SEE UPDATE BELOW FOR EXTRA LETTER FROM PwC to DCLG
You’ll probably have heard by now (as I predicted here eight days ago) that Tower Hamlets council is filing for a High Court judicial review of Eric Pickles’ decision to send in PwC to inspect their accounts.
They announced their move yesterday, the day after Eric stood up in the Commons to tell MPs the council had caused a “considerable delay” in the inspection by failing to provide documents.
The full grounds for the council’s court action aren’t (as far as I’m aware) yet publicly available. Lutfur Rahman’s team (advised and encouraged by interim/consultant monitoring officer Meic Sullivan-Gould) believe they have a good case, although they haven’t yet laid it out.
The writ will become publicly available soon enough, but all we have to go on at the moment is a letter written by the Mayor to Eric Pickles yesterday. And that seems to focus on the costs of the audit, which the Government has estimated at about £1million.
That £1million will be borne by Tower Hamlets council, presumably regardless of the outcome.
So you can see there is a game of very high stakes poker here…and it’s not just limited to the politicians. Remember who wrote to the council’s Macavity Cat head of paid service Stephen Halsey in the first place? Answer…Sir Bob Kerslake, who is not only the permanent secretary in the Department for Communities and Local Government, but also the Head of the Civil Service itself.
If LexLutfur/Super Rahman wins, both Eric and Sir Bob will have some pretty serious explaining to do to Parliament. Which is partly why the DCLG said it would “robustly” contest the judicial review yesterday. Another simpler reason might be, of course, that Sir Bob strongly believes the decision was correct.
That said, I thought it would be useful to highlight here in one place all the publicly available correspondence on this issue.
Here are the letters from April 4 from Sir Bob to Halsey and from the DCLG’s Helen Edwards (in charge of the Localism section) to Will Kenyon, the partner at PwC:
These letters outline the scope. They say DCLG has received documents suggesting poor governance and suggesting possible fraud. They say PwC has had an initial review and further investigations are recommended. They say a file has been passed to the police and that the Panorama programme on March 31 has also raised further concerns. They say the inspection’s scope will relate to grants, transfers of fixed assets, the council’s publicity, and the way the council enters into contracts.
On the file to the police. We know the Met announced in May that it found “no new credible evidence of fraud”. But those files in DCLG’s possession did contain evidence of possible fraud in relation to the council’s dealings with the Brady Youth Forum. We also know that the council was aware of that alleged fraud in January (following a report by internal auditors Deloitte) but that was only reported to the police TWO months later AFTER Panorama started asking the council questions about it. It’s a good bet that PwC are asking why.
On the Panorama programme. I’m not sure Sir Bob is right to say that Panorama in its broadcast alleged “possible fraud”. It didn’t mention fraud at all. It questioned Lutfur’s governance.
On the scope of the audit, the areas look fairly clear to me, although I can see why the council might be arguing vagueness in relation to the way into enters into contracts. That said, without the keys to those doors, PwC would be pretty hampered.
On costs. Sir Bob tells the council it must pay PwC’s “reasonable fees”. Reasonable is a term loved by judges and lawyers and it means what it is. PwC isn’t allowed to lengthen the investigation merely to inflate its fees. And would it be reasonable to (as the council suggests) place a cap on PwC’s costs? PwC will go where the evidence takes them so this might well explain the frustration felt by council officers at having to produce yet more files as well as overseeing the “excellent” everyday services the council carries out.
Which brings us to the next set of letters.
*UPDATE: Thanks to Mark Baynes of the Love Wapping blog for highlighting this next letter, which I missed from the original post here. It’s a letter from Will Kenyon at PwC to Paul Rowsell, a senior director at the DCLG. In it, Mr Kenyon outlines the delays and gives examples of missing information. It’s a very useful insight into the kinds of questions being asked and paperwork sought. It’s a mind-numbing task and helps explain why auditors are paid so well… . One of the questions appears to relate to an advert placed with five Bengali TV stations, including Channel S, which was later censured by broadcasting regulator Ofcom.
[No doubt, the auditors will also have come across this other example of procurement in Takki Sulaiman’s communications department, ie when in 2012 a botched deal to put up banners of the Mayor was given to Fortuna Associates, a consultancy run by Chris Payne who had a few months earlier been a mate of Takki’s as the head of advertising for East End Life.] /END UPDATE.
