I keep being asked what’s the latest with the PwC report that Eric Pickles was due to announce in the Commons last week.
The answer is that it’s all a bit unclear.
I’m told Tower Hamlets council, with a certain “coup de theatre“, dumped a whole load of new documents on the PwC auditors at the very last minute of the report’s preparation (and five months after the investigation started).
This has caused something of a delay.
Parallel to this is another potentially interesting little conundrum. At the end of August, High Court Judge Sir Kenneth Parker declined an application from the council for a judicial review of the decision to send in the auditors in the first place.
In his written ruling, he used the word “hopeless” to describe one of the council’s arguments. He firmly rejected the other grounds as well. His ruling is here:
However, as The Wharf reported in September, the council was undeterred and applied for an oral hearing before another judge.
This has been granted and a date has been fixed for next month.
Here’s the question I’ve asked…Surely it would be illogical to publish the report ahead of that judicial review? If the court rules in favour of the council, ie it rules it was unlawful to send in PwC, then surely that would mean the report itself was unlawful in some way?
Put it another way: what would be the point of the JR hearing if by that time Eric Pickles had already published the report? Would that hearing then be obsolete in practical terms? If the report was so damning that Eric determined intervention was necessary, could that intervention then take place if the JR rules his original decision was unlawful.
He’d be in a bit of a pickle, and embarrassed politically.
Wouldn’t the council’s lawyers want to apply for an injunction on publication of the report prior to the JR hearing? Camp Lutfur Rahman is keeping quiet on the matter.
Sources in Eric’s Department for Communities and Local Government, meanwhile, say the two issues are separate. But I do wonder whether they might wait until after the JR.
Maybe one of the learned readers out there can help?
As for the Election Court petition, that is still going ahead. I’m being told by town hall sources it’s likely to happen in January, although the venue is still unconfirmed. It’s quite possible it won’t take place at the town hall in Mulberry Place after all, but at another building that can accommodate an accompanying media and public circus.
York Hall, the famous boxing venue in Bethnal Green, might be one (very appropriate) option.
Trial by Jeory 
How much are we (the Council taxpayers) paying the lawyers advising the Council for their incompetent advice?
I cannot help but think Tower Hamlets is quite possibly making a very strong case to Eric Pickles as to why he should reintroduce the right to surcharge Councillors personally to recover any unlawful expenditure of public funds, or loss caused to a public authority through misconduct.
It’s a shame the right to surcharge was ever abandoned. It certainly used to keep some Councillors on the right side of the law.
Yes. Surcharging should be re-introduced, with safeguards for spending errors.
In other EU countries citizens have a Right to a good government which they can enforce through the courts. In this country, the rogues in local government can always get away with wasting or misspending £ millions of other people’s money.
Why are Tower Hamlets elite aristocrats always enjoying total impunity from prosecution ? Voters should have a Right to kick-out the politicians and the senior staff. The objective test has to be: Are they working for the public’s benefit or for their own unrelated benefit ?
Ted please publish the date and time of the oral JR hearing. If I’m in there on the day, I would like to attend providing the public are allowed in. Thanks.
Curious Cat.
I asked the question on 23rd October – and somebody called ‘Conrad Catalan’ made it into an FOI request on 29th October – see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_grounds_for_2014_jr_applic
Thanks Conrad whoever you are
Specifically this is what Conrad asked
“To London Borough of Tower Hamlets,
1. The authority made a Judicial Review application at the Royal
Courts of Justice in the matter of a central government ordered
investigation into the affairs of the authority. That investigation
is active and being undertaken by Messrs Price Waterhouse and
Coopers.
2. Please may I have a copy of the JR application showing at least
a skeleton argument and the relief sought ?
3. What is the lawful and legal justification for the authority to
spend public funds on making this particular JR application and the
subsequent request for an oral hearing ?
4. Is the authority attempting to establish a new legal principle,
new case law or a revision of existing case law ?
