It appears that a senior councillor is to resign following certain revelations. Predictions are that the Recovery Board may be forced to step in and require the resignation of the entire Executive within weeks. Details are garbled so if you have any clearer information, post it in comments....
UPDATE: The councillor who has gone is the Conservative Mr Goronwy Parry who represents Valley. It appears that he has been forced out by Council Leader, Clive McGregor, and Interim MD, David Bowles, for "undermining the council's recovery" by supporting the expelled Cllr Barrie Durkin. Apparently Parry sent the following letter to Durkin after the latter was expelled from the Original Independents group and isolated within the council:
"I write to you as a friend although you may doubt this after last night's events. I regret any hurt that you have felt and understand how you must feel. There are many members of the group who feel your hurt. You may think that your friends have left you, but the truth is that they are still there and will miss you. I admire your forthrightness, your sincerity and your firmness that there is a difference between right and wrong. Take this opportunity to carry out you intentions. In time you will return in an important capacity within the group. Don't forget that the foot-soldiers of the group are still your friends"
UPDATE 2: In a letter to all councillors yesterday, IOACC Interim MD, David Bowles, has responded to Barrie Durkin's press release:
Dear Councillor
Allegations made by Councillor Durkin in respect of Town Improvement Grant and Housing Grant
Members will be aware of an increasing number of smears and allegations made by Councillor Durkin. Some of these are directed at me and my general approach is not to dignify them with any comment at all. I do, however, feel that I must comment when these allegations refer to other officers of the Council.
I am, therefore, compelled to write to you following a letter of the 6th April which I understand was forwarded by Councillor Durkin to all elected members of the Council and copied to the Chairperson of Recovery Board. Similar allegations have appeared elsewhere.
This letter is in response to the unsubstantiated allegation repeated by Councillor Durkin of a fraudulent conspiracy relating to Town Improvement Grants and Housing Grants which, he alleges, involves “senior officers”.
I am aware of the particular case to which Councillor Durkin refers as he raised the matter with both me and the Leader. In particular Councillor Durkin wrote to me on the 21st March raising his concerns.
You will appreciate that I will not identify the case in question for reasons which, I think, will be obvious when you have read this letter.
Having asked for an explanation from relevant officers, I replied to Councillor Durkin by e-mail on the 26th March. Councillor Durkin replied the same day to say “thank you for your reply and take full notice of what you say.”
What I told Councillor Durkin then was that there had already been an extensive investigation taking around 120 days by Internal Audit into this matter and that the matter had been referred to External Audit. It should also have been clear from that reply that if there were concerns they were not within the Council.
I can confirm to you that no evidence has been found to substantiate the allegation that “some senior officers are involved in a fraudulent conspiracy”.
I am not aware that Councillor Durkin has any evidence to substantiate such a serious allegation and, if he has evidence, he has not presented it to me.
There are certain recommendations arising out of the investigation as regards procedures and future administration of grants but there is no evidence of any criminal act by officers be that by way of a conspiracy or otherwise.
The investigations in respect of this case have raised questions with regard to the applicant and certain agents employed by the applicant. Some terms of the grant have not been complied with and the Council has requested re-payment of the grant monies.
The Council is only responsible for payment of the Home Improvement Grants. It is not responsible for the Town Improvement Grant as that is funded by the Welsh Assembly Goverment.
I must let you decide what public interest there may be in Councillor Durkin having circulated such a heinous allegation after I had previously responded to him. It is only right and proper that I write you this letter so that you may come to a view as to what may lie behind Councilor Durkin’s action.
UPDATE 3: In his above letter to all councillors, David Bowles refers to a letter from Cllr Barrie Durkin. As a commenter has posted the full text of that letter below, I will also add it here. Please note: I am not taking sides; I, like many Anglesey residents, have simply gotten fed up with our train-wreck of a council. Whilst Anglesey residents have this year been hit with one of the largest Council Tax rises in Wales, our council is riven with infighting and petty politics. Anglesey residents deserve better and I believe its time that a little sunlight was let in on what is going on behind the scenes. That is why I am posting these letters here.
"Dear Mr Bowles.
Since early 2004, long before I became an elected representative of the people, I was raising issues relating to breaches of planning procedural rules and failure to declare interests at Planning Committee Meeting by members of that committee, to the point where, I have even taken part in a number of television programs on the subject. Yet although I have being vindicated on all accounts, I have falsely accused of liable,sanctioned, abused, threatened, demonised and marginalised, not just in the past, but more so now, by you".
"It is clear to me, contrary to your record of fair play and routing out wrongdoing, you have shown yourself to be more akin to attacking the messenger. This has clearly manifested itself over the last week or two and will no longer be tolerated. I believe my solicitor has written to you to no avail".
So there can be no misunderstanding, I welcome intervention; it should have been here long ago, after all, the council has not been properly run since its interception in 1996.
"I welcomed and supported you in your endeavours to move the council forward. However, we clearly have a difference of opinion on how to do this.
You wish to bury the past, shove wrongdoings under the carpet, so to speak. Where I wish to see those involved in unlawful activities , who have brought the council into so much disrepute, to book. not just relating to issues of planning, but fraud and corruption".
"This brings me to the allegations of alleged fraud appertaining to grants, which I have received recently from Mr.....and his accountant Mr...... I have informed Cllr McGregor of the situation, and look forward to see what you are going to do about it".
"I point you to Anglesey County Council Constitution page 201.6(1)B and to the requirements relating to the, Fraud Act 2006,section3. Fraud by failing to disclose information".
"Again, so there can be no misunderstanding, I am more than prepared to ensure that the above requirements are met if others fail to do so".
282 comments:
1 – 200 of 282 Newer› Newest»Well, well, well - what a surprise!
Won,t be the last if Durkin's got anything to do with it.
Someone has found an explosive document outside Holyhead Town Hall. Watch this space
Come on ANON 01:59, I've got to go work.Yes work, you remember, that occupation in ones life we all did to keep body and sole together. Oh, never mind.
Don't keep us in suspense any longer. I'm still watching,
With so much support within the ruling group for Cllr Durkin as expressed by Goronwy Parry what's going on?
Has McGregor lost the plot altogether. Or is getting rid of Durkin, Schofield and now Parry, just part of the big cover up, I think the writings on the wall.
Time for a serious investigation by a not so tainted Police force.
Bowles and McGregor are finished.
There comes a point in this story when the details no longer matter. This is a bunch of people who simply cannot change for the better. This was the conclusion last year, and the Recovery Board has made little meaningful difference.
Leopards really can't change their spots, my friends.
Meanwhile, about 30 days after a FoIA request, the Council still won't reveal how much of our tax is going to pay Mr. Bowles. There'll be trouble ahead...
Quote.
"Lincolnshire County Council is ruled by bulling, malicious politicians whose lies have pervaded the authority like a cancer".
David Bowles.
Quote.
"You may have not noticed but politicians are on par with Estate Agents when it comes to respect"
David Bowles.
Quote.
"You have a much better staff than you deserve"
David Bowles.
Quote.
"I will leave you with my reputation enhanced. Some of you will leave with yours your in tatters".
David Bowles
If the Welsh Assemble cannot find better than this to help us move forward, god help us.
Bye Bye Dave, time to go.
Don't forget to take your rattle with you.
What a colossal, and predictable, MESS !
The message is clear..the Recovery Board or Carl Sargent should demand the resignation of ALL the Executive with immediate effect.
They are incompetent and not fit for any office.
Never mind the niceties of democracy for the moment....we are in a real emergency....needing emergency measures.
Bring in a WAG team forthwith !!
Cymro.
Clive and Dave have pissed on their chips.
To be respectable !
I personally know CMcG as a respectable and honourable man, with a strong social conscience and unwavering support for fairness and honesty.
I have no axe to grind one way or the other.
Its a pity he`s allowed himself to be sucked into the snakepit of low politics that is IACC, and be influenced by those of a lower ilk than himself.
CMCG, you can`t win in your position, a thankless task......graet pity.
One who supports him !
The trouble with Bowles is that his retorts are always personal in tone. If he doesn't want to comment or rise to the bait, why issue long missives?
Amongst the rubbish he writes, does he not admit that certain important recommendations for improvements have come as a result of Cllr. Durkin's representations AND that there was cause to reclaim money?
If the performance of contracts relating to any aspect of the Council's work was lacking, then why weren't the people we pay to monitor those contracts doing their jobs?
The sad fact is, the more you dig, the more the Council protests its innocence, yet the more we tend to find needs fixing. If we all sat back and thought 'there, the Council's doing fine', one can only imagine what mess they would get into. Hang on, we've already been down that road...
One day, they will learn that the public are, in the main, not vexatious moaners to be treated with blatant contempt. They are the public to which the Council - all of it - officers and elected members alike, are accountable.
But that day is a very, very long way off.
Druid.
YNYSMONGATE. Here it comes.
AMJ Llangefni
120 DAYS OF INVESTIGATION AT THE TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE - ALL REPORTS HAVE BEEN NEGATED AND THEY ALLOWED THE PERSON UNDER INVESTIGATION COMPLETE ACCESS TO THE FILE.
THEY ARE GOING TO PRISON.
I thought this mess was already in existence before Mr McGregor was elected. He sounds as if he is doing his best against all the specific people causing the problems.
One comment deleted for making allegations about a named company. Please do not name persons or companies which are not already in the public domain.
Anon 10:02
Don't forget Cllr Durkin was only elected at the same time as Clive and were both working together to stamp out dishonesty within the council.
So what's gone wrong?
Why has Clive turned turtle? What pressure is he under to keep his mouth shut?
Clive is not the sort of man to raise issues of dishonesty, as he has done, then encourage and support Cllr Durkin just to stab him in the back and get rid of him, unless that is, he's being bullied and threatened by the David Bowels and the Welsh Assembly to do it.
Very concerned rate payer of Anglesey.
Bowels - probably very loose at the moment!
Yes, and don't forget that Mr. Bowles is said, probably quite accurately, to be on about £1200 - A DAY! Soon, we may have the accurate figure from the council, but they prefer to break the law (Freedom of Information Act) rather than furnish the details at the moment.
The question we must all ask now is: is £1200 a day really value for money if, as it seems, we are just banging from one council crash barrier to the other? Some things have actually become worse since the Recovery Board began its work.
Or, put it another way, if Mr. Bowles fails in his mission, do we get our money back? Or at least the difference in pay between him and his predecessor, which by all accounts should be a few tens of thousands of pounds.
Sack them all I say, unfortunately people would vote them back in, how the hell do they get voted in when people know exactly what they are
The above letter to all elected members from David Bowles, is nothing more than a dishonest ploy to get rid of Cllr Durkin.
I and my fellow colleagues have received Barrie's correspondence on the grants issue and can say CATEGORICALLY. That there is no truth whatsoever in David Bowles allegation that Cllr Durkin has made unsubstantiated allegations of a fraudulent conspiracy relating to Town Improvement Grants and Housing Grants involving SENIOR OFFICERS.
There is no truth in this, and David Bowles know that.
What Cllr Durkin did say in a letter to us all was:
"The way forward is well under way, but that doesn't mean to achieve the ultimate goal, we must allow those involved in wrongdoing to get away with it, particularly as we are now engulfed in allegations by members of the public, that some senior officers are involved in a fraudulent conspiracy appertaining to Town Improvements Grants and Housing Grants amounting to vast sums of public money".
"If this sort of culture of wrongdoing is true then the sooner the Welsh Assemble takes over the running of the Council the better"
This is the facts and David Bowles knows it, he's done enough damage. He should go now.
"This is the facts and David Bowles knows it, he's done enough damage. He should go now. "
Yes, maybe. But how do you envisage him leaving? With a huge 'golden goodbye' payout like the last man the council couldn't stomach? Nobody gives us the taxpayers a chance to say 'put his things in a box and pay him only what is statutorily due to him'. No, the little big men of Anglesey just decide to write the cheque and no doubt issue a tight compromise agreement to keep mouths shut along with it.
Yeah, and the man before him, Mr. Gibson, he was shamed in the Ceri Stradling auditor's report, bought a Volvo from his neighbour who ran a, erm, Volvo garage, and was caught during a TV interview getting his facts somewhat wrong (and sweating an awful lot as a result) relating to little trips abroad. He got paid about £300,000 to head off into the next life, if memory serves.