Here’s the letter from Paul Rowsell at DCLG to Stephen Halsey on Monday, June 30.
This expresses disappointment at the delays caused by the council. It also uses some alarmingly strong language about “material” affects on the “future circumstances at Tower Hamlets council? Is this a first indication/warning that some central government intervention and control is being planned? (The Mr Holme referred to is Chris Holme, the director of finance at the council.)
And this is Lutfur’s letter to Eric Pickles in response yesterday:
Just as Eric Pickles may have tried to make some political capital out of the delay to the audit in the Commons on Monday (by triggering suggestions the council was withholding documents, when the reality could well be they just can’t find them quickly enough, or they don’t exist), Lutfur, too, goes down that route.
From his letter we learn there has been a series of other unpublished letters in which the council has been complaining about justification, scope and costs. The great champion of public scrutiny and transparency that is Tower Hamlets council and its mayor say DCLG hasn’t been transparent and that it has failed to answer questions. I think that may have caused one or two ironic giggles at DCLG.
However, on the substance…Lutfur is entitled to ask about costs and cost controls. It would seem unfair if Tower Hamlets council taxpayers were to pick up the tab for any failed governance by its politicians and officers, or none at all. If the PwC report gives a clean bill of health, then surely there must be a clawback from Whitehall. If the report is damning, Pickles would be wise to say DCLG is picking up the tab as he installs emergency measures at the council. Either way, the residents in “one of the most deprived communities” in the UK (as Lutfur says) should not be penalised.
I’m also puzzled why Lutfur has been persuaded to insert into his letter absurd references to “10 million” items of data requested by the PwC. It sounds like a cheap line concocted by interim officers and communication chiefs. Maybe someone should FoI how they calculated 10 million and how long that exercise took them. As Cllr Andrew Wood, an accountant, pointed out here yesterday:
As a qualified acceptant who has been audited many times by PWC, I agree the 10 million separate data items is complete rubbish. There might be one request to provide all invoices paid by the council over the last year which might generate one spreadsheet with millions of cells but downloading it from any normal system only takes maybe a few hours or maybe an overnight batch run.
Takki and co may think this is a headline grabbing line for some press outlets, but it makes the council and the mayor look stupid.
As for what happens next…the council’s writ will be lodged and heard before a judge imminently.
And in the meantime, DCLG will continue its contingency planning. One thought: Tower Hamlets council is still without a chief executive; if the PwC report does come back with major failings, it would seem a perfect opportunity for him to install one. The last time he did that was in 2011 when he approved no-nonsense Jo Miller to run failing Doncaster Council.
Granted, there were much bigger service failures at Doncaster but there were similar dysfunctional politics to Tower Hamlets. Jo is highly regarded in Whitehall and many think she has turned the council around. When her job is done there, might Tower Hamlets be her next challenge?
Trial by Jeory 
You’ve done a seriously good job done here Ted of getting everything together in one place.
The game is indeed hotting up. I await the outcome with baited breath.
I presume that the other investigations going on (electoral fraud, election petition, whistleblower, dodgy counting etc etc etc) have no bearing on this – they are all treated as discrete pieces of work?
Tim.
I think £1m could pay for the free school meals of about half the borough’s primary school kids.
So we let bad things happen if it costs to investigate them? Maybe all court cases should have a cap on them of thruppence?
Let’s speculate about many services could have been bought with the cost of the Mercedes which Lutfur deemed was essential to being a Mayor.
Or let’s think about what the Council could buy year after year if the local council newspaper was disbanded immediately – or run at the average budget used by Councils of similar size and type.
Maybe we could think about how much more the Election cost Tower Hamlets compared to other Councils?
Then there’s the payoff to the very respected Chief Executive who (the story goes) wouldn’t do what Lutfur wanted him to – because he was too good a Chief Executive and played by the rules. Witness the fact he was snapped up by the London Borough of Ealing within weeks and has been Chief Executive there with no problems at all.
Which reminds me if PWC have not yet investigated the payoffs relating to terminations of contracts with all officers above a certain grade I suggest they do so. Paying particular reference to all terminations which were NOT associated with the normal reasons for people moving on.
That area of expenditure alone would make a very sound case for why Lutfur has continually fallen short of the standards required when it comes to the proper use of public funds.