5. What proportion of the JR application costs are being paid by
the authority’s legal expenses insurers ?
6. In what manner will the authority’s residents benefit from a
successful JR application ?
7. Which solicitors and barristers are representing the local
authority in its JR pursuit ?
8. If the authority is unsuccessful in its JR request, what will be
the costs paid-out from the authority’s funds ? A provisional
estimate is acceptable at this stage.
Conrad Catalan.”
Apparently the question had already been asked and he was referred to the previous answer which doesn’t address all of Conrad’s questions.
TheCouncil response is only partial.
* It doesn’t answer all the questions
* It only provides an estimate of costs
* It does not provide the actual costs to date of appearing before a Judge for an application for a Judicial Review – which was refused.
* Plus the estimate for a proper hearing seems to me to be a bit lightweight.
see http://www.towerhamletsfoi.org.uk/documents/11300/11300%20Costs%20of%20Judicial%20Review%20of%20the%20Pricewaterhouse%20Coopers%20enquiry%20into%20LBTH.pdf
[i]”The Council estimates costs of £40,000.00 should the issued application be permitted to proceed to hearing at the High Court.”[/i]
Over to you Ted……. or any Councillor who like to pursue further……..
🙂
For italics (and bold too), you need to use angular brackets, not square brackets.
I know – I forgot!
Generally an innocent man accused of theft doesn’t object to having his bag searched.
But apart from that, thanks for keeping us updated Ted
I’m slightly confused because I though the JR was mainly to do with the fact that tax payers (i.e. me) shouldn’t have to pay the £1million bill it comes with. It wasn’t to block the report or question it, but more to do with the costs. I thought Lutfur welcomed the inspection?
I’d suggest that it’s been very clear from the start that Lutfur does NOT welcome the investigation.
If he’d welcomed the Inspection the evidence would have been there in terms of his full co-operation from the outset. Instead we’ve had evidence from the Inspectors of the Council dragging its feet and providing required documents far too late in the process.
Co-operation was not forthcoming because he knows that any investigation is going to uncover things he would far rather were left under the carpet.
If he was concerned about how much Council funds were being spent on it why would he go running to the High Court trying to stop it?
If he genuinely had nothing to hide and was really concerned about the best use of public money he would have co-operated promptly and in full – and we would have been able to read the Review report months ago.
Oh Dear,
The Judge is unhappy with the standard and competence of the local authority’s JR application.
The Judge has insisted on a full High Court Judge hearing any oral request for a review of the original JR refusal.
It seems, once again, the clowns at LBTH have proven beyond all reasonable doubt how crap, sub-standard and useless they are. Those who brought the JR application should be paying ALL the costs and not dumping those costs upon the borough’s ordinary folk.
I’m not a betting person, but who will give me good odds if I put £100 on TH’s JR appeal being kicked-out again ?
Curious Cat
Can I ask for a rebate on my Council tax . Its not being used for a service to benifit residents. Its being used for the Mayors vanity and I for one really really do object . He and the rest of them should be paying it out of their own pockets or let the people who bank role them do it.
Mrs Paddy,
I’d take-off my hat, if I was wearing one, and salute your stance that, in secret, without your knowledge and without your personal permission, the LBTH aristocrats are stealing your council tax to cover-up their dubious behaviour. That can not be a lawful use of scarce public funds.
Surely the wealthy should be paying their ‘cover-up’ court and lawyers fees out of their own pockets. To take the money from the pockets of the borough’s poor and deprived is simply theft.
Someone reading this might want to contact the council’s external auditor and try to make a complaint ……………………………. questioning the lawfulness of this most unusual public spending.
Curious Cat.
P.S. My mum’s ancestors came from County Clare 🙂
Thank you CC , must be the Irish in me, . My ancestors come from Kerry & Dublin , so its on both sides.
Dear Mrs Paddy,
It is indeed my pleasure to make your acquaintance.
This afternoon I spoke with LBTH’s external auditor, KPMG partner Andrew Sayers.