Druid: the above (other than the golden goodbye amount) is all in the Stradling report, a public document that I still have a copy of here.
Anon 7 - why not upload it to scribd.com and post a link to it here?
As a matter of interest, is David Bowles employed directly, or is the IOACC contract with David J Bowles & Associates?
Anon 13:09
David Bowles is hired under contract from SOLACE Enterprises, a spin-off of SOLACE, who represent chief execs. They come with considerable controversy, and seem to have entered into a confidentiality clause with the Council so that the amount of money they pay to Solace, and then Solace pay to Bowles, remains secret. But there's a new Act just in that means such a confidentiality clause is in conflict with a duty to reveal the salaries of senior officers. This is why the Council are in a total twist and have failed to respond to a FoIA request. The ICO is looking into it now.
Druid: This is a hefty document, but can be done. Problem is, I can't figure out how to present each individual scanned page as a series, however. Maybe it isn't possible, in which case it would be impractical to send URLs for each page.
I'm trying to chase the Audit Commission to see if they have a e-copy (nothing online as far as I can see), but they seem to out to a long Friday lunch. Tsch!
Mr Bowles is fully aware that Internal Audit have reported pure lies at the Taxpayer's expense.
We have just paid some jellyfish for 120 days work including board and lodgings in a £100 a night hotel for reporting proven lies.
All of the failed audit reports will be appearing on this site very shortly.
I know how to deal with bullies and snides and will give you a free demonstration.
Lug
Update: Wales Audit Office should be getting it online by request. Stay tuned. I also have a police interview report with a senior Council official when a substantial amount of material worth a huge amount of money went 'missing' from Shell's Rhosgoch site. That can be scanned quite easily and is public information so far as I can tell.
Anon 7 - good news & looking forward to seeing it!
I spoke to Ceri Stradling a month ago in the the Wales Audit Office. Give them a bell and ask for him.
Lug
Aha! Now I can do it! Here's page 1-15 of a police statement. This has been supplied voluntarily to me by the person in question, and redactions as appropriate have taken place in some places. I therefore take it this is a public document, and was supplied in the expectation of public availability:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30742718?secret_password=53alxt2pf8qct8zq5sp
Ceri Stradling, what a joke, all guns blazing the only problem their spud guns!
Do you honestly believe that Goronwy Parry will be happy to resign? I asked him to help me once, my itemised phone bill will prove it, he wanted all the dirt on people, but did nothing to help. So, good ridannce, and Ceri, ask Goronwy if you can borrow his teeth, because, you will need teeth to chew through the layers of bureaucratic garbage to get at the truth, I'm not holding much hope here, as long as some of them are still there in their executive roles, we are knackered.
Bob Tractor
Memo to David Bowles and CMcG !
1. Weed out, expose and prosecute sources of administrative abuse and official dishonesty by all means, however they arise or by whom..its your DUTY and we the public expect nothing less !
2.Do NOT berate and condemn those who expose such issues...providing they bring you substantiated evidence which is judiciable !
3. Apply balanced judgement, fairness and honesty to ALL,
....until proven guilty !
Evidence is ALL !!!
One who Knows.
Those cables are handy, where did they go?
I'm no Judge, but there's there's a different law applied for Council People and normal people, maybe it's time for a bit more mischief here, a bit more muck raking, a bit more manure to scatter around the place.
Evidence is all!! There's loads of evidence, but no one gives a shit!!
Anon 14.46...its the same law for ALL.
If your evidence "so called" is weak or just will not stack up...the CPS will not prosecute.
Evidence is ALL.
One who knows....no axe to grind !
Memo to Clive McGregor and David Bowles.
A consignment of Documents have been placed in safe hands and are to be given to the Coroner of Gwynedd, for him to decide if your super efficient and people friendly Council have handled a planning file correctly, with a duty of care by your officers. These documents are to be studied by the Coroner and for him to decide in the eventual demise of a person who has been treated abysmally by IOACC, so that way the truth may come out, at the expense of the loss of a freedom fighter from Anglesey.
It's a disgrace.
ANON 14.59.
Any justified planning complaint should be sent to the Ombudsman....not the Coroner, why I hope no-one has died suddenly ?
Planning complaints abound in all local authorities, by the nature of the process...what is the fuss here ?
One who knows.
The CPS will prosecute once North Wales Police realise that to knowingly conceal and misrepresent financial data is a serious criminal offence.
David Bowles believes he will leave Anglesey with his reputation enhanced I believe he will leave with blood on his hands. There are a few of us, who represent the views of many, and we know a wrongdoing when we see one.
There can be a time for the truth to be told and he has told me that no one can believe what has happened to him, so he wants a Coroner to explain what happened to his life, his property and his planning file.
The Ombudsman is no different to any Government spin doctor, he will only repeat what he has been told or paid to repeat, it's out of his hands now, and in safer hands, so he can get the truth out after his departure. He is willing to die for his Country, a bit more than some of them, don't you think?
Are these the same police who go to the same masonic lodge as their suspects?
LOTS OF VAGUE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
BUT NO EVIDENCE !
Bored,increasingly.
We want a thorough, impartial Police investigation which is not going to happen while they are shaking each other's drips down the lodge.
It seems we are straying a little here. The issue at hand is the Letter sent to all County Councillors, and made public by Mr David Bowles, Interim Managing Director, Anglesey County Council.
If it's true, and David Bowles is not telling the truth. and Councillor Durkin, decides to sue him and the authority.
How many years will it take the Rate Payers to pay off the huge damages he will deservedly get.
In the 1960's when there was a lot of talk about independence and freedom for Wales, and then came the Investiture in Caernsrfon, before that day, a bomb had gone off and there was a bit of political fun with the Police, in the end the local bobbies had their arses kicked, and the Special Branch were called in to track and catch the bombers. Fact... the local bobbies were too laid back and busy planting new potatoes and wanting to get home to watch crossroads.
In this incident the outside police force that was called in, they were succesful, and the bombers were jailed, didn't one of them have an own goal, that's speak for when a terrorist or bomber sets off his device and blows himself up.
The thing is, don't you think that with all of these conspiracy theories and the joskin saying he was getting bored because there was no evidence for him to salivate over, why doesn't the WELSH ASSEMBLY ask for an outside force to come in, maybe from Lincoln, that would be David Bowles mates coming in for a panad and a sgedan.
It won't happen, and they know that we know it won't happen, but it would be good if an outside police force was to come in, we could have our own...Starsky and Hutch..Clive and Dave.
Plenty of time for theories and never bored with the Druid.
Anon 16.01
Some bloggers here just have too much time on their hands....get yourself employed.
Not a penny, they are insured to the hilt, not like the time when the Cefni flooded the Death Star. Only a complete fool would forget to insure against flooding next to a river.
Why not let the hardworking decent employees below the glass ceiling run the show.
Mr Bowles we are going to march on Llangefni and demand a refund.
AJP
Here you go. The entire document. Clearly, there is no implication that the witness was involved in any wrongdoing himself, and the contrary should be taken to be the case. This document obtained under a FoIA request:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30746535/Police-Statement-Entire
Here you go. The complete Ceri Stradling Report, April 1998. This covered several serious matters, including criminal investigations by the police.
This may be a bit slow to open on some people's connections:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30747979/Ceri-Stradling-Report-1998
Just an observation; It seems to me that Mr Bowles communications lack Gravitas. I would go further, they seem chippy and hysterical.
I have had dealings with (just a very few) high quality trouble shooters in the past. What characterised them all was utter focus and a calm and forensic analysis of facts coupled with objective well targeted action.
They never stayed long but, then, they didn't have to.
I think that in Mr Bowles we've got a dud!
Oops! I need to change the page numbers 1-10 to let them appear in order.
Druid, would you like to show this somewhere else, maybe as its own topic?
Thanks,
X
Here's the correct order version. Sorry about that:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30748554/Ceri-Stradling-Report-1998
This was a nightmare to read, it's not right..are these people real? I won't name names here, but this report is heartwrenching, these are the people who have created this nightmare that we call Mon Mam Cymru.
It makes me sad to think that I was born in this place, and these are the people who could take and do what they wanted, regardless of the implications.
I have a copy of a letter, which was written by the volvo king, and a copy was sent to keith the share king Best, sealing my fate and dooming me into a life of servitude. A letter of complete fabrication, yet it was so effective that it destroyed me. Now I have read about their exploits, and I feel ill, no one listened then, no one will listen now, what sort of place do we live in, when evil men can do what they want, to anyone, and walk away, without a care in the world?
I'm grateful for the report being posted, but not happy now I've read it, especially the code and conduct paragraph.
I'm not interested in the carryings on of the Councillors but grieved by the lack of investigation into serious allegations by members of the public.
I'm diverting, Goronwy Parry, I hope you regret not helping the people you looked down on, the public you treated like shit, I hope you get called in to answer questions about your neglect against the public of Anglesey. It won't happen because your a slippery old fox, but maybe one day, the past conduct of this awful council will come back and bite you right on the arse.
Let's just keep it simple, these person(s) and organisations that are supposedly meant to represent us are on the fiddle.
I know how to play a fiddle and if the DID do not get involved then I know exactly who you are anyway.
Kangaroo court maybe.
Druid.
Further to 11:44.
In his letter to all Councillors, David Bowles, Quotes:
"This letter is in response to the unsubstantiated allegations repeated by Councillor Durkin of a fraudulent conspiracy relating to Town Improvement Grants and Housing Grants which, he alleges, involves "senior officers".
"I am aware of the particular case to which Councillor Durkin refers as he he raised the matter with both me and the Leader. In particular Councillor Durkin wrote to me on the 21st March raising his concerns".
Druid.
I have obtained a copy of that letter, as follows in its entirety.
"Dear Mr Bowles.
Since early 2004, long before I became an elected representative of the people, I was raising issues relating to breaches of planning procedural rules and failure to declare interests at Planning Committee Meeting by members of that committee, to the point where, I have even taken part in a number of television programs on the subject. Yet although I have being vindicated on all accounts, I have falsely accused of liable,sanctioned, abused, threatened, demonised and marginalised, not just in the past, but more so now, by you".
"It is clear to me, contrary to your record of fair play and routing out wrongdoing, you have shown yourself to be more akin to attacking the messenger. This has clearly manifested itself over the last week or two and will no longer be tolerated. I believe my solicitor has written to you to no avail".
So there can be no misunderstanding, I welcome intervention; it should have been here long ago, after all, the council has not been properly run since its interception in 1996.
"I welcomed and supported you in your endeavours to move the council forward. However, we clearly have a difference of opinion on how to do this.
You wish to bury the past, shove wrongdoings under the carpet, so to speak. Where I wish to see those involved in unlawful activities , who have brought the council into so much disrepute, to book. not just relating to issues of planning, but fraud and corruption".
"This brings me to the allegations of alleged fraud appertaining to grants, which I have received recently from Mr.....and his accountant Mr...... I have informed Cllr McGregor of the situation, and look forward to see what you are going to do about it".
"I point you to Anglesey County Council Constitution page 201.6(1)B and to the requirements relating to the, Fraud Act 2006,section3. Fraud by failing to disclose information".
"Again, so there can be no misunderstanding, I am more than prepared to ensure that the above requirements are met if others fail to do so".
So why the hell is David Bowles still with us.
Cllr Durkin is our legally elected Councillor, we have a duty to ensure he is not bullied into a position where he finds it impossible to represent us in the manner prescribed by law
I hope Cllr Barrie Durkin on behalf of his constituents and the people of Anglesey, sues the bloody arse off both Bowles and the council.
I have deleted a post which contained a signed letter from a named person, naming numerous other persons. I have deleted it because I don't know who posted it, or whether its author wants to make it public.
sorry, another post deleted for making allegations about named persons.
Cllr Clive McGregor did work for Anglesey county council over Criagwen, the house which was brought by the council unlawfully, but has never declared an interest, Why not?
Thank you, 30th April. 21:44
We should now try and arrange a meeting with Cllr Durkin, with a view to creating an Island Wide petition to rid these cretins from our Council, once and for all.