Have updated blog with crucial letter from PwC to DCLG explaining the sort of info that’s been delayed.
..or you could buy Poplar Town Hall
Or take it from the “communications” budget, the Merc and our dear leaders disgraceful spending on “his office”
How ironic that the Mayor complains about costs when he is increasing them by applying for a Judicial Review. The Mayor bleats about costs now but in the future he will make cuts and blame the Government, not his own failings.
Let’s not forget how Lutfur responded when we all bleated about the excessive cost of his Mercedes. This is not a Mayor who actually cares how money is spent – so long as he looks good. (Let’s also not forget that publicity costs is one of the things the inspection team is looking into!)
If he’d been behaving like Pope Francis when it comes to the expenses of office I might have understood.
However an argument that the authority shouldn’t have an investigation into how it spends its money – triggered by independent evidence of irregularities – because it would cost too much money beggars belief!
The justification of “possible fraud” is ridiculous. Anything is possible, but that doesn’t justify a £1m audit. It’s possible the sky will fall on top of my head right now, but it doesn’t justify anything. Further, the Panorama doesn’t allege fraud anyway.
Lutfur’s letter absolutely trashes Eric Pickles. Pickles is the one in trouble.
How is your head feeling?
I know that, if one spends one’s life locked within the closed bubble of the boundaries of Tower Hamlets (and I’m guilty of this a lot), it’s very easy to think that Lutfur is Lord High Poo-bah, only one step below God, and that all bow before his might and majesty, but a Government minister is not “in trouble” because Lutfur sends him a smug letter disagreeing with him. David Cameron is not holding COBRA talks in number 10 and saying to the assembled bods “Lutfur has had a go at Pickles. What do we do?!!” “Well, Prime Minister, first Pickles must of course be fed to the fishes. Then the Government must offer humble tribute to appease the angered Rahman…”
Pickles is not “in trouble”, not one little bit. Do you honestly think Bob Kerslake would have signed off on this audit if it wasn’t kosher?
Can we buy Jo Miller a ticket to Tower Hamlets please.? The vanity of this man is appalling, we pay him, treats the most of the residents like his subject who must obey and not question him. The rest he gives our money too.
We are are not going to stand for it any longer. I would rather the 1 mill be spend sorting this out than be given to his pet groups.
Seconded.
LBTH is dysfunctional and the buck literally stops with Rahman. Morale amongst staff is at a low and it reminds asian friends of mine of the sort of administrations back home (whether that be India, Sri Lanka or Mauritius) where staff are divided into those who do their jobs based on ability and professional values, and those who are political appointments who are put in place to report back to the President, sorry I mean Mayor.
Behaviour such as that displayed by Rahman would not be tolerated in the (asian) country to which I trace my roots. He would have been hounded out of office for bringing disrepute to the area, and would probably have been lucky to escape without physical harm.
Perhaps ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ have different meanings to him?
Tim.
Lutfur misses the point completely. The Secretary of State can intervene at any time to control how a Council operates – if he has evidence of failure of proper corporate governance. If Lutfur thinks otherwise he’s either a fool or is poorly advised. It has happened before and it will happen again.
Tower Hamlets Council is playing with fire if it believes that it can challenge the Secretary of State in the High Court as to the reasons why it requires a corporate governance inspection of the type being conducted at present.
Absolutely the last thing you should do when endeavouring to persuade the Secretary of State that you are a well run and effective Council is to fail to provide the appointed auditors with ALL the information requested.
That indicates a Council which is totally unaware that its ‘normal’ auditors can ask for any appropriate information at any time in furtherance of their normal audit duties. Just as local electors can ask for information which the Council MUST supply.
It is after all part of the normal checks and balances on the sums of public money which a Council is given to run its services and their exercise of their fiduciary duties.
In other words if you don’t play by the rules you don’t get the authority to spend the money – it’s really that simple.
Tower Hamlets would do well to study the scope and ambit of the Doncaster Recovery Board appointed to ensure that proper corporate governance associated with the standards required by the law and regulations relating to local government were re-established within Doncaster.
The stakes have changed since Doncaster went into administration. There have been major cuts to local government expenditure. It is now more than ever imperative that ANY Council and ANY Mayor can demonstrate clearly, transparently and with the validation of auditors that ALL its spending decisions are lawful and compliant with its statutory duties and relevant and appropriate policy and mechanisms for determining what money is spent on.