The JR expenditure is in the current financial year. The District Auditor function is to review the previous year’s accounts. However Mr Sayers told me he is willing to receive complaints about expenditure even if in the current financial year although it may have to wait until he formerly examines the accounts after 31 March 2015. His email address is andrew.sayers –at– kpmg.co.uk
Mr Sayers emphasised he can not question the local authority’s judgement when it spends public cash although he can question the legal basis for the expenditure.
I shall ask LBTH what legal authority are they relying upon when they made the JR and requested an oral hearing. I’ll post the result.
Curious Cat.
This is my FOI request
—————————————–
To London Borough of Tower Hamlets,
1. The authority made a Judicial Review application at the Royal Courts of Justice in the matter of a central government ordered investigation into the affairs of the authority. That investigation is active and being undertaken by Messrs Price Waterhouse and Coopers.
2. Please may I have a copy of the JR application showing at least a skeleton argument and the relief sought ?
3. What is the lawful and legal justification for the authority to spend public funds on making this particular JR application and the subsequent request for an oral hearing ?
4. Is the authority attempting to establish a new legal principle, new case law or a revision of existing case law ?
5. What proportion of the JR application costs are being paid by the authority’s legal expenses insurers ?
6. In what manner will the authority’s residents benefit from a successful JR application ?
7. Which solicitors and barristers are representing the local authority in its JR pursuit ?
8. If the authority is unsuccessful in its JR request, what will be the costs paid-out from the authority’s funds ? A provisional estimate is acceptable at this stage.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_grounds_for_2014_jr_applic#outgoing-395723
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_grounds_for_2014_jr_applic#outgoing-395723
I don’t think i could be more frustrated with this council leadership. Every decision they make is for personal survival and their own selfish goals….they do not consider the growth and future of this amazing borough.
These clear delaying tactics are just typical of the mess they have made and the web of lies that needs to be untangled.
I don’t know how they find the time to govern….oh wait….i forgot….they don’t!
In the meantime Rahman makes plans to cut funding for all public nurseries in Tower Hamlets
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/mothers_fight_to_save_bow_nursery_from_council_cuts_1_3806461
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/mothers_fight_to_save_nurseries_now_backed_by_mps_and_labour_1_3815618
Right you ask as far as I can see the following question:
1) As permission for Tower Hamlets to judicially review the decision of the SoS of DCLG has been refused (but Tower Hamlets have requested an oral hearing to review) does this delay the publication of the inspector’s report?
As you’ll be aware it’s an active case, so I’ll try and avoid any contempt of court issues and stick to the public policy/legal procedural issues at play here.
However in order to answer your question I have to make the following points:
A) The Administrative Court (part of the High Courts of Justice) that makes decisions on JR claim follows the Civil Procedure Rules. One of those court rules requires JR claims to be brought promptly and as an upper limit no more than 3 months after the decision challenged has been made.
Even if there is an oral hearing challenged the decision to refuse permission for JR, the delay in filing the case with the court will still be seen as a judicial reason to turn down this application for permission for judicial review.
I would also guess that the reason any oral hearing is going to a HCJ rather than deputy is reflective of the media/political interest this matter is generating as well as the need for the court to have somebody sufficiently experienced in making the correct decision (from a judicial perspective) on this one.
B) Even if the claim had been made promptly (as it should have been), the Order of Mr Justice Kenneth Parker disputes any of the three grounds that Tower Hamlets have put in their JR claim.
The permission stage is there to weed out such cases.
In short as permission has been denied (not granted), it shouldn’t delay publication of the inspector’s report by DCLG.
Even if permission had been granted, without a court order or injunction publication of the inspector’s report is not the decision questioned here by judicial review. The decision challenged by Tower Hamlets appears to be DCLG’s decision to send in the inspectors.
Publication of the inspectors’ report is a separate decision and I’m sure Tower Hamlets will be sent a copy before publication any way.
The JR case just seems like deliberate delaying tactics, as if the JR claim had merit to it permission would have been granted already.