Cllr, Goronwy Parrys, letter to one of the most loyal and active members of the Ruling Group, after the insidious way he was sacked, only highlights what a slimy, two faced hypocrite Cllr Parry really is.
If there are so many members of the group who feel Barrie's hurt, and Cllr Parry, Admires Barrie's forthrightness and sincerity so much. Why did they not say so and walk out in his support?
Because there all gutless. Money speaks, but your turn will come, you've brought it on yourselves.
"I'm not interested in the carryings on of the Councillors but grieved by the lack of investigation into serious allegations by members of the public."
Indeed. The greatest problem of all is the unwillingness of the public to ask questions, get involved, make themselves a nuisance. Because of this, the few who do make a 'fuss' and demand answers and information find themselves victimised and vilified by officers, staff, and some councillors. The lack of challenge by the public has allowed them all at Llangefni to treat the public with great contempt, not respect.
I attended a meeting recently, and found the level of debate to be slightly better than a pretend debate in the third year of primary school. First the mocking of the public asking questions. Then the apologist treatment of policy thus far. Then the self-congratulation and 'oh, look what we've done for Anglesey'. Yes, I'm looking. And their point?
And where was the intelligent probing of the issues, the challenging of the situation, the acceptance of moral responsibilities? They wouldn't know the meaning of the words.
Whomever has called for a mass petition to get these people to fall on their swords is spot-on. There needs to be a strong campaign to say we've had enough. Those who think that they can go back to normal corrupt practice when Mr. Bowles leaves are wrong. We have massive cutbacks in services never seen in modern times to come. Such times need clever, novel and decisive approaches to the problem. What do we have? A bunch of no-hope hillbilly yokels.
I can't understand where David Bowles is coming from.
The letter from Councillor Durkin, 21st March 2010. Which David Bowles refers to, makes clear,that Cllr Durkin had received allegations from a third party and informs David Bowles of the situation.
So where's the unstubstatiated allegation repeated by Cllr Durkin of a Fraudulent Conspiracy. Its not there. So why is Mr Bowles no telling the truth?
Not for the first time, I here.
David Bowles, resigned as the Chairman of the United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust, but not before he was suspended.
"Failures of governance had been found to be the cause of serious consequences for the quality of care for patients" ( Ring any bells )?
David Bowles Said."I resigned because of being bullied and harassed.
However, a report carried out by the Department of Health - called the GOODWIN REPORT- cleared NHS East Midlands of bullying Mr Bowles.
It's clear by now that when Mr Bowles is in a fix he'll say anything to put the onus on some one else. A very dangerous man,wouldn't you say?
Anon 10.00.
DB is a troubleshooter here to do a dirty and hugely difficult job.
Without question, he should be supported in facilitating the clean-up of the Council.
Ironic perhaps, but he should also accept that BD`s agenda is closely allied to his own....to clean up the Council !
I have seen nothing (yet) that persuades me that BD is deliberately undermining the Council, or DB`s efforts at cleaning it up...or am I missing something ???
David Bowles, the Council and SOLACE Enterprises have no moral authority to clean up this council unless they accept they accept their own rules.
So far, all three parties have made strenuous efforts not to let the public know how much of our tax money the Council is paying to Solace - and they to DB.
That is no form of openness, accountability or transparency, which makes them just as bad as anyone else in the whole establishment stitch-up.
To all Councillors,
I wish to identify myself as Gwynfor Pierce, who was the recipient of the Town Improvement Grant and the Housing Renovation Grant mentioned in Mr Bowles` letter to all Councillors.
I am more than happy to share the information and contents of my files with any Councillor.
It was convenient for me to meet with Councillor Durkin at the local Library as they have photocopying equipment.
I will meet with any Councillor who wishes to judge the information and evidence I have for themselves. You can meet me in groups or as you wish.
The initial scope of Internal Audits investigation was limited to the allegations concerning irregularities in invoicing and payments because there were three invoices still missing. I had been requesting the invoices since January 2008
In January 2009 I was forwarded a set of new invoices by the Councils Audit Manager and in March 2009 Internal Audit reported that the new invoices were evidenced in payment and that I had alledged that the invoices I new to be authentic were erroneous.
The reason behind Internal Audits failed reports and 120 days of investigation is because the main files relating to the matters were left with the grants department who were under investigation.
This was evident when I discovered in July 2009 that there was a cost analysis on file stamped IOACC Planning Dept 16.10.06 which reduced the contract value considerably. Had Internal Audit been in posession of the file, this vital document and its contents would have been reported before March 2010 (Report 3)
I invited Mr Bowles to the last meeting I had with Internal Audit and the Council solicitor, but he declined.
The Council have to go along with the latest audit report because to report the truth would take more days of investigations and another Report 4.
It would be an embarassment.
G. Pierce
The preoccupation with the amount of DB`s remuneration is surely a peripheral issue...doubtless he is paid handsomely for doing a dirty thankless job...ultimately either we the local ratepayers or we taxpayers through WAG pick up the tab, so its a mute point.
He should finish the job he started and be free to name, shame and remove those who are positively obstructive.
Are the likes of BD and GP forces of good...or forces of bad ????????
To all councillors from G. Pierce
Further evidence that Internal Audit failed to capture vital evidence because the main files were with the grants section can be found in an e.mail sent from a Senior Grant Officer to the builders secretary dated 21.10.08
It has been translated into English for your perusal :-
Hia (secretarys firt name)
Would you please send me a copy of the invoices that we discussed last week on the phone.
If you remember there was an invoice that was not belonging to this job, i need some sort of explanation from you that a mistake has been made in order to silence Mr Pierc`s accountant. I also need copies of invoices for the £29,375 (12.4.07) £17,625 (5.5.07), £10,299 (2.7.07) £8,450.07 (6.12.07) as you know the numbers of the invoices are all ways and therefore it is necessary to sort this out by putting the correct number in ( ) after the original number.
I also need a copy of the test certificates for the electrician if you please.
also I need your confirmation that the snagging work has been finished, all of it, that includes everything that was on the list that you have had since the start of the year.
Cheerio
(Senior Officers middle name)
Please note that three of the invoices above are duplicates of the authentic invoices in my posession but two have had their serial numbers and dates changed and the other has had a (4) added. I also have clear evidence showing that the other two are also erroneous.
Please see future blogs for more irregularities in invoicing
G. Pierce
PS It was a 16-20 week grant project and work started in February 2007
To all Councillors from G. Pierce.
Regarding the e.mail above and the explanation needed to silence Mr Pierce`s accountant.
The explanation given by the builders secretary was that the authentic invoice 070612 had been issued to another client of the builder.
At an Internal Audit meeting, the applicant (me) spotted invoice 070612 in the file held by Internal Audit. Invoice 070612 had been reported as being erroneous in their March Report.
The Internal Audit Manager explained that this invoice 070612 requesting £17,625 had been part paid £10,299.92 by the Council.
One of the five late appearing invoices was Invoice 070701 for £10,299.92 and was reported as evidenced in payment by YMCC in the Internal Audit March Report.
You will find confirmation of the above in "Response to Queries 21.4.09 from the Audit Manager to G. Pierce
Quote "We can confirm that a part payment on invoice number 070612 was made to the value of £10,299.92 as requested by the agent"
"We can also confirm that the builders records show that this invoice number was issued to another client. However the invoices are addressed to the applicant and the Council has only paid one amount of £10,299.92. We have checked the Councils creditor payments and no payment has been made against invoice 070701"
It seems that the builders secretary, on the advice of a Senior Officer raised invoice 070701
for nothing.
Keep watching my blogs please Councillors.
G. Pierce
@ Anon 11:55
It's not about how much he's paid. That was the simple question to which I expected a simple answer, because it's a public position.
What my preoccupations about it all are as follows:
(1) Why the Council has not issued any formal response at all, including the Refusal Notice required BY LAW since the request of 19/2/10 went in. The response period is 20 days, exceptionally 40 following issue of a Refusal Notice.
(2) That it is clear there has been a contract entered into by the Council that was designed to keep the salary of a public servant, paid for out of our tax money, secret. Why would a public position have a secret salary? That is absurd and against every principle of public accountability.
(3) There are new amendments to the Audit regulations in force since April 01 that, BY LAW, requires the salaries of certain staff to be revealed. Despite this, the Council are choosing to ignore the law thus far.
(4) One of the council's own solicitors has said that a complaint about the long delay and breaking of the law cannot be upheld because there is no requirement, they claim, to request extra time. That is true so far as it goes, but there IS a requirement to issue a Refusal Notice, say which exemption applies, and for what reason - by 20 days. Yet the solicitor either does not know this, or is ignoring it.
(5) Solace Enterprises (the company by which DB is employed) have stirred up controversy before - see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8303305.stm
Some might be happy with this cosy arrangement, but I'm not!
To all Councillors from G Pierce
My accountant reported in September 2008, to the then Managing Director that the applicant had not paid a HRG contribution of £24,950.07
(I had paid £17,625 evident in the Certificate of Interim Progress Payment number 2 as "payment made to date" (The first certificate of IPP is still missing ) followed by a payment of £10,299)
( Please also note that my payment of £29,375 was for "external works" (TIG) contained on the authentic invoice number 070326.
The Response from the Managing Director 24 October 2008 to the applicant regarding matters was as follows :-
Dear Mr Pierce,
RE: (property)
"With reference to your letter dated 24 September 2008 I have consulted further with the Housing Grants section, Planning Department and Audit Section and I have received their Observations as follows.
Observations of Senior officer
1A Mr pierce`s accountant has confirmed that the first payment he made on the contract was £29,375 paid 16 April, 2007 which corresponds with the information I received from the builder. (Agent name), in their letter dated 2.7.07 stated that Mr Pierce had paid £24,950 which can be clarified as follows.
. Mr Pierc`s contribution to the HRG = £26,751.07 on the attached offer of grant letter dated 29 April,2005.
. The maximum fee payable under the HRG = £1,800.99
. Deduct the fee element from the total contribution and it leaves a balance of £24,950.
Mr (agent) was hence confirming that Mr Pierce had duly paid his contribution of £24,950 to the builder. As previously informed, the Housing Grants section did not receive any documented evidence of the actual payment made although the builder has confirmed recently that an invoice was raised as the first interim in the sum of £29,375 invoice 070401 dated 1.4.07 which the builder issued direct to the agent"
Councillors please note that Invoice 070401 was one of the late appearing invoices. Whoever actually raised it forgot to remove the work "external" rendering it useless for its purpose, blowing the above theory that it contained a HRG contribution of £24,950 out of the water.
I now posess two invoices for £29,375 with different serial numbers and dates for one TIG payment I made for £29,375.
None of these continuing discrepancies are published by Internal Audit in their reports.
Where would I be today if I had advised the builder to raise invoices to provide a false audit trail.
G. Pierce
Well, these letters are all very interesting, but someone needs to provide a well-written summary of what the story actually is. As things stand, whilst the letters appear to be interesting, we can't really decide much for ourselves without a proper context. I suspect that anyone named or identifiable within the letters isn't getting a fair hearing without the context, either.
Nice try, but as you very well know I am a nugget of granite and my evidence will secure convictions.
Lug
To all councillors from G. Pierce
The only evidence, on any file regarding measured HRG work is the letter mentioned above dated 2.7.07 from the agent to the Grants Department.
The work measured to date, according to the letter, as of 2.7.07 was £35,250 inc VAT. The letter also states that a balance of £10,299.92 is to be paid from the local authority to the builder.
A week later, with the electrician only having carried out measured work, the builder left site. He was finished apart from a so called snag list, which grew out of control with work to be rectified.
This corresponds with two authentic sales invoices for £17,625 (070327 and 070612 = £35,250) Evidence shows that the applicant paid one £17,625 in full and no doubt part paid the other for £10,299 and not the Council.
After the Council paid the builder £10,299,92 there was no work left to be measured. However there was approx £27,200 left in residule.
The only monies owed to the builder would have been the difference between £10,299 the applicant paid on invoice 070612 requesting £17,625 = £7,326
Internal Audit March 2009 Report states that the builder claims the applicant owes him £30-35K as well as the funding left in residule.