If it can’t do that then it should expect the consequences.
In order to mitigate costs the extremist linked Mayor and his flock could always resign.
Here is Oli Rahman’s car crash interview. I think we need speed bumps around the Town Hall.
https://audioboo.fm/boos/2296376-tower-hamlets-iain-dale-takes-on-rahman-not-that-one?
i think Peter Golds has set the mark for car crash interviews. Oli Rahman’s interview sounds normal in comparison
Crumbs – surely that man cannot be as stupid as he sounds?
Ian Dale is no Paxman, but even he manages to make mincemeat of Rahman. Just because you say something often doesn’t make it correct.
Tim.
The current Administration cannot run an election properly – according to the Electoral Commission – see a summary
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/action-needed-to-restore-confidence-in-tower-hamlets-election-counts
and the detailed report
Click to access Our-report-on-elections-held-in-Tower-Hamlets-in-May-2014.pdf
Comments from papers and a local government journal
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/tower-hamlets-election-poll-count-poorly-resourced
and
http://www.lgcplus.com/briefings/services/elections/commission-finds-inadequate-planning-in-tower-hamlets-count-chaos/5072518.article
The Deputy Mayor cannot respond to questions asked – this was a completely pathetic interview. He cannot even say “yes” or “no” to straightforward questions.
The Council cannot supply basic information required for an audit of corporate governance
Is it any wonder that some of us are questioning the calibre and competence of this Administration?
Agree with Tim.
what a cringe worthy interview. this guy needs some training. omg.
sounds like prickles and DCLG have got themselves into a right mess with this one. love how the bow/wapping chattering classes are praying for state intervention to bypass local democracy.
Local democracy ?!? Is that a joke? Should have been in the polling station with me!
“Local democracy” – the beneficiaries of Lutfur’s taxpayer largesse going out in droves to keep the money coming. Yeah, bollocks to local democracy.
And as with my reply to Dan McCurry up the thread, just because everyone in the Tower Hamlets bubble thinks the outside world doesn’t matter, doesn’t mean Pickles is going to stop.
The mayor in his reponse to Mr. Pickles copied in every single executive member of an organisation called “Partnership Executive Board”. These twenty or so people included Stephen Halsey and Aman Dalvi.
What is the Partnership Executive Board and is it dodgy?
If you Google “partnership executive tower hamlets” you will get a link to PDF. This PDF states terms and references for “The Tower Hamlets Partnership” and proposed members from Police, Fire Brigade, faiths, THBC etc.
Would’ve thought Aman Dalvi would have resigned when the temporary CEO of LBTH ceased his duties. The other LBTH member is the leader. Interesting that the Head of paid Services is a member; no mention of this in the PDF.
High Court Judicial Review? Steady on! Can’t even win Employment Tribunals.
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/court-crime/sacked_whistleblower_wins_tribunal_judgement_against_tower_hamlets_1_3495988
Thanks for the update Ted.
Why do you think there have been delays? Is the council just dragging it’s feet in the hope that the requests will go away, or is it ‘losing’ stuff of interest (and possibly fabricating other stuff to show the auditors)?
Or is it simply incompetent, unable to find stuff despite lots of effort, or doesn’t realise the significance of the situation it finds itself in?
Tim.
Think the latter, plus a lot of Yes Ministry.
Let me very clear – if the Council had a decent Chief Executive Officer of the calibre required for a Council of this sort this would NOT be happening.
(Both Martin Smith and Kevan Collins were the type of CEO required – so how come Rahman managed to lose both? I’d like to know if the PWC team have been over to Ealing to interview Martin Smith.)
I cannot help thinking that the rot starts with the absence of a decent CEO and the presence of individuals who lack both knowledge of and competence in responding to an audit of this type.
A high calibre CEO would make it very clear to the politicians what they can and cannot do irrespective of whether they like it or not. That’s what the CEO job involves at a very basic level. The current state of affairs is not one in which you can “play political games” or shilly shally about and provide information late in the day.
I really don’t think some of the advisers and temporary officers and Councillors fully appreciate the hierarchy of the command structure when it comes to audits of this sort. Officers have an obligation to respond and it’s not outside the scope of what is possible that failure to do so could eventually jeopardise their jobs.