It’s very rare for oral hearings to succeed after permission has been turned down on the papers. It can happen, just not very often.
Hope that helps!
I will point out that I am basing this on the document you published and haven’t had sight of the case file in this case. Therefore some of the above is based on experience and reading between the lines.
Great stuff. Many thanks. I’m led to believe this is DCLG’s thinking as well. The council’s legal bills will make interesting viewing.
Btw, let’s remember inspection is focused on ‘best value’…
On the legal bills side, I requested an entire year’s worth of the council I report on. You can imagine how making that kind of request under the audit rules went down as they couldn’t use the usual FOI excuses.
They blacked out all party names (except their own in many cases), names of barristers, names of solicitors, names of council officers, in many cases also court reference numbers, reference numbers of cases, initials of council officers, names of in house solicitors and if for example the invoice was multiple pages in many cases only supplied one first page.
Like you I request matters under the Audit Commission Act 1998 rights, the problem is at the Council I do it at, the request goes to the department that holds the invoice, then the legal department blacks out information, then financial services finally black out more. The more hands it passes through, the more information is blacked out and they know I’m press, hence the issues.
I also requested a years worth of councillor expenses forms (they supplied some, with the rest only recently). They still are holding back petrol receipts, train tickets et cetera. Took about 2 months to supply the councillor expense claim forms for 22 councillors. I also requested various leases and contracts (which were interesting).
The contracts were supplied missing hundreds of pages, but also showed one of their contractors paid ~£12 million/year processing thousands of people’s private sensitive information since 2004 wasn’t even registered with ICO as a data controller!
It makes me despair the secrecy in local government at times and how inept internal and external audit seem to be! I’ll name the Council here as the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, which is a peninsula to the west of Liverpool with a population of ~320,000.
All the best from up north!
John
Did you appeal/seek further advice? On what grounds did they redact? Were these for family court/social services issues?
A couple of months ago, i published invoices from Taylor Wessing (re Panorama) that i’d obtained under audit rules and which had been redacted previously under FOI.
Interestingly, the council also provided (upon request) all the time sheets supplied by those lawyers to back up the invoices. I’m yet to publish these time sheets.
They said I couldn’t appeal to the auditor, that their legal department had decided it.
The grounds were that there were names of Wirral Council officers on the invoices, more specifically s. 15 ss. 3(a)/ss. 4(a)/ss. 4(b)/ ss. 5.
However the person redacting was just told to remove all names (whether they were names of employees or not). I suppose it would have taken them more than the month it took them to determine whether each name on the invoice was an employee or not.
So for example out of the 14 or so solicitors working there, none of their names or initials appear on the invoices even though they were the solicitor on that case.
I read the invoices from Taylor Wessing on your blog. A lot of the invoices I requested under audit had previously been denied under FOI too.
The time sheets are often the most interesting bits as the invoices often don’t say much once all the details have been blacked out.
In answer to your question about what grounds they redacted, the above is a guess because:
a) I asked for a list of redactions and the grounds 2 months ago they have yet to supply it
b) they don’t have a system in place for appealing such decisions, other than I could write to the officer who heads up their legal department.
c) Some were obviously family court/social services issues yes, but a small proportion.
What is interesting though is because they photocopied paper invoices I can tell they haven’t provided more than the first page by the staple that’s been photocopied, the logic being why does it have a staple in if it’s only one page? 🙂
Thanks for your comments on this. The legal invoices covered a wide variety of HR/employment issues (very heavily redacted), advice on budget matters, procurement, regeneration, cases where they had been sued, cases where they had sued someone else and cases where strangely they were not a party to proceedings at all but paid legal costs.
Other legal invoices were for DNA tests (possibly family court related), psychological reports and many other types. It comes to hundreds and hundreds of invoices (some multi-page).
I could do with writing detailed blog posts on it.