For what work ?????
Well put over Gwyn, we really do have the evidence in black and white, which is documentary evidence.
The Police need to increase the voltage in their stun gun to ward of Lug.
You should have seen the Police officer's face last night when they put a massive static charge through my fingers. I said to the knob what the fuck was that, he was shocked when he noticed I never flinched.
If anyone has any doubts, please ask for the CCTV footage outside Holyhead Police Station last night Friday 30th April, 2010.
It took ten of them to confront me after I pressed the buzzer on the Police station after asking them to investigate a very straight forward case of false accounting. I admit I was drunk but never deserved that.
Lug
The enormity of IOACC's corruption is now starting to emerge and now David Bowles has written and made public such LIABLE trash to try and discredit Cllr Durkin, we can all see who the REAL COVER UP LIARS are.
These are the people who want to bury corruption.
These are the people who are responsible for Anglesey's turmoil.
David Bowles and Clive McGregor are now both culpable for the cover ups.
AMJ Llangefni.
To all Councillors from G. Pierce
The following extract is from the latest Internal Audit Report :-
"Schedules of Work Completed"
"We would have expected the supporting documents held on file to include evidence provided by the builder / agent as to the works and the value of works undertaken for which a relevant Certificate of Interim Payment was produced. However, review of the file and discussions with the builder and the Senior Planning Officer found that no such schedules were produced to support the invoices raised by the builder and the Certificates produced by the agent"
As this is the case, it is most important to identify the authentic invoices raised by the builder during the progress of the work which were carried out up to the so called snag list in early July 2007.
Payments are only made when the grant officers are satisfied that the value of the works completed represents the value of the payment requested and a satisfactory invoice from the builder.
These invoices can be identified as :-
£25,000 (£29,375 inc VAT)TIG 070326
£15,000 (£17,625 inc VAT)HRG 070327
£15,000 (£17,625 inc VAT)HRG 070612
There was no invoice from the builder requesting £10,299.92 from the Council.
If the above invoices are anything to go by, then the builder has carried out the work for £55,000 less VAT combined TIG and HRG
Originally the contract values were TIG £54,213 and HRG £53,149. Both figures less VAT
After I started complaining, I discovered in February 2008 that a further invoice had been raised by the builder in September 2007 for £8,450.07 inc VAT 070939 and had been paid by the Council, after the builder came back and rectified a seriously out of level floor in December 2007, despite requesting the Council not to pay any more monies.
Change the 07 to an 08 for tax purposes. Add the £8,450.08 to the Councils payment of £10,299.92 and you get £18,750 which is coincidentally exactly half the HRG grant funding of £37,500.
Please note how the builder uses round figures £25,000, £15,000. It makes no sense that the builder would suddenly raise an invoice for £7,191.55 (£8,450.07 inc VAT) unless he was advised to do so.
At least £18,750 funding now claimed to be owed to the builder, looks better on paper than £27,200 for a snag list. And, dont forget that it is claimed that I owe him a further £30/35K
G. Pierce
It's unpleasant reading how easily fooled we all are by a Council, and it's executives who treat the public purse like it's own cash machine, there's something rotten going on in there, and if it's not sorted soon. someone is going to snap and will burn the place down, I would be the first in the queue, with plenty of petrol, and matches. This is how they treat us all, like fools, is that all we are, clowns?
Disgusted from Amlwch.
Dear Mr Pierce.
I suggest you contact the Police, if you don't I will, I now know I am a victim of corruption, thanks for enlightening me on how those half wits work in Llangefni, I am going to ask for a Police investigation into Corruption in IOACC.
Horrified Tax Payer.
LUG, well done for even getting to the police station door, you did not say how they responded to you.
I have a TV prog video in which a man was accused, the man said "why don't they report it to the police" the answer was "they have, to NWP and another Constabulary", what happened...nothing.
I know it is a long time ago but in 1986 a baliff who had been engaged by a number of firms duped by a fraudster called for a meeting with a senior fraud officer. The officer and his associate ( think I have seen him on (Ashes to Ashes) met the baliff,ripped up the sixteen written complaints and threatened the renewal of his licence, guess it was then back to the speeding camers! I know this is not the same case but it does seem to be the same attitude.
Keep at it
Your fishing friend with twisted knickers
I think the Council is going to need a bigger fan....
Maybe David Bowles can get a discount for a massive shit clearing fan from SOLACE...
Hafod yr ynys
Druid,
It does seem a lot quieter at the weekend, could it be that many correspondents are bored when at work on weekdays ?
OTB
OTB - at least it gives me a break from having to delete certain comments!
Druid,
Today I went to see the film INVICTUS at Theatr Clwyd, me a grown man, ex second row (straight!) with a tear in my eye. What a shame you could not have a Nelson Mandella figure as MD or Leader or Chairman! instead of the big stirring bruiser figure, possibly, possibly with eome right intentions but unsafe in a china shop.
Indeed, someone with your patience, tenacity and apparent dedication might fit the bill.
OTB
To all Councillors from G. Pierce
I think it is well documented that I have used two agents. I used Agent A right up until the grants were approved and a short time afterwards.
When the grants were actually approved and it dawned on me how much I personally would have to contribute. It worried me so much that I wrote to the Regeneration Officer in St Asaph wishing to put an end to the whole scheme.
The Regeneration Officer met with me in Holyhead to discuss some options to help me financially.
He also wrote to me advising that some essential work needs to be carried out, but some works could be carried out at a later date to save money.
In the meantime I had requested Agent A to retender the work to try and find cheaper quotes.
It was during this retendering process that I was approached by Agent B who advised that he could carry out the works at little or no cost to the applicant. I dismissed Agent A in favour of Agent B
After months of chasing Agent B, he advised that I might have to pay the "full wack" because there had been a change in circumstances. Too embarassed to dismiss another agent and come so far, I decided to secure a loan to cover the grant.
Not happy with the situation, I requested a meeting with the Regeneration Officer, Council rep and Agent B at Ty Cyfle to discuss the options of omitting works that could be carried out at a later date. Omissions were agreed.
The HRG Grant Approval shows the contract value as £62,450.07 inc VAT (£53,149 exc VAT)
The applicants original contribution being £26,751.07
The HRG Certificates of Interim Progress Payment show the original contract value as £53,149 or £62,450.07 inc VAT.
Therefore you would expect the omissions to be deducted from £53,149 (£62,450.07 inc VAT)
Not in my case, the omissions which were discussed prior to commencement of work at Ty Cyfle with Agent B had already been omitted prior to the Grant Approval by Agent A according to the Audit Manager.
Agent A when contacted denied making any omissions. I informed the Audit Manager, he wrote back to tell me that there had been some confusion over the additions and omissions and evidence on file now showed they had been made by the Housing Department.
The original contract value shown on the Grant Approval and the Certificates of Interim Progress Payments is shown as a sub contract value on the Cost Analysis`s which are undated and unsigned. Which has increased my original HRG contribution to more than £31,000
G. Pierce
As one of the Original Independents group "foot-soldier's" who doesn't want to be identified for obvious reasons, I am not at all happy with what's going on within the group just to satisfy David Bowles or the way three honourable men have been treated.
There is no doubt in my mind, that Clive McGregor has joined the baddies. His actions of late are testament to that. I think he's been brought off.
I don't say that lightly, but the following letter from Clive McGregor copied and sent to all members by a Labour Councillor from Holyhead, certainly leads to that conclusion.
15th December 2008.
"Dear Mr.... (Senior Officer)"
"As a new Councillor and Executive Member. I have been dismayed by the obvious distrust shown to us by Senior Officers. There have been no attempts to brief us on the commitments made by the previous administration".
"An example of this was the Social Services overspend and the ramifications that followed in getting Consultants to determine what had gone wrong. In fact the position has not been resolved, there is an overspend yet again on the current budget and there is talk of some improvement plan to rectify the situation."
A further example was the Ombudsman's report on Housing Benefit maladministration. To tell the ruling group on the day of publication is careless and almost contemptuous. These issues were raised with you.
"I did say to you that the 2006/2007 Annual letter made reference to member/officer conflict. This was incorrect as you pointed out to me, I now confirm that the 2006/2007 letter referred only to member conflict. The Annual letter for 2007/2008 does specifically refer to member/officer conflict."
"As this letter covers part of our Administration, it pains me greatly but doesn't surprise me given that the issues surrounding Graigwen have eroded whatever trust and confidence there might be between the ruling Administration and certain members of the Corporate Management Team. It may be we require a Police Investigation into the issue as offences of Malfeasance in Public Office would appear to be made out. It is then and only then
that confidence in the Isle of Anglesey County Council would be apparent."
"Yours sincerely
Councillor Clive McGregor."
So why has he got rid of BD?
Because he's been paid off to, shut up and keep every one quite, or else.
As for Clive McGregor's statement in the press yesterday, that the support and friendship for BD by group members has evaporated, is not true. Its stronger than ever.
Druid
Would you please treat Clive McGregor' letter as up date 4.
Thanks.
DERWYDD,
From what I have read on this blog over the last 4 weeks (and I reluctantly incline to believe the substance of most of it), the ratepayers of Anglesey have the right to demand A ROOT AND BRANCH REVIEW OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL STRUCTURE...Directors, senior officers AND elected Members.
Collectively they owe a duty to us to hold a PUBLIC INQUIRY where all this abuse and alleged malfeasance can be investigated...publicy, openly and with transparency.
A petition is called for !!
This now confirms what I was told three weeks ago, that there was a bust up between McGregor and Durkin because he would not take a pay off to keep quite.
This was following a previous meeting between Bowles, McGregor and Durkin to discuss evidence collected by Durkin regarding corruption in planning matters, where it was agreed that Durkin should bring in the police, with the full co-operation of the Council.
However it is believed following that meeting and before the police were brought in, it was found that, at least one officer of the council is also involved and Durkin won't back down.
INTERNAL AUDIT'S 120 DAY INVESTIGATION HAS JUST BEEN FLUSHED DOWN THE BOG AND DAVID BOWLES HAS IGNORED THE WARNING.
Yes.
If this rotten bunch can find enough public money to run a 120 day investigation to find away of coving up fraud by its own officers. They can find enough now, for a Public Inquiry.
The people of Anglesey demand it.
Is the Press willing to help us.
If Councillor Durkin has as much evidence as is believed, having already gone through all the correct protocols, just to be fucked off.
The last thing Bowels and his bully Boys want, is a public inquiry.
He will slaughter them.
Is It true.
That large amounts of files and documents can be seen smouldering away at the rear of the Council offices, in Llangefni?
Exactly...but it should not be their choice...it should be ours....the public interest demands it !
Trust and confidence in DB, CMcG and other senior officers and especially the ruling group members has just EVAPORATED.
They would lose the vote of confidence, if the public voted.
I say again, this is a local government emergency, calling for emergency measures...DB and the so called Recovery Board are impotent.
The only sure way of sorting this out is to dissolve the Council....and bar every current Member from standing for re-election.
WISHFUL THINKING !
DRUID - You have the ideal platform here to be far more proactive than you have been, hitherto...what are you waiting for, pray tell ?
By One who cares how he is governed !
It is said over and over again, if BD had evidence particularly if that evidence realates to fraud, it should be in the hands of the police. Make copies, give it to more than one police authority. My feeling is he does not have real presentable evidence. I remember him on W T W saying one councillor was under investigation for defrauding the C & E VAT nothing more was heard and I take it the councillor heard nothing more BUT why, BD said he had the evidence.
Some of you wholodge blogs may positively know BD has real evidence, if you do know why have you not also put your names to it?
It all seems very puzzling and it all seems very like what he did in Cheshire andthat all came to absolutely zilch.
OTB
What will nail them is the fact that the agent will surely deny producing an unsigned document that does not contain an IOACC received date stamp.
This cost analysis document is a false statement and statistically the odds against it not being a false statement are are least six million to one.
We already have a batch of false invoices and the odds on these not being falsified is over a quadrillion to one.
To all Councillors from G. Pierce
I could go on and on showing you contradictions and untruths.
It is all in my files, everything that I can tell you can be read in documents form and, as I have said, I am more than happy to share this information with you.