If I was an officer I’d make very sure that I handed over all appropriate information as soon as possible to the co-ordinating officer and if it then were to be publicised that this had not been handed over promptly to the auditors I think I’d probably find myself penning a note to the auditors. Prior to perusing the job vacancies with other Councils – because this Council is very rapidly becoming the type of place where few decent officers will want to work.
Personally – I’d have given them no more than 14 days to provide all the information after which I’d have started actively looking for it – as in opening filing cabinets and interrogating computer systems. There’s absolutely nothing on that list which could not be provided within that timescale. Even the outstanding audit reports re ongoing investigations could have provided a status report and a summary of provisional conclusions.
Would a compromise agreements been signed so that former CEOs were unable to criticise LBTH under pain of financial penalty? If so, could Pickles override this for the good of the folks of LBTH?
While the likes of you and me are not entitled to look at Compromise Agreements, an auditor can very definitely inspect them and in fact the auditors did do in the case of Martin Smith and were very critical of the process used as I recall. I seem to recall a report was submitted to Council (and I think one of the pists on this blog refers to it)
I’m sure PWC would find it interesting reading by way of context for their current consideration of the standard of governance in Tower Hamlets in relation to public expenditure.
That being the case I have no doubt they can also be inspected in a court of law.
Forcing Martin Smith out because of a so-called “personality clash” cost this Borough some £500k according to the Evening Standard http://www.standard.co.uk/news/council-execs-500k-after-falling-out-with-leader-6731098.html
I think Rahman ought to think very carefully before provoking Eric Pickles to think about extending the period under review backwards to include the entire period while he was Leader of the Council prior to being Mayor.
That would mean all sorts of things could be examined with respect to the amount of money Rahman has wasted in pursuit of the greater good of Rahman. Auditors do like a good audit trail…………
The word I am hearing on the ground is that the ‘Pickled’ auditors havent found anything to date otherwise it would have been leaked to press by now…I am sure you will agree with this Ted!!
Apparently the Auditors went back to Pickles for more time. Fat Pickles then misused Parliamentary privilege to attack the council and change the scope and remit of the original audit without any clear basis or justifications.
I can understand from the Mayor’s / LBTH Officers point of view why they have become frustrated after trying their level best to co-operate and I am pretty confident most residents like me will support the Mayor’s decision to take legal action. The way many residents are viewing this is that; fat Pickles ‘is taking the biscuit’ and playing politics at the expense of local residents. If he wants to have 10 Audits carried out then fine, we should let him pay for it and not us the local tax payers. He can’t just pick and choose and bully councils in having an open ended audit which could cost residents Millions of pounds.
Also there is an issue of sec of state exercising new powers unilaterally and focusing on one Borough purely on political grounds.
The Council is absolutly right in questioning this approach and asking the high court to adjudicate on its legitimacy. This is not about hiding things or obstructing the work of auditors but about getting clarity, objectivity and fairness.
We all know the original purpose/remit of the audit wast too vague so LBTH Council is absolutely correct in questioning that!!
No I don’t agree with that and what weird logic you have. There’s a JR going on. People don’t tend to mess around with them.
Ajay, THe astonishing thing is that Pickles expects LBTH to foot the bill for all the work of accommodating these 24 full time accountants in the town hall. Not only should Pickles pick up the bill but LBTH needs to be compensated for the labour bill of our people.
I think this will end up being a resigning issue for Pickles. The press love to rally around an underdog/victim, and after everything Lutfur’s been through, that may well happen.
Pickles will have to account for this.
Ajay – Once again you prove you know absolutely nothing. Have you actually read the correspondence?
Quite the contrary, PWC are a professional outfit and the one thing you can be certain of is that nothing is going to leak when the client is Eric Pickles.
The evidence in terms of what they are asking questions about is nothing new – it’s all surfaced in various forms and various places and it would be very surprising if questions were not being asked
I also find Ajay’s logic very confused when it is very clear from the sample evidence of the dates on which evidence was provided that it’s not been possible as yet to arrive at any sort of conclusion. Not least because they have as yet not set up the interviews with key individuals which need to take place.
In other words there are no leaks because rather a lot of data was outstanding for rather a long time – hence no completion of the investigation and no conclusions have been drawn.