One invoice (for thousands of pounds) was on a successful appeal of a ICO decision notice to the first tier tribunal. Even the decision notice number (which are all published on ICO’s website) was blacked out when I was provided with the invoice.
Basically they’re trying to make my job as the press as difficult as possible!!!
John, re contractor not “registered with ICO as a data controller”.
If contractor is simply processing the council’s data, contractor is a “Data processor” who does not need to register, the council remains the “Data controller” – otherwise a data controller could sub-contract their DPA responsibilities to someone else. Though most companies with ~£12 million/year turnover would have to register for some other activity.
John Brace wrote:-
It is not only the press but everyone who wants to uncover any of the unsavoury misuses of public cash and public resources. My own local authority does it all the time non-stop.
The public need protecting from the senior staff at out-of-control failing local authorities.
The DCLG claims it is “democratic” but when did any member of the public vote for cover-ups galore ?
Curious Cat.
“If contractor is simply processing the council’s data, contractor is a “Data processor” who does not need to register, the council remains the “Data controller” – otherwise a data controller could sub-contract their DPA responsibilities to someone else.”
I take your point about data processor/data controller and will look into that. Thanks for pointing that out.
Excellent appraisal – especially the point about publication is not contested in the JR application.
Thank you very much.
Curious Cat
Thanks, having looked it up the publication of a report following an inspection rests with the Audit Commission, who are not a party to the case between Tower Hamlets and the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Interesting how the usual suspects defending Lutfur and co have folded their tents and slunk away in the night.
I mention Sunny Hundal well known writer and blogger, what else he does I don’t know, Jon Lansman who seems to run the Michael Meacher paid for site Left Futures, serial apologist for and still supporter of Ken Livingstone Dave Hill and of course the Kenster himself.
Where are they now or does their silence speak volumes?
While John is right to say that the decision subject to review is that of the Secretary of State to order an inspection, it does not necessarily follow that the publication of the report is not also questioned.
Such publication is permitted by Section 13 of the Local Government Act 1999 which (as amended) provides: ‘Where an inspector has carried out an inspection of an authority under section 10 the inspector shall issue a report.’
If the Secretary of State were found by the High Court to have erred in law in appointing an inspector, his decision would be ultra vires and a nullity. Accordingly, the time spent by the ‘inspector’ at the Town Hall would not have been ‘an inspection of an authority under section 10’ for the purposes of Section 13 and the power conferred under that section would not arise.
On the other hand there is also a doctrine of ‘authority de facto’ which holds that if it transpires that a person’s appointment to office was defective, their acts when ostensibly in that office are not invalidated. It is not clear whether or not this would apply here.
In Shoesmith’s Case, it was held that the decision of Haringey LBC to dismiss its DCS, on the basis of a SoS’s direction that later transpired to be a nullity, was unlawful – partially on the basis that the council was aware that the DCS was challenging the lawfulness of the direction and could and should have waited for that process to conclude before acting in reliance on it. It may be that Pickles has been advised along these lines.
Can you imagine the furore – and what might then start coming out of the woodwork and the Council’s files – if it was ruled that Pickles had no authority to order an Inspection?
That would require TH to both win their oral hearing for permission and then go on to win their case at a further hearing. Both seem unlikely.
I am reasonably sure the Secretary of State has a discretion in statute law or devolved from statute law, or a Common Law Right, to investigate matters that concern him or suggest something is not quiet right in areas that are his ultimate responsibility.
My thinking stems from All the powers of Local Government are ultimately derived from Parliament. The government’s executive minister with legal powers over local government, and whom has the legal authority to make Orders, and in so doing, delegate or give authority to local government to perform prescribed actions, is the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government.
An established legal principal is delegation of responsibility does not prevent or hinder in any way the delegator exercising those powers or responsibilities himself. Delegation does not in law remove all liability for the consequences of that delegation remaining the ultimate responsibility of the delegator, the Secretary of State.
If the captain of an aircraft carrier is sleeping when his ship runs aground, not only is the seaman then in charge on a courts marshal but the captain is too. Delegation does not relieve one of ultimate responsibility.