I believe that the builder agreed to carry out the works to my property for £55,000 exc VAT
In return, his work was exempt from any proper physical inspections, building regulations are not informed of commencement of work and he is allowed to omit and cost cut anything as long as the building stands upright.
I was an even easier touch, because omissions were made to help me financially. Therefore, everything that I brought up was dismissed as "omitted by agent"
However, there was so much funding left in residule that the Council had to say that the omissions were made prior to issuing the Grant Approval.
Note - No omissions were ever mentioned in any correspondence prior to the issuing of the Grant approval. Only after.
In practice, Grant official's perform a cost control exercise based on the accepted tender submitted for grant approval. The tender is costed on the 'Priced Schedule of Work' submitted by the builder. The official then reduces the cost of individual items of grant eligible expenditure shown on the 'Schedule of Works' , which are in their opinion excessively priced. In simple terms, if the builder overpriced an eligible item of expenditure for example a radiator at £500 then the Grant Officer will not approve grant on the full £500 but will approve grant on £150 which is within their costing range for that item of expenditure. This is normal practice by all local authorities in England and Wales, and is a counter-measure against collusion and over-inflating of contracts for grant purposes. This is the backbone of all grant policies and is basic common sense.
The Housing Department did not make any omissions. Therefore any HRG omissions discovered, should be deducted from the Councils estimate which is shown on the grant approval document and as the original contract value shown on the Certificates of Interim Progress Payments. £53,149 exc VAT.
As 100% grant is available up to £20K per unit and I received £37,500 for two units. Any saving in items would be deducted from the applicants contribution. Carpets and painting myself etc was a massive saving for me.
What some crafty prson has gone and done, is carefully calculated the omissions and some additions so the figure tied in perfectly with the difference between the buiders initial estimate and the councils estimate. This way it then looks, as if the omissions were made prior to grant approval. First by Agent A, when that did not work it was by the Housing Department.
It has taken me three years to piece this mess together, I have lived and breathed this case and thought of much else. I battled on, not just because of me but for Einion`s (you know who you are) elderly mother too. Other sad stories came to light, using the same builder and agent and their complaints got them nowhere.
(In view of the fact that building regulations were not involved in this particular grant scheme and the findings later found by building regs and the indipendent surveyor I had to call in, I believe that all this builders grant work must now be investigated and applicants interviewed)
(If this sort of thing has happened before, who knows there could be many accident out there waiting to happen)
G Pierce
You can fool some of the People, all the time
You can fool all the people some of the time.
But your'll never fool all the People, all of the time.
Now bugger of back to Lincolnshire. Op's sorry. I hear they don't want you there either. Do they David?
Sorry - one post deleted for naming a company and its directors.
I have deleted a comment left by G.Pierce as it named a specific company. The same comment is reproduced below with the name of the company removed:
COPY LETTER FORWARDED TO DAVID BOWLES BY J G PIERCE'S ACCOUNTANT
Mr. David Bowles,
The Managing Director,
Isle of Anglesey County Council,
Council Offices,
LLANGEFNI,
Anglesey. 13th April, 2010
Dear Mr. Bowles,
Re: John Gwynfor Pierce Esq., 16 George Street, Holyhead, Anglesey.
Housing Renovation and Town Improvement Grant’s for 88 Market
Street, Holyhead.
I write further to Internal Audit’s final report relating to the Town Improvement Grant.
It has already been established that my client’s only payment of £17,625.00p made 9th May, 2007 relates to Housing Renovation Grant. I presented Internal Audit with the following documentary evidence at a meeting and they verbally agreed this payment relates to Housing Renovation Grant:
• Sales Invoice 70327 issued 23rd March, 2007 in the sum of £17,625.00p referenced Internal Work;
• Interim Progress Payment Certificate dated 2nd July, 2007 in respect of the second HRG payment which clearly indicates that £17, 625.00p was previously certified for payment;
• Correspondence issued 2nd July, 2007 by [redacted] confirming that £35,250.00p of HRG work has been executed to date.
There are no grounds for my client’s payment of £17,625.00p to be assigned to the Town Improvement Grant other than a photocopied Interim Progress Payment Certificate dated 11th April, 2007 which incorrectly shows the Housing Renovation Grant contract value of £53,149.00p. I hasten to add, no associated Sales Invoice exists for this payment.
Please refer to TIG report paragraph 3.34 on page 8. Remarkably the TIG amounts of £47,834.10p and £56,205.07p reflect the measured construction work that should be contained on the final Interim Progress Payment Certificate in respect of the HRG and is calculated as follows:
Excluding VAT: Including VAT:
£ . p £ . p
HRG Eligible Expense 53,149.00 62,450.08
LESS 10% Agent’s fees 5,314.90 6,245.01
Construction work to be executed 47,834.10 56,205.07
LESS 5% Retention 2,391.70 2,810.25
Amount Payable after retention 45,442.40 53,394.82
Moreover, the second TIG Claim Form for Payment of Grant signed 26th June, 2007 shows ‘total eligible expenditure to date’ as £56,205.06p and this amount is non-cumulative with the ‘total eligible expenditure to date’ amount of £35,675.00p contained on the first Claim Form for Payment of Grant. This indicates the measured work to date amount of £56,205.06p shown on TIG Claim 2 is inaccurate.
Please note, Internal Audit failed to report that Work Inspection Sheets and Checklists accompanying the second and third TIG Claim Form for Payment contain photocopied signatures and a three month gap exists between the second Interim Progress Payment Certificate dated 11th April, 2007 and the accompanying Work Inspection Sheet dated 4th July, 2007.
Yours faithfully,
ANDREW MARK HUGHES ESQ. (Acting on behalf of J. G. Pierce)
DERWYDD,
beth am ateb i`r 10.42 uchod....?
RE: The deleted comments.
Well, well....that outfit again....and those individuals again.....no surprise there, then !
Thanks for that Alf, any idea who the private investors are?
OMG - I've just discovered exactly who they are from Companies House and am not going to publish their names for fear of reprisals. All I can say is that our leads have paid off.
In order to turn the tables we have to play them at their own game and gang up on them. The Serious Fraud Office would investigate if enough people complained. They only investigate serious fraud in excess of £1 million.
There is help out their in the form an accountant who is shocked to say the least. We need the names of potential victims in order to examine the evidence, you have nothing to be afraid of and it can only help. No charge involved just an inspection of the records.
Lug
Anon 18:22 - I'm considering carefully how to proceed.
Anglesey Liberation Front (Rhosgoch) - I'm afraid I had to delete your comment for naming two companies.
To all Councillors from G. Pierce
I have not actually commented on Mr Bowles`s actual letter.
I suspect he has asked internal Audit after their 120 days investigation for their results without realising that they are part of the problem.
As for the Council not being responsible for the Town Improvement Grant, please read this extract from the Private Sector Unit Housing Directorate, WAG, Cardiff :-
"The administration of these grants rests entirely with the local authority and the issues you raise are ultimately matters for it to consider"
The IOACC TIG Managing Agent, approves the work, issues the applicant a claim form to sign and recommends payment.
G. Pierce
Bingo boys, now we should all know what going on and whose involved.
Don't worry about the £1 million target, it will be well above that, and the man had the bloody cheek to write to all members and blame them because someone went to the press and told them where he was living.
What an arrogant nutter.
In from the Assembly, to sort things out, and stay's with Anglesey's, most notorious number one!
Now we know who's really involved, nothing less than a public inquiry will do.
What we want is an Island wide Petition, then they will listen.
We should ask all the candidates in the general election, if they would help before we vote next Thursday
We are only talking about one Grant fiddle here.
This company has being dealing with hundreds of grants, they get inside information on who's applying.
If you try and go on the companies web site, ITS GONE. There on the run already.
The swindling Bast... have put my rates up which is going to drive me out of business.
Still I shouldn't complain, they'll need loads of money to pay Bowles his £1,200 a day fee, and all those other crooks in Llangefni.
If that bunch of organised crime criminals are involved.
Your wasting your time.
To all Councillors from G. Pierce
A site meeting was held 25 October 2007 to discuss Surveyors damning report. All IOACC Grant reps attended as well as the builder and his quantity surveyor.
Here are some interesting extracts for your perusal:-
Letter from Senior Officer to Builder 2 Nov 2007
Quote "During the meeting it was also agreed that you will prepare a draft final account which would indicate the current financial position of the contract"
MEMO 14.12.07 from the Independent Surveyor MRICS, FCIOB that I had to call in to inspect property :-
4. "There was a lack of correspondence from (Agent) and it was hoped that they would be able to confirm their site instructions covering an extensive list of savings that had been made. Copies of (Surveyors) report has been faxed to them for comment. It appears that a very extensive list of savings had been drawn up in order to get the cost of the works down to a level that was affordable. Agent later refused to cooperate with the investigation"
5. "Builder would let (surveyor) MRICS,FCIOB have their Final Account early next week. This was likely to confirm the savings made against the contract and determine if any funds were available to correct problems with the rear walls of the property. Nothing heard from builder to date, despite a written reminder"
From Senior Officer to Applicant 30 April 2008
Quote "I have prepared a draft final account, without the benefit of any contract instructions from agent for the external works. The anticipated contract final account figure currently standing at £112,704.55 including VAT. I have omitted any obvious item of works which were not carried out and added the cost of extra works which I am aware of"
The Builder was responsible for preparing a final account not the Senior Officer.
Thousands of pounds has been further saved because I discovered the agents contract instructions for the external works, stamped as received by IOACC Planning Dept 16.10.06
G. Pierce
PRESS RELEASE
County Councillor Calls for a Public Inquiry.
Following the recent forlorn and collapse of peoples trust in the way Anglesey County Council is now administered, Councillor Barrie Durkin is to call for a Public Inquiry.
Councillor Durkin says. The leadership is now so weak, having succumbed to bullyboy tack tic's by its new interim Managing Director and Council Leader, in their quest to cover up an array of dishonest activities and portray that everything is fine, that some Councillors and Staff are working in an atmosphere of fear.
Cllr Durkin, is also calling for the immediate removal of the new Interim Managing Director, David Bowles, who he perceives as having such a corrosive effect on the Council, that working in the best interest of the People, is becoming almost impossible under such an oppressive regime.
Cllr Durkin, will not go into any specifics details but says. That some of the allegations by members of the Public are so serious that only a Public Inquiry will suffice.
Up until now, all we have seen is the sacking of honest men, erroneous reports and vexatious letters from the Interim Managing Director, putting the onus on every one else.
The County Council has not being run properly since its inception in 1996, but nowhere near as bad as now.
Cllr Barrie Durkin.
Good morning LUG,
Im a glad to see you blogging again, as you did not repond to my earlier note I thought you were still in H.H'd police station.
With regards your 2nd May 19.51, let's not worry that SFO look at a certain threshold, if all complaints sent to NWP (with a request to stop looking at car cameras and look at this) with a copy to SFO, NWP would know their action or lack of it could be referred back to the other authority.
What bothers me is trying to determine Mr BD's agenda, as in the past he seems to place himself alongside and supports a person, (for example your Ind. P.R.) then attacks the individuals. Mr. B.D. seems to have a 'rolling agenda' but seems never to actually present the Factual Evidence. Looking back at some of your earliers blogs, so as not toget 'Egg on His Face' so to speak.
Keep off the booze !
OTB
ALL.
I am aware that a lot of people are now watching this Blog with increasing interest, and some (those with something to hide) with positive alarm !!.
The Police, the Recovery Board, WAG, Council Members, Directors & officers, David Bowles, Clive McG, the Press, lawyers !....the culprits....and the public of Anglesey and beyond.
Its time that the DRUID writes a robust update article for the benefit of those who can raise the issue even further...to gain the support of the Press and the BBC...to expose the dark underbelly of IACC.
DERWYDD, over to you ?
By One who is concerned how he is governed.
Tut Tut,OTB. 08:37
I don't know who you are, but I feel, from your negative attitude towards Cllr Durkin's efforts to rid Anglesey County Council of its crap, whether he is successful or not, leads me to think that you may be one of those on his list and you know it.