Ajay’s stories reminds me of the typical behaviour of a small boy who constantly repeats a lie when found out doing something wrong. The fact he will endlessly repeat the same story /lie does not make it true.
isn’t it funny that the very people that criticise the mayor for his car are happy to fritter away millions to a private consultants just because a dodgy journalist (ware) said so – and a dodgy politician with an axe to grind (Peter Golds) convinced his master Prickles to acquiesce
Residents were complaining LONG before Ware or Gilligan or Ted started reporting it. The journos reacted to what Lutfur did. He was the one who invaded Poland.
You are leaving out the countless ordinary tax paying residents who have experienced the lack of transparency and accountability first hand and even when driven to FOI requests for simple answers to simple questions have to wade through treacle to get an answer.
The administration sucks, The streets are litter strewn and it is almost impossible to walk for five minutes without seeing a dumped mattress. Staff morale is rock bottom.
what utter nonsense. FoI requests are stonewalled local authorities up and down this country, ditto supposed bad administration and litter. Do you really think this is a Tower Hamlets issue. Of course not, you have inflated this issue because you can’t stand a brown man being in charge.
I know many brown skinned men and women who can’t stand this particular brown skinned man. What do you call them?
I’m brown-skinned and I can’t stand Rahman or his acolytes.
There were enough reports from the election about what brown-skinned people who said they wouldn’t vote for Rahman were called. None of them were complimentary.
Sirius, you need to jog on with your disgusting racist attitudes.
Tim.
Coconuts ted. they are called coconuts
Well please don’t bother commenting here any more. Thanks.
And that, I think, tells us all we need to know about Sirius.
Isn’t it funny that the very people who object to the cost of the inquiry into the mayor’s mismanagement have no objection to the millions wasted by selling off Poplar Town Hall to his mate at a price well below its genuine market value.
Well, coconut is a very nice fruit. It features a lot in south Indian cuisine.
Not just his car. His office, the disgraful use of public funds to plaster his face all over tower hamlets and east end life and his advisors and giving money to “faith” organisations and “faith” buildings and local “TV” stations ….
We object to TH taxpayers paying £1m+ to a profit driven corporate body such as PwC for an audit, which serves no purpose. It was a knee-jerk reaction by DCLG on the back of the Panorama film about Lutfur’s popularity.
We do not object to the silver Merc because it served a purpose – it transported Lutfur from A to B. Merc is a medium range car. It’s not like Lutfur was going around in a Rolls Royce!
We like that Lutfur’s face is plastered everywhere. He is the mayor of TH. He is the face of the borough. If a project is funded by the Mayor, it should carry his branding. His branding is his face. Get used to it people.
East End Life is a great source of news and information. It is also the medium for various statutory notices. If you do away with EEL, TH council would have to pay money to third party publications to place such statutory notices.
Most of you are smart people, but, unfortunately, you do not like to use your brain. You just like to jump on the bandwagon and pick up on the nonsense peddled in the media. Here is a clue – what you read in the media is often overhyped, sensationalised and far removed from the truth designed to serve a particular agenda. You are better off using your own intellect to determine fact from fiction.
Just think about this. If Lutfur was not legit or squeaky clean, he would have been found out ages ago. Nobody’s has been able to lay one finger on this guy and he has led this borough for the last six years and counting.
By all means, criticise Lutfur’s policies if they are not good enough, but do not try to beat the guy with all your tricks and plots. You’ll just fail.
Hmm, I sense a little under hyping if the Merc’s branding here. Fact or fiction?
Fact or fiction? Every advert placed by an internal frontline dept at LBTH reduces that department’s budget for frontline services. At market rates. But that ‘revenue’ allows EEL to ‘reduce’ it’s net costs. Use your intellect there.
Fact or fiction? Lutfur is dropping the Merc.
Fact or fiction? Lutfur is planning to answer Qs in council and O&S.
You seem a pretty clean sort of guy. Would you allow yourself to be surrounded with shady sorts?
He hasn’t exactly helped himself over the years.
MOTCO who do you represent? Who are “we”?
Kay, “we” are the majority of the people in TH who re-elected Lutfur to be our mayor.
Does that answer your question sir?
Jeory, you talk about “shady” characters surrounding Lutfur.