Having received authority from parliament, it would be legally perverse if the local authority could abuse or misuse those powers with impunity. Therefore the Secretary of State acting in the broader public interest is duty-bound to conduct, regardless of existing legislation, an enquiry into matters of grave or serious public concern. No court would accept that a local authority can literally do whatever it likes however persuasive or persistent the local authority’s claims.
When the local authority’s conduct is examined, decisions made by the local authority also depend on being reasonable, proportionate, equitable etc.
If, as it seems, the Secretary of State is pursuing a approach, then that clearly leaves a multitude of other legally justified reasons to probe further into the murky world of the LBTH.
Essentially there is nothing to stop an avalanche of other government investigations into the running of TH. A wise and clever person would quickly understand the futility of wasting vast amounts of tax payers’ money trying to stop the first of potentially many forensic examinations.
An even wiser person would never ever get into the mess in the first place. I blame complacency, arrogance and contempt for the vast majority of the residents of TH. What is that saying “Give a person enough rope to hang himself …….” ? Seems hangman Pickles is lurking in the wings.
Curious Cat.
Well in order to get to that “if” Tower Hamlets would have to both win their oral hearing for permission and go on to win their case which seems unlikely at this point.
The Shoesmith case was different because it was an employer/employee matter rather than whether the SoS has the legal power to request an inspection of Tower Hamlets. I realise both involve a local council, but they’re different types of matters. The Shoesmith case was about political pressure put on a council to make a decision, in this case the JR claim is about the power of a SoS to order an inspection.
I would guess that if Tower Hamlets lose their oral hearing the inspector’s report will be published. This is assuming Tower Hamlet’s lawyers don’t drag it out any further on what is a legal longshot and unlikely to succeed.
However the extra time gives more time for reputation management and spinning what’s happening to their advantage. From a PR perspective they can point to the lawsuit and allege the SoS did it the wrong way, even though permission has been denied.
Not quite. You’re right that the dismissal was a private law and not a public law matter, but the Shoesmith case concerned not political pressure but a statutory order of the Secretary of State, of a similar nature to that made by Pickles to appoint an inspector in this case.
You’re right yes, but an employee who has been fired by her employer has a right to file a case with an Employment Tribunal.
If I remember correctly the argument used at the time was that the SoS hadn’t used their statutory powers correctly too. However in that case there would be a liability on the council as employer to carry out due diligence before dismissing her.
In this case, as long as the SoS has consulted the Audit Commission, followed his own policies et cetera, I can’t understand why TH are challenging it in the courts other than their politicians disagree with it.
In Shoesmith a Secretary of State intervened, without authority, into an employment matter. If the local authority had handled the matter by suspending the director, investigating the matter and then dismissing the director for incompetence, lack of leadership and an inability to run the department/directorate (I really do wonder how Shoesmith passed her annual employment appraisals), then Shoesmith would have not become rich because of her own personal failings – the costs paid by the tragic, painful, miserable and inhumane death of a very vulnerable and defenceless young child.
In LBTH a Secretary of State has got the ‘victim’ by the balls and is waiting to squeeze hard and there exists more opportunities if the first attempt fails.
English local government – your local cesspit of frivolous spending, indecent awards of the public’s cash for sheer incompetence, contracts going to friends and acquaintances with the occasional backhander. Yet neither Labour nor the Tories are bothered enough to introduce statutory Rights to residents to unearth what is being done, in secret, in their names and with their money. Never mind sorting-out the EU, local government needs sorting-out first.
Curious Cat.
John Brace wrote:-
I can’t understand why TH are challenging it in the courts other than their politicians disagree with it.
It is a desperate yet forlorn attempt to stop or delay the inevitable consequences of their acts and omissions. Mistakenly they thought themselves invulnerable. Their arrogance will not protect them now.
Curious Cat.
