So yes, that's who I blame. Barnet's guilty elite, with their fat allowances and contempt for the electors of Barnet.


As Roger Daltrey of the who sang so famously "Hope I Die Before I Get Old". He's lucky, he doesn't live in Barnet !