All of Lutfur’s supporters who endorsed him in the Guardian before the election are not “shady”. These are high profile public figures who put their neck on the line for Lutfur.
Admittedly, there might be one or two “shady” people around Lutfur, but Lutfur is a man of the people. He has “shady” and non-shady people around him (he does not have slim shady!).
Jeory, you might not be too impressed with one or two characters, but Lutfur does not have Labour party machine behind him so he has to get support from wherever he can. He does not have the luxury to turn down the curry king, Siraj, for example. However, when Siraj gets into a spot of bother (i.e. with dodgy alcohol), you don’t hear Lutfur coming out to defend Siraj’s wheeling and dealing. Lutfur’s a clever guy. Underestimate him at your own peril.
Not wanting to cast aspersions of course but which of those Guardian letter writers were not in receipt of some council funds?
I most certainly don’t underestimate his political power. I’ve always questioned his governance, so let’s see whether those concerns are soon addressed shall we?
He has a v good opportunity to alter perceptions but so far the announcements have been very thin on the ground.
I’d urge him to leave the bunker, difficult though that may be.
I should also add that he has some v bright people around him as well. Maybe you’re one of them…
You may claim to represent those who re-elected Lutfur but they were certainly not the majority of the people in TH.
Thinking that your views represent those of the majority of TH residents is rather fanciful 😉
MOTCO To be clear, from what you stated “We, the people who voted for him”.
What about the rest of the residents who didn’t vote for him or not vote at all? Are they so unworthy that they do not deserve the full services provided by the Mayor and THBC? Note that probably the majority pay full council tax and are sick at funding this fiasco?
In Britain once an election has been won fairly and squarely, those elected govern for all not just their party supporters!
AYM, in this country, the ballot is secret so Lutfur does not know who voted for him and who did not. Therefore, he is serving everyone – those who voted for him and those who did not.
If you do not like Lutfur, you have to wait another four years to have an opportunity to get rid of him.
Remember – patience is virtue.
Why are some people on here so utterly convinced that TH have done no wrong? Why? Do they know something that we don’t know? Ajay – You threw away your argument by twice referring to Eric Pickles as “fat Pickles”, I thought you were more intelligent than that.
John Wight, I am utterly convinced TH or Lutfur have done absolutely nothing wrong. How many investigations and reports do you need?
I read on here that Lutfur would be going to jail after Panorama!!
It’s simple John. No wrong doing has ever been established. Much has been alleged, corruption, mismanagement of public funds, favouritism, election fraud, voter intimidation etc etc. All of these have been individually investigated and to my knowledge not a single person has been charged over any of these offenses.
The only criticism I can recall was the recent election counting mismanagement which Rahman had nothing to do with.
Hence the the mayor and his administration is innocent of all charges until proven guilty. I hope you’ll agree with this or do you believe different rules apply at TH.
The frustration with PwC is that they are not looking at anything new. Most of it has been investigated previously by police and other auditors. Pickles is simply bullying the Council based on persistent bickering of a few individuals with clear political and possibly prejudicial motives.
I am convinced PwC will find no substantive malpractice and no one will face any sanctions as a result. But the Council is once again bring dragged through mud in front of national press.
I am angry with Pickles for allowing this to happen so want someone to pay. Either Rahman goes and we get a fresh start or Pickles goes and we draw a line and move on. F**king fed up with this shit!
Imran, mind your language bro. It is Ramadan!
You still don’t understand the differences between different types of audit.
The mayor is innocent of all charges until proven guilty. But he is not helping his case by hindering an investigation which, if his words are correct, will prove his innocence.
The situation increasingly strikes me as similar to Richard Nixon’s Presidency in the early 70s. And that didn’t end too well.
Sirius for pity’s sake forget colour. It is about the way Team Rahman run the show: the lack of accountability, transparency, favouritism that is my beef. I feel the borough is going downhill. Decent staff can’t do their jobs how they want or they get moved on.
I don’t care if it happens elsewhere as you say. I live here not up or down the country and was until recently proud to say this is my home.
Anti-Lutfur brigade have a list of ongoing tricks, which include, inter alia, police investigation, high court petition and Pickles’ investigation.
Lutfur has one trick – judicial review, which has the potential to trump all of the above.