I think money could have something to do with the JR claim. Tower Hamlets I’m sure don’t want to pay PwC for an inspection and a resulting report that might criticise them and cause them trouble.
Starting a lawsuit against DCLG may delay both payment and possibly publication of the report while due process is followed. It’s also good for TH for a PR perspective as they can point to the lawsuit as an allegation of wrongdoing on DCLG’s part and play the victim.
So Lutfur is OK then?
No, because the Audit Commission makes the decision over the publication of the report and Tower Hamlets has sued the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government.
All it’s probably achieved is delaying the inevitable and wasted the taxpayer’s money (which is ironic considering what the reasons behind the inspection were) on fruitless legal longshots.
The Audit Commission was abolished some years ago by Mr Pickles himself. Under the current law is PricewaterhouseCoopers who would publish the report under powers conferred on them in statute as inspector.
@oldford1 The legislation to abolish the Audit Commission has been agreed yes, but it won’t happen until 31st March 2015 (which is still over 6 months away). Therefore the Audit Commission still exists, despite what press releases may try and mislead you into thinking otherwise. 🙂
@John
Even if it does technically – and it is not material here – it does not ‘make the decision over the publication of the report’ or any other decision in relation to this matter.
@oldford1
“Even if it does technically – and it is not material here – it does not ‘make the decision over the publication of the report’ or any other decision in relation to this matter.”
Section 13 of the Local Government Act 1999 requires the Audit Commission to issue a report, for that report to go to the authority concerned and the Audit Commission “may” publish it.
If the report makes a recommendation under section 15 then they have to publish it.
But you’re right it’s not material to the JR matter.
John,
It was section 13 I was quoting from earlier – all references to the Audit Commission have been replaced with ‘the inspector’ in the version now in force as amended by the Local Government and Accountability Act. The Audit Commission as I said has no powers in relation to this matter.
The version you have linked to is outdated – hence the warning at the top.
Oldford1,
Please identify your modifying source. Although legislation can be changed there is usually an implementation date which may be different from the publication date of the legislation making the changes.
English law is like a messy dogs breakfast – no sane person would ever dream of inventing such a confusing and jumbled system of partial, fragmented and sometimes illogical amendments to existing law.
Curious Cat.
=> Oldford1,
Have found it.
Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 c.2
s.34 alias “SCHEDULE 10, Best value inspections”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/2/schedule/10/enacted
The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2014 (SI 2014 No. 900 (C. 39))
s.2 The day after the day on which this Order is made is the day appointed for the coming into force of the following provisions of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—
(c) section 34 and Schedule 10 (best value inspections);
Order made “3rd April 2014”.
Yes you’re right, I’m six months out of date, my apologies. As the regulations came into force (that you quoted in April) it changed from Audit Commission to inspector.
As it’s only a recent change the website hasn’t been updated yet with the new text.
What galling personally is that I did some lobbying on a different section of the Local Audit and Accountability Act and regulations.
Seems the Secretary of State made the request on 4th April 2014, the very day the modification was made to the legislation changing it from the Audit Commission to inspectors, so my bad luck it wasn’t a day earlier!
Having looked more closely at the legislation, a change made earlier this year means it’s an inspector, not the Audit Commission.
However another interesting change is that the fees for the inspector are paid by Tower Hamlets for the inspection. Eric Pickles may request the inspection, but DCLG doesn’t pay (directly) for it!
Hence I’m sure Tower Hamlet’s judicial review could be argued that in challenging the decision to send in the inspectors, they are trying to get best value for the taxpayers in requesting that a judge overturn the decision and therefore not have Tower Hamlets be liable for what will probably be a large bill at the end (for the inspectors)!
Is it a case of ” Nothing to see, move along” ?
Looks to me like Mark Baynes – of “Love Wapping” has done an excellent job of analysis how the grants were allocated by Rahman – just in case this relevant argument relating to social indicators bypassed the auditor’s consideration when auditing the nature of the grant allocation process in Tower Hamlets.
Check out his analysis of Tower Hamlets Grants: quality of life indicators compared to council grants distribution
http://lovewapping.org/2014/10/tower-hamlets-grants-distribution-compared-quality-life-indicators/
He states
“What is apparent from the chart is that while levels of child poverty do not vary greatly from ward to ward 36.86% in Bow West rising to 54.48% in Bethnal Green this is in contrast to the significant variation of grant funds – 12.84% of the monies going to Spitalfields and Banglatown and only 0.62% to Millwall.”
I think it can’t be insignificant that the two wards which together are receiving most of the money (Spitalfields and Whitechapel) are also the home of the IFE and most of it’s activities, the Osmani School/Trust/Centre in Spitalfields and the East London Mosque/LMC and that “womens’ centre” in Whitechapel
I should think that it’s very likely that the PWC may well make a similar comment
There’s a basic principle relating to the distribution of funding and that is that this should reflect needs – and NOT be biased in favour of the governing parties’ electorate.
That after all is the basis on which all funds are distributed from the central government pot to local authorities – and there is an expectation that this is how they should be allocated within a local area.
For the Mayor to make an argument that he and he alone is best placed to make an assessment of need – and hence how best to distribute grant funding is utterly fallacious.
In making any assessment of Council decision-making and Council performance and achievement of best value for money it’s absolutely standard behaviour to hit the statistics and crunch those numbers.
…and guess what Ted’s next post is about…
You Couldn’t Make It Up wrote
For the Mayor to make an argument that he and he alone is best placed to make an assessment of need – and hence how best to distribute grant funding is utterly fallacious.
But if the Mayor did decide, then in local authority and in legal terms, the Mayor would have to produce the local authority’s records of investigation, his records of discussion with local authority officials about the results of the investigation and a written copy of his plan, and the names of the recipients of that plan, for improvement of the situation revealed by the investigation.
Being a public official, the mayor will obviously know he is compelled to maintain written records, which form part of the local authority’s official records, justifying his expenditure. No court of law would accept the premise the Mayor is permitted to retain all the details legally justifying expenditure of public funds, solely within his own personal memory.
In an Open and Transparent local authority, I am sure a copy of the Investigation and the minutes of the meetings discussing the Investigation’s report and conclusions will be readily available to any member of the public.
Has anyone got a copy ?
Curious Cat.
With respect to the “last minute dumping of evidence” – surely that would be rebuttal evidence presented after the Council has seen a draft of the report at which point the Council is invited to comment on any of the points made.
That’s entirely normal.
The fact it’s presented doesn’t mean it counts for anything. Those who don’t get the point when questions are first asked frequently still don’t “get it” when conclusions are drawn.
The interesting thing about a stack of evidence presented at the last minute by the Council is the extent to which:
1) it had been asked for earlier and
2) whether it had been supplied when asked for.
Plus of course how much money has been wasted by the Council in failing to supply it in the first place.
It is the public’s money that is being spent/wasted by unelected and unaccountable to the public bureaucrats. No one voted for their council taxes to be used in the High Court to prevent government investigations into dubious happenings.
How is any of this scandal and why isn’t this under the control of the residents who vote in local elections ?
Curious Cat.
Ted, I don’t think you say in your article when is the date of the “Oral Hearing before another judge”?
If the whole thing goes against Rahman and co, Livingstone is in a somewhat difficult position, or is he? He has publicly backed him and campaigned in his support in defiance of his own party for which he should have been expelled.
How does this leave him and Miliband as Livingstone topped the poll for the Labour NEC? Miliband is going to look even weaker than he does at the moment if he doesn’t do something, or am I reading this incorrectly?
Oh Dear . I see we have one Mayor’s supporter giving every comment the thumbs down. Many more thumb up sign , this blog is saying the right thin, we have Ted to thank for bring us all the info Lots of biting of nails in Town Hall I think – watch this space.
[…] August, Mr Justice Parker in a written ruling (here and here) had described the application as “hopeless” and […]