To Anon Tut Tut OTB 09.11
Did you notice my 08.37 was actually addressed to LUG about whom I was a bit concerned. Perhaps you should not meddle.
Did you miss my suggestion that the Evidence should be given to NWP and the SFO ?? Does that look as though I want to hide anything or protect anybody?? read properly, understand, then you will not make stupid comments,compre?
For you information, I am a long way away from being on "his hit list" by "his" I assume you refer to the originator of "Press Releases", from past knowledge of the man, he is a long way from my list of hits.
When that man walks away from Anglesey (he has actually started that proess) laughing his head off, there will be a lot of ended friendshiops, a lot of ill feeling. I hope that people like you are not rying to generate hate, hate takes a long time to repair look at N. Ireland, South frica, Bosnia etc. Hate is generated by back stabbing, innuendo and furtive accusations. Once again...all that is needed is for the True Facts and True Evidence to be very openly presented to the (duplicated) proper authorities.
And so Tut Tut, do get your knickers in a twist but stop getting the comments twisted
OTB
OTB - With reference to your comments about me drinking too much I totally agree, it's brought on by stress.
I feel pretty sore today around the wrists but not as sore as the Police officer who got the full belt of the stun gun, because the charge went through my left hand through the steel handcuffs and into my right arm which was being held by an officer.
A video recording of this taking place outside The Magistrates Court is being uploaded and will be posted on You Tube later today.
OTB - I am now confused as to who you really are. Would I be right in saying there is more than one person inputing for OTB. I am very good at identifying writing styles and reading between the lines.
Thanks for your concern, and I know deep down you really mean it.
Mr Durkin
What are "tack tic's"?
Bloody hell. If you wanted to demolish your own credibility, issuing a press notice awash with basic spelling errors and the grammar of a 6 year old is a good way to do it. Unless unintentional hilarity is part of your "tack tic's", of course.
To everyone else:
Look at yourselves - you are squabbling like schoolchildren - "HE started it" "No, HE started it"...
No-one will get anywhere, nothing will be resolved, unless someone takes some actual evidence of wrong-doing to the Police. If you haven't got any, ranting and raving about conspiracies and corruption DECREASES, not INCREASES your credibility. Eventually, the World stops caring and moves on to something else.
So, let's get this over and done with, either put up or shut up so that a line can be drawn under this. The more I read about it, the less I care, and to the ordinary Joe, you appear to be obsessives.
To Mr G Pierce
Posting evidence here is all well and good, but it makes absolutely no sense without context. It is unreadable as it is. You really need to explain it to the layman, it made no sense to me at all. In any case, if you think you have been wronged, you should be taking it to the Police, or starting a Civil Action.
All:
If there is corruption in Anglesey let's sort it out, but let's go about it the correct way, because to me, who has nothing at all to do with the place, both sides of the argument are looking ever more like nutters every day.
Mr Pierce's Accountant has already explained in simple terms to Mr Bowles that the TIG Payment Certificates 2 and 3 belong to the HRG. They have simply photocopied the HRG certificates and attached them to the TIG application.
To Rownd a Rownd Mewn Cylchoedd
11:09
Who cares whether the man can spell, he's got what it takes to sort those crooked bas.... out in Llangefi.
However your right on one thing, you don't come from round here, just repeat you garbage to the hundreds of people who rely on his no-nonsense representation, and see what you'd get.
O.K. Looser.
OH. 11:09 Looser
Have you spotted the spelling mistakes, yet?
LUG, you could call me a friend from afar. There is only one of me but some say I take up the space of two!
I sent links of these sites to a collegue who is not an ex elected. I think he might be the 11.09
To Mr O. K. Loser, your hero will ruin the whole thing and whatever credibility he thinks he has if those he is attacking discover and publish his own past, indeed a little of that is now evident on your island where it would seem a 'deal was done' with the member for his adjoining patch to let a planning application 'slide' through, try goimg to Traeth Bychan !
LUG, you could try borrowing the stun machine, connect it to a hook!!
OTB
To 11.40 and 12.04
For the sake of readability, use a name instead of anonymous. Call yourself anything you like, it would help us all when responding.
To 11.40
Thank you for a civil response. Yes, I can follow you, but it would be so much easier for all to summarise your case as being "Paperwork in support of one Grant Scheme was fraudulently used in support of another scheme by persons or persons unknown which may include past or present officers of Anglesey Council". Would that be correct?
To 12.04
Are you saying that incorrect spelling and grammar is an advantage? That it supports Mr Durkin's credibility? It costs nothing and is the work of seconds to use the spellchecker built into the comments box right here when posting. A little civility to someone trying to help would not go amiss rather than a hotheaded insult.
You say that I post Garbage. For Pete's sake I am trying to help your case. But polarising your views into "If he's not with us, he is against us" does not assist you. I am pointing out that Mr Durkin could improve his presentation, I am also pointing out that Mr Pierce could improve his presentation. And I am pointing out that knee-jerk insulting comments and anger add nothing to the debate.
I am as entitled as you are to state my views. Not being involved in Isle Of Anglesey politics does not mean I have no connection with Anglesey. Not by a long chalk.
"If there is corruption in Anglesey let's sort it out, but let's go about it the correct way, because to me, who has nothing at all to do with the place, both sides of the argument are looking ever more like nutters every day. "
Hear, hear! We have 125 or so posts, none of it really getting anywhere. If anyone has a wrong to right, stick to your guns, make a proper complaint to the appropriate authorities. If you point out irrefutable facts, then you should come out on top.
Perhaps this thread should be locked now?
OTB
You suspect wrong. I am neutral, I don't care who is wrong or right, but I do care if Officers or Councillors are corrupt.
Anon 7: Thank goodness, some common sense at last.
Interested and concerned as we all are about abuses, and worse, at IACC...many level-headed commentators here have stressed the need for sustainable EVIDENCE, corroboration of evidence, articulate presentation of evidence, handing the evidence to the proper authorities etc.
I for one am becoming rather bored with the incoherent ramblings (and occasional insults) on this page.
All that needs to be done here is post a reliable and factual precis` of the complaint...and if it has substance, post it on to the Police....let them earn their salaries.
Otherwise you will lose momentum, and your credibility...and we the readers will lose interest.
By one who cares how he is governed.
To Layman from G. Pierce
I too am a layman. I, for a long time understood none of it. I am putting up bits of the jigsaw as I was given for three years.
In a nutshell, the builder carries out the work on the cheap. In return his work is not subjected to building regulations or any physical inspections. His extensive list of savings is not reported. The property would have been signed over to the Council (agreement of grant) for 10 yrs and no one would ever have known.
The applicant is forwarded TIG (external work) claim forms to claim the 80% grant funding in full. The WAG and applicant have not been informed of the reduced cost.
The surplus TIG funding claimed by the applicant is paid to the builder along with the applicants ficticious HRG (internal work) contribution.
If the cost of the HRG works has also been reduced then the HRG (Councils) funding becomes surplus to requirement.
When I complained there was £27,200 of this funding surplus to requirement because the builder was on a snag list. No work to measure for the money.
The builder, according to a report, claims I owe him £30/35K for work not yet invoiced which has already been measured and paid for.
I hope you can see that the contract value portrayed to me was much higher than the actual cost.
This is the reason why the original authentic invoices must be identified.
A cover up began when I complained, it was too late to rectify the poor work, too late to put back the omissions, insulation, soundproofing, renew the stairs, main beams in roof etc.
The first thing that happened was inform building regs, they had to because I had called in a surveyor. BR found 24 contraventions, some serious.
Invoices had to be raised to try and provide an audit trail. There was no evidence of what measured work had been carried out etc.
Its a long story, but I hope you get the picture
G. Pierce
To Rownd a Rownd eto from G. Pierce
Points taken. I can imagine how difficult it is to understand what I have blogged.
I am just an ordinary bloke trying my best. I wish I new how to present it better, but I can`t.
G. Pierce
G.Pierce 13.46
Ask BD to refer you discretely to a litigation specialist he knows, who can ?
There has been much talk and threat of blowing one side or the other out of the water. Is that really what Anglesey people want? A dysfunctional Council that has lost credibility, Councillors who put private and personal gain before public duty? Of course not. Nobody wants that.
But... positions have become extreme and entrenched. Trust has become a casualty during the war of insinuation and accusation. And no-one is any the wiser, least of all the people of Anglesey. Children, we all have to get along in the end, personal differences notwithstanding.
It is difficult in these cases to separate out what may be cock-up from outright fraud, accident from conspiracy. Without evidence and without hearing from those accused it is difficult to form a balanced view. The sheer amount of murk that is being stirred is none the less disturbing, but matters are not being helped by personal enmity and insults being traded. That does not help anyone, least of all Anglesey people. So, either take up complaints properly using the correct means of doing so or stop this constant drip of hatred and small-mindedness. Posting here on this minority interest blog will not resolve anything. It is a means of blowing off steam, a means of feeling better, but it will not ever bring any culprits to book. Indeed naming name and publishing details here may hinder the prosecution of those responsible. I'm as interested as the next man in getting to know what has been going on, but it has to be tempered with the requirement to follow correct process.
Some people such as Mr Pierce have complaints worthy of further investigation. They should follow the correct procedures. They should exercise patience whilst those procedures are carried out. Convictions will not be gained unless there is evidence and opinion itself is not evidence. I cannot speak for Mr Pierce's case but it would seem that he has enough evidence to instigate an investigation, at the very least.
Some councillors and officers are or appear to be dysfunctional. Whether we like him personally or not, Mr Bowles is charged with sorting the situation out by WAG. Attacking him personally will result in the attacker being isolated, that sort of personal attack is exactly the reason that he was brought in. If there is failure to enable the council to progress, WAG may take it over. End of Council, Councillors and local democracy in Anglesey for some time. Bloody hell folks, not one single person wants that, do they?
Some enmities are so trenchantly personal that they are beyond resolving. For the good of Anglesey those involved should step away from public life. I am not confident that they have the humility to do so.
Lastly, corruption has long been a perceived problem on Anglesey. It is a small council with a small electorate. By the nature of things, councillors, officers and contractors will be related or known to each other. Great care needs to be exercised to avoid the perception of corruption, even if there has been no actual misfeasance. But there is no excuse for genuinely corrupt behaviour, and the whistle has to be blown on anyone involved. I am concerned that those that deserve to be pursued will avoid justice, in part because their accusers are themselves behaving unreasonably. Anglesey does not want or deserve corrupt representatives and officials, but is up to the proper authorities to pursue them, not us anonymous commenters who can throw any mud at whomsoever we fancy without fear of reprisal.
Time for a formal complaint to be made or otherwise, hold your peace. You cannot have it both ways folks.
Well said, Rownd a Rownd.
Wales Audit Office:
http://www.wao.gov.uk/
Public Services Ombudsman for Wales:
http://www.ombudsman-wales.org.uk/
I would put the link to the Council's own complaints procedure. But in my experience, they see complaints as something to evade, not to deal with objectively and impartially (Ombudsman report due to be finalised tomorrow on this very point, in fact).
Rownd a Rownd
Your right on many accounts and under normal circumstances, what you say about making formal complaints is correct. But here on Anglesey, that counts for nothing.
Formal Complaints have been made, to no avail.
Council, Monitoring Officer, Managing Directors, Internal audit, External Auditors, Welsh Audit Office, The police, no matter who or what it is. It all gets covered up and the messenger gets abused.
Anonymous of 16.46
You are suggesting that valid complaints will be ignored because there is a conspiracy by all public servants including the Police to cover-up any wrongdoing? Frankly, that beggars belief. I am not saying that there may not be the will within Anglesey Council itself, as Anon7 has pointed out above to take hard and difficult decisions. Indeed, I would expect that there may be a presumption, from both members and officers of the Council to avoid doing so whenever possible. But I would be astonished if that was the case with regard to other public bodies. They have no axe to grind, no local scores to settle.
What you must realise is that evidence is crucial. You cannot proceed without it and you cannot convict in a criminal court unless you have sufficient evidence to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt. You may BELIEVE that someone is corrupt, you may indeed KNOW that someone is corrupt but you have to be able to PROVE that they are to have a case that will go further than internal processes and enter the public domain. I realise that it is frustrating but before someone can be bought to book the evidence has to be extremely convincing.
If genuine valid complaints are not being treated seriously, there is a means of redress via the Ombudsman and the link that Anon7 has posted above. That is proper process. You must have faith in it or we have anarchy. Generalised complaints without evidence and vague conspiracy theories, as I have previously indicated, will be counter-productive.
If public servants are being abused by corruption, would not the union to which they belong take up the matter ?
To Rownd a Rownd
Just recently, a very Senior Officer under threat of an enforcement notice was forced to make a Retrospective Planning Application after developing a property in breach of Planning conditions relating to road safety.
This only came about, because Cllr Durkin, stood his ground for over two years and won.
With all the other issues he has, goodness knows what will happen when he wins those.
YES Anon 17:26
Who do you think exposed the lies told to the Planning Committee, by an Officer from the Highways Authority, which helped get a County Councillor, Planning Approval without having to create passing bays on the narrow road leading to the development, saving him Thousands £s. All covered up.
I'll give you one guess.
Anonymous of 17.26
I'm happy to see proper process being followed. I know not of the case you refer to, but if Coun Durkin assisted in resolving matters properly, then he was carrying out his public duties correctly.
But, this sort of personal point-scoring is what I am attempting to convince people to step back from, for the greater good of all. Councillors are elected to give public service and the language of 'winning' cases suggests to me parochial adversarial politics of the worst kind. For every winner there must be a loser, and Anglesey Council is supposed to be one body, not a collection of individuals, fighting amongst themselves. For all I know, Coun Durkin may be in the right on every point he makes, although I must say that I still have no idea what exactly he is complaining about.
Regardless, I find the pettiness of all concerned, on every side of the issues raised, rather distasteful. This sort of extreme personal and localised politics could and should be reduced by the discipline of party politics. It is extremely unfortunate that most Anglesey Councillors fail to stand under the banner of any party and so are elected without their manifestos being explicitly stated. This reduces accountability and sustains short-term local gain in lieu of long-term strategic benefit. However, that is digressing far and away from where we started and is a separate subject for another day.
I was pleased to see Goronwy Parry down Newry Beach earlier. He was having an ice cream in the shelter and gave us a huge wave and a few kind words.
Rownd a rownd - despite apparently not being from Anglesey, thank you very much for investing so much time and energy today helping out on this thread. I think we can all agree that your comments (with the exception of calling the Druid a 'minority interest blog'!) are worthwhile and useful. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts on other threads too - we can do with your input.
To all from G. Pierce
Regarding complaints to the proper authorities.
I firstly reported the above anomalies to Housing and Planning Dept Complaints. Their replies were nothing more than opinions and explanations of the people that I was complaining about.
I complained up the chain, right up to the top, Only to be given the same answer.
I reported the matters to the WAG in April 2008, Stage 1 Nothing wrong, Stage 2 Nothing wrong, Stage 3 Something is wrong but they never investigated the wider implications, they made five significant recommendations, the board accepted three.
I kept complaining and the most recent letter dated 7 Dec 2009 from the Deputy Minister for Regeneration reads :-
Quote "The Welsh Assembly Governments Internal Auditors are undertaking an independent and objective appraisal of the matters in respect of the TIG relating to the above property. IOACC Internal Auditors are fully co-operating with the Assembly Government Internal Auditors with regard to this matter and we hope to bring it to a conclusion in the very near future"
The Ombudsman refuses to investigate my case and called me a persistent complainant.
Another firm of external Auditors, (I cannot name here I dont think) did not want to replicate the work of IOACC Internal Audit.
Last letter dated 12 November 2009 from them, after continued complaints, reads (extract) :-
"We have, to date, identified a number of concerns which require further investigation. These concerns are continuing to be investigated by the Councils Internal Audit department which is liaising with the Councils Section 151 Officer and other stakeholders where necessary"
None of them realise that Internal Audit are part of the problem. And, believe me it is evident that they are part of the problem.
I have reported the matter to the police. I got no further than the desk three times.
I e.mailed the police, sent the late appearing invoices and loads of documents, to no avail.
People that complain, just give in in the end, I know because I have spoken to people. They get no further because the replies are always the opinions and explanations of the persons that they complain about and thats final.
G. Pierce
Rownd a Rownd.
17:55.
I also wish to thank you for your contributions, However if you call people nutters, you don't really expect, not to get some back, do you?
You say,"you still have no idea what exactly Cllr Durkin is complaining about". Correct me if I'm wrong. but I don't see that he's complaining about anything.
The only complaint is an allegation by Mr David Bowles, having referred to a letter dated 6th April, accusing Cllr Durkin of making "unsubstantiated allegations of a fraudulent conspiracy relating to Town Improvement Grants and Housing Grants which, he alleges, involves senior officers".
That allegation has already been blown out of the water by the publication of that letter of the 6th above.
It makes no mention of Cllr Durkin saying anything of the sort. It mealy informs Mr David Bowles about allegations of alleged fraud appertaining to grants, which he had received from a Mr....and his accountant Mr.... and that he had informed Cllr McGregor of the situation.
So to summarize.
Mr David bowles made an allegation against Cllr Durkin which Cllr Durkin's letter of the 6th shows to be untrue.
Bang to rights, don't you think.
To Anon 19:38
Having said that, the question we should now be asking is.
What ever possessed Mr David Bowles to make such an allegation?
How could he misrepresent Cllr Durkin's letter so badly?
Or is it a matter, that having exposed two of his senior Officers recently in acts of dishonesty, He thought he'd just get his own back knowing there is much more to come?
If that is the case, Mr David Bowles will have to go immediately.
It would be interesting though to know, when Cllr Durkin Is going to drop the big bombshell on the Council, then we could really move on.
Evidence is all. If that is the case, then all we have to do is present Internal Audit failed reports including: drafts; final and redacted.
These reports clearly indicate that Internal Audit and Grant officers failed to capture relevant financial documents held on file.
IOACC Information Officer had no problem capturing the information and prepared a schedule of all the documents within a week. I hasten to add that the bulk of these documents had not been disclosed by Internal Audit during their investigation despite numerous requests to perform a data matching exercise by the applicants accountant.
"People that complain, just give in in the end, I know because I have spoken to people."
I disagree entirely. Internal complaints at the Council are, though, an exercise in the closing of ranks and self-justification. I have more than once shown their system to be a total whitewash.
I hate to say it, but it seems that the newspapers and media in general are being overlooked. Why hasn't the story been presented properly to them? I don't mean half-baked mud-slingin, but more-or-less ready-to-print articles?
I suspect that the explanation for why these claims aren't being investigated is because they are, as here, being presented in a very amateurish, scatter-gun sort of way.
The Plot Thickens By The Hour.
There now appears, from what's emerging, a much better understanding of what is really going on.
Cllr Durkin, has on numerous occasions to my knowledge, reported wrongdoing within the County Council in a very precise manner as far back as 2004. mainly over planning concerns, but all covered up.
It's also clear that Cllr Durkin is no easy push over and because of his tenacity, the Council don't like it.
I am told not to talk to Cllr Durkin without a line manager or a Senior Officer being present, one might wonder what the council have to hide.
What's going to be done about the two cases mentioned in 3rd May 17:26 & 17:48 and Mr Bowles' untrue allegations against Cllr Durkin, or the dishonest planning application recently submitted by a Senior Officer in the Planning Authority, or the fact that some Councillors who are in the Masons have not, as required by law, made that known?
There's also the paying of thousands of pounds a year to a Labour councillor from Holyhead for an allowance he's not entitled to
These acts of dishonesty must be addressed.
These are some of the questions I want answering.
A.S. Rhostrehwfa.
"I am told not to talk to Cllr Durkin without a line manager or a Senior Officer being present, one might wonder what the council have to hide"
You're right to wonder about this. From my reading of the memo sent out (and not the one posted here), I suspect it's not so much what they have to hide, but that they are worried more allegations will be made.
What concerns me is this: Cllr. Durkin has raised issues he clearly has a sincere belief warrant investigation. The relevant authorities may decide that they do not so warrant investigation. But we all know that authorities are often lacking, or subject to pressures that might lead to a non-ideal result.
On the other hand, it may be true that Cllr. Durkin's allegations are genuinely without foundation (I can't personally tell, and so make no comment in that regard). In which case, all anyone in the senior management had to do was send a letter to Cllr. Durkin saying 'we've looked into this, and find no substance to it'. There is absolutely no need to send a blanket letter to all managers telling them how to deal with an elected member of local government. Such a letter has the effect of making managers reluctant to have any contact with Cllr. Durkin at all, whether this is the intention or not by Mr. Bowles. It also tends towards defamation of Cllr. Durkin's character, because the letter only makes diffuse and generic claims about what he is alleged to have done, not specific truths that could be defended later on.
If Mr. Bowles was concerned that more allegations would be made by Cllr. Durkin, all they would need do is deal with each allegation, one by one. There is no need for a wholesale shutting-up of Cllr. Durkin, or any other elected representative.
I've now seen a few letters from Mr. Bowles, and they all tend to read with a very childish, intolerant and heavy-handed tone. He knows that the main problem on this hopeless council is personality politics; the last thing he should have done, if he's worth the alleged £1000+ a day salary, is to throw himself directly into the same sort of activity.
Notes: I am not a council employee. I am not a councillor. I am a (fairly) normal taxpaying member of the public, fed-up with probably the worst council that has ever made it into existence.
ANON 8.55
I agree entirely.
I travel the length and breadth of Wales and beyond on professional business and when people ask where I am from....its an embarrasment to say ANGLESEY !!
Certain Councillors...look what you have done to the reputation of the Island....shame on you.
Why Did David Bowels write such a defamatory letter against Cllr Durkin and, why has he not declared his own personal and prejudicial interests in the Grants affair and the perpetrators?
Bring in the National Fraud Squad, or are they already here?
One comment deleted for naming names and organisations!
In respect of Mr Pierce's case, it is clear that paperwork in support of one grant scheme was fraudulently used in support of another scheme.
If you examine the contents of the accountant's letter to Mr Bowles, you will notice payment certificates used to access TIG grant are actually HRG payment certificates and cumulative totals and values contained therein substantiate this.
AJP
Come on then, let's see copies of the original documents. Just make sure you remove any identifying names, logos, addresses first. It's ultimately the claimed wrongdoing we are interested in, not really who is responsible (that is a matter for the authorities).
Sorry - several comments deleted for naming names (or making their identities easily apparent without naming them).
Regarding Bowles`s letter.
From what I have read, in particular the e.mail that Mr Pierce posted from a senior officer to the builders secretary advising her that he needs invoices, shows that a criminal act has taken place if they are duplicates of the authentic invoices.
RIP
Please find below summaries gleaned off Certificates of Interim Progress Payments in respect of J G Pierce's case. These Certificates are held on Council files and used to access both Housing Renovation Grant and Town Improvement Grant.
*********TOWN IMPROVEMENT GRANT SCHEME**********
Certificate number: 1
Issue date: 23rd March, 2007
Contract value: £54,213.00p
Value of work executed to date: £26,315.79p
Retention (5%): £ 1,315.79p
Amount payable under this certificate: £25,000.00p
LESS Payments made to date: £Nil
Net amount due for payment: £25,000.00p
ADD VAT (17.5%) £ 4,375.00p
Amount now payable to contractor: £29,375.00p
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Certificate number: 2
Issue date: 11th April, 2007
Contract value: £53,149.00p
Value of work executed to date: £42,105.26p
Retention (5%): £ 2,105.26p
Amount payable under this certificate: £40,000.00p
LESS Payments made to date: £25,000.00p
Net amount due for payment: £15,000.00p
ADD VAT (17.5%) £ 2,625.00p
Amount now payable to contractor: £17,625.00p
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Certificate number: 3
Issue date: 2nd July, 2007
Contract value: £53,149.00p
Value of work executed to date: £47,834.10p
Retention (5%): £ 2,391.70p
Amount payable under this certificate: £45,442.40p
LESS Payments made to date: £40,000.00p
Net amount due for payment: £ 5,442.40p
ADD VAT (17.5%) £ 952.42p
Amount now payable to contractor: £ 6,394.82p
*********HOME RENOVATION GRANT SCHEME**********
Certificate number: 1 (MISSING)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Certificate number: 2
Issue date: 2nd July, 2007
Contract value: £53,149.00p
Value of work executed to date: £31,578.94p
Retention (5%): £ 1,578.94p
Amount payable under this certificate: £30,000.00p
LESS Payments made to date: £15,000.00p
Net amount due for payment: £15,000.00p
ADD VAT (17.5%) £ 2,625.00p
Amount now payable to contractor: £17,625.00p
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Certificate number: 3
Issue date: 25th September, 2007
Contract value: £53,149.00p
Value of work executed to date: £39,149.00p
Retention (5%): £ 1,957.45p
Amount payable under this certificate: £37,191.55p
LESS Payments made to date: £30,000.00p
Net amount due for payment: £ 7,191.55p
ADD VAT (17.5%) £ 1,258.53p
Amount now payable to contractor: £ 8,450.07p
The builder had left site by the end of June, 2007 with the work complete except snagging and returned in September, 2007 to re-lay an out of level floor which had already been measured as at 2nd July, 2007. There was no measured work carried out after 2nd July, 2007.
It has to be mentioned that Mr Pierce wrote to the Grant's Department requested they release no further grant payments to the builder. IOACC ignored Mr Pierce and supposedly paid the builder another £8,450.07p.
Please note, the work was measured as complete except snagging as at 2nd July, 2007 and no further measured work has been executed since. Therefore it is clear the measured HRG contract value based on executed work is £35,250.00p as at 2nd July, 2007.
RIP - Normally you would simply request a duplicate invoice and not prompt the builder with dates and amounts telling them to make an excuse to silence the accountant who was tracing authentic tax dockets.
Coincidentally, all these invoices tie in perfectly with a computation prepared by the officer a week before and all the authentic sales invoices attached to the grant applications had been dismissed as an administrative error by an inexperienced clerk.
They had to raise these invoices to create a false audit trail after the accountant wrote to the MD explaining the applicant has not paid £42,500 as the paperwork suggested.
Anon 20.13
what I meant was - to duplicate invoices then change the serial number and date IS a criminal offence.
RIP
Anon 20.13
What I meant was - to duplicate invoices and change the serial numbers and dates is a criminal offence.
RIP
Is it true. That David Bowles is lawfully bound to declare a personal interest in this issue of alleged fraud, and hasn't?
Well 21:47.
If David Bowles does have a personal interest in this scandal, which he's failed to declared. He'll be up the river with out a paddle, REEL BIG TIME.
This story's getting better by the minute
Is everybody aware, that the Agent has already being named by the County Council, in their Town Improvement Grant, Investigation and that "There is a prima facie case that the Council was deliberately misled"
We already know from David Bowles Letter that "The council have requested re-payment of the Grant monies"
How could all this happen without the Officers who are charged with scrutinising public money knowing about it?
Come on 22:18
The whole bloody bunch are up to their neck in it,and they know it.
Its only a matter of time, then bingo, the bloody lot will be gone.
Yes 22:18
And leaving the rate payers of Anglesey to pick up the bill and face the ridicule of the whole world again. Bast...
To all from G. Pierce
(please note that invoices in Table 1 contain the late appearing invoices. Table 3 the three authentic invoices)
"Internal Audit Report Final March 2009" (Extracts)
Table 1
01.4.07 070401 £29,375 paid by GP
05.5.07 070504 £17,625 paid by GP
02.7.07 070703 £10,299.(90) paid by GP
(error, should be 00p)
02.7.07 070701 £10,299.92 paid by YMCC
26.9.07 070939 £08,450.07 paid by YMCC
Table 3
23.3.07 070326 £29,375
23.3.07 070327 £17,625
07.6.07 070612 £17,625
Quote "When questioned about these later invoices, the contractor and his secretary stated that they seemed like duplicates. They explained that during the period when these invoices were raised they employed a clerk who was responsible for raising the initial invoices. On receiving payment for the invoices shown in Table 1 she raised three new invoice numbers for reasons unknown. The builder and secretary did not know why she did this and she no longer works for the builder"
Is the applicant also to believe that the clerk back dated them ???? (see dates)
Internal Audit were well aware that invoice 070326 was on file with the WAG in St Asaph.
IA also, reported in the same March Report that invoice 070701 was not paid by the Council and reported that invoice 070612 was authentic and on file. So why was`nt the builder brought to book ????
G. Pierce
22:29
Because their all in it together.
Once the whole thing has being investigated properly, don't be surprised if we find millions of pounds involved, after all, the grant system involves 10s of millions.
Ever likely there going after Durkin, he'll get them 10 years a piece.
To 22:41.
I wouldn't like to tread on his toes. Is this why he nicknamed the "Rhino".
What they need at Anglesey County Council, is a dam big heard of them.
To Anon 22.18 from G. Pierce
It is called a TIG investigation because they are too embarrassed to call it Report 3.
However, the main reason is because they did not take into account the TIG Cost Analysis I discovered in July 2009 in either the Final Report or the Report 2 which lowered the cost drastically.
The Final Report and Report 2 are both for TIG and HRG combined.
It looks now as if this is TIG 1 for the WAGs perusal.
What a sly trick, I discovered the document but Internal Audit will now get the praise. Then they report that the applicant may have misled the Council.
Who`s misleading who Internal Audit ?
G. Pierce
Come on Druid
Why do you keep deleting anything that hints at who the agent is?
After all, the County Council's, own March 2010, Internal Audit Report, on the scandal has already named them and that's in the public domain.
Anon 23:00 - is there an internet link to the Internal Audi Report on the IOACC webpage?
To Mr Pierce.
I can understand your frustration, it must be very difficult to get your side across in piece meal fashion, but we know the score.
The ones that really matter are now on the job.
You've done your bit, just take a rest and leave it to them.
Druid 23:03
Can not find it but will ensure you get copy.soon.
Druid.
The allegations by David Bowles against Cllr Durkin has in my opinion, raise more questions than answers
We have the letter from Mr Bowles which makes the allegations and we have the letter from Cllr Durkin, which David Bowles refers to. That letter in no-way reflects, what David Bowles is telling us.
We also notice on close scrutiny of the TIG Incentive Scheme, contrary to what David Bowles say's, in his attempt to divert any responsibility away from the County Council, that
"The Council is only responsible for payment of the Home Improvement Grant. It is NOT responsible for Town Improvement Grant, as it is funded by the welsh Assembly Government"
This again is another lie.
It is true to say that the Town Improvement Grant is funded by the Welsh Assembly, but in fact the Grant is Managed and Administered by Anglesey County Council, which shows, that whatever's gone on, it could not have happened without the collusion of Council Officers.
More to the point. Why does David Bowles find he needs to tell lies?
From G. Pierce
I wish to share just a couple more bits.
Letter to G. Pierce from Acting Managing Director 2 Sep 2009
Quote
"You refer in your letter to correspondence sent to (name) and Mr Bowles which was received at these offices, however, I should advise you that (name)is in fact Minister for Social Justice and Local Government and is, therefore, not employed by this Authority. I would further advise you that Mr David Bowles has not yet taken up his post as Interim Manager"
I wrote to Mr Bowles well before he came to Anglesey and have wrote to him several times since. He replied only twice.
Once on 5th November 2009 to tell me he had forwarded my letter to the Director of Finance.
And, on 12 November 2009 to advise me that he would not be attending the Internal Audit meeting that I so desperately wanted him to attend.
David Bowles has been well briefed about my case I can assure you. He has a good idea what evidence Councillor Durkin has.
G. Pierce
Anon 23:48 - I already have a copy, I want to see if it is freely available to the public or not.
Druid
As a member of the public I will ask for a copy at the council offices today.
AMJ.
"Normally you would simply request a duplicate invoice and not prompt the builder with dates and amounts telling them to make an excuse to silence the accountant who was tracing authentic tax "dockets."
Indeed. This is the point that sticks in my mind, too. The casual expectation of compliance with the apparent request to modify information to silence the scrutineers. That is not proper record keeping and compliance with the law. To my mind, it tends to indicate wrongdoing.
I hope we can see a copy of this document...
Concerning the late appearing false invoices.
I reported to the Auditor General for Wales in March, 2009 that it was statistically impossible for the builder to have known to raise invoices for the amounts shown unless instructed by the grants department.
Amazingly IOACC leaked an E-mail from the Senior Grants officer to the builder which proves he advised the builder to issue the false invoices to silence the accountant.
The falsified invoices contain different dates, serial numbers, amounts and scheme references. This is a very straight-forward case of false accounting.
"This is a very straight-forward case of false accounting. "
Indeed. Which raises the obvious, screaming question: why has this not been investigated and the findings made public (or have they?)
There are at least a dozen suspected counts of false accounting contained in the paperwork.
"...it was statistically impossible for the builder to have known to raise invoices for the amounts shown unless instructed by the grants department. "
Hmmm. You'd probably be right to say it would be statistically very unlikely, but 'impossible' is taking it a bit too far...probably!
For instance, it is statistically possible for me to walk through a wall and emerge the other side intact according to quantum mechanics. It's just very unlikely.
To all.
Have you read page 7 of this weeks, Holyhead & Anglesey Mail yet?
Druid
RE: 23:48
The Internal Audit Report, Town Improvement Grant, March 2010, is now available to all members to the public.
All you need to do is ask for a copy at the Anglesey County Council, Internal Audit office.
Well there it is.
I think its about time David Bowles was sent packing.
If you think this exposure of Dishonesty is bad Wait till you see what's coming soon.
You are right not impossible but very unlikely.
Statistically the odds are in excess of a quadrillion to one.
These are the odds based on the treble: 1,029,990 x 1,029,992 x 845,007 = 896452259937821000
I doubt there are that many grains of sand on the planet.
LUG
"I doubt there are that many grains of sand on the planet."
Nah, if you take your result, 8.96x 10^17, and then compare this against the number of sand grains estimated (10^22 is a mid-range figure), there is roughly 11,200 times more grains of sand on Earth than in your odds!
There, a rubbish Council discussion yields some maths education!
Now, can we all see the audit report, please, someone?
http://www.theonlinemail.co.uk/bangor-and-anglesey-news/local-bangor-and-anglesey-news/2010/05/05/councillor-claims-victory-as-anglesey-official-makes-planning-application-66580-26373282/
Jon Vooght - Thanks, would you agree you stand more chance of finding rocking horse shit.
If David Bowles, as we can see in the press,still wishes to "robustly defend" his Officer, the Director of Legal Services / come Monitoring Officer, now she's being exposed, and continue attacking Cllr Durkin. What does that say for his own credibility?
She should be sacked and Bowles should go with her.
HOPEFULLY YOU CAN LINK UP TO THESE HALF-BAKED RED HERRINGS SERVED ON A RAFT OF DECEPTION:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30930723/March-2009-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30930654/June-2009-Draft-Report-2-Redacted
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30930653/TIG-March-2010-Final
Please make a note of my scibble account and the whole lot (uncensored) will be on shortly.
Internal Audit have tried their best to cover-up the truth. When I realised after a year they were stringing me along it broke my heart and every morning since they have been on my mind.
They should be prosecuted for knowingly misleading Mr Pierce throughout their investigation and wasting over a thousand hours of my time. I was spelling it out to them and they were ignoring me and reporting my findings to the person under investigation who had complete access to the file. That is why undated and unsigned documents are held on file.
Mad Lug
Now we can see how Cllr Durkin is been treated for acting in the interest of the people and exposing dishonesty within the County Council. It,s little wonder that other honest Councillors won't report wrong doing.
To my knowledge there's plenty to come yet. The Council has brought it on itself and the whole bunch should resign on mass.
"Jon Vooght - Thanks, would you agree you stand more chance of finding rocking horse shit. "
He he. Yes!
Conspiracy theory: Mr. Bowles is being paid to give the impression of improving the Council, when his real instructions are to bring about its downfall and consequent deletion from the list of local authorities. Let's face it, no matter what he does, succeed or fail, he simply walks away a heck of a lot richer, no questions asked. It's our job to hold everyone involved to account.
Bloody hell! That final report is interesting. Same old eejits, same