Lutfur’s letter to Pickles is the best of the bunch Ted’s published. It is very well drafted, extremely convincing and really water tight.
Let the games begin. Play fire with fire. Lutfur’s an experienced operator. He’s encountered and dealt with much worse before. He took the fight to Labour and with judicial intervention, he compelled Labour to put him on the Labour shortlist in 2010. If there had been enough time when he was eventually deselected, he would have taken Labour to court again. In the end, there was no need. He had the last laugh and those who plotted against him fell flat on their face.
History will repeat itself because some people refuse to learn from history.
If the Mayor has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong, why is he obstructing the audit? Surely the best thing he and his team could to be as co-operative as possible to get it over and done with as soon as possible.
In sending auditors into Tower Hamlets, Pickles was using new legislation for the first time and PwC are the first auditors to do this work under the new legislation. Neither Pickles nor PwC would have taken this on lightly and neither want to end up with egg on their face.
Guys, get real. Come back down to earth. He’s not obstructing the audit. Far from it.
Have you read the correspondence?
The letter from Will Kenyon to Paul Roswell dated 27 June 2014 provides a good example of the foot dragging (obstruction might be a harsh word at this point). NB this is NOT the only example :
—
Area PUBLICITY
Item 143, Documents concerning the procurement process followed and approval for services provided from the following advisors – four redacted names follow
Dated 27/5/2014, status is “documentation remains outstanding”
—
There is a clear process to be followed for engaging external advisors, one that insures a bona fide need for the services exists, that the compensation on offer is market driven, and not unilaterally determined. The process involves paperwork and oversight i.e., approvals and confirmations from various Council officers. In some cases services retained must be put out for competitive tender. This is to insure value for taxpayer money and best of breed skills are sourced.
It should be a straightforward process to comply with the request for the documentation. Why not comply?
Non compliance raises no end of conjecture about the need for the services, the cost of the services, who – or did anyone at all – sign off and approve the four advisors providing the services, could the services be obtained elsewhere cheaper, was there a legitimate need for these services, and what services were provided after being funded by taxpayer money.
The list of questions is potentially endless and the need to answer questions clear since taxpayer funds were used to fund the four publicity advisers.
Someone approved using taxpayer money to pay for these four advisers. Foot dragging simply raises questions about which steps were either relaxed, not followed in a timely manner (e.g., retained, with the list of services to be delivered defined later), or perhaps even overruled by someone in power, perhaps someone who made a unilateral decision, possibly against the express wishes of council officers.
Really would be best to comply and ASAP.
Anyhow, back to the point. Does the Council have a chance of success at a Judicial Review?
Presumably the LBTH case is based on ‘Wednesbury reasonableness’ and LBTH would need to prove the following:
– in making the decision, the defendant [DCLG] took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or
– the defendant failed to take into account factors that ought to have been taken into account, or
-the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.
Pretty tough to get a judge to agree to any of these I would have thought, given the weight of documentation on Pickles desk.
Ahh, but there’s only a couple of weeks of Trinity term left, and then the courts don’t sit until Michaelmas (1st of October). So there’s a good chance that this won’t get judged on until the Autumn.
Wednesbury unreasonableness is only the latter of those three alternative grounds of challenge you suggest, Graham. And it’s highly unlikely in my view they’d go for Wednesbury unreasonableness as it’s a notoriously difficult burden to satisfy.
Far more likely they’d go for one of the first two in which Wednesbury is unnecessary. And there are other alternative grounds of challenge- such as failure to comply with the principles of natural justice, duty to give reasons and duty to give notice, and using the power for an improper purpose.
Will TH supporters categorically state on here that all the auditors requests for information have been met?
John Wright, I hope you are a “TH supporter” too. Why wouldn’t you be a supporter of Tower Hamlets?
If you meant THF, let’s make it clear that more people support Lutfur as a Mayor than his party. This is why we have more Labour councillors than THF ones.
To all, will we find out the results of BWCT by-election by Tues next week or sooner? What do you all think?
Tower Shamlets are looking for x2 communications advisors according to the mayors newspaper – while social work posts are cut and many more to come – you can see where the priorities of this so called local government agency …
Can you scan and send it to me please ?
Man on the Clapham Omnibus – My question was clear, I did not refer or slag off THF, I referred to TH council, or do you believe that THF ARE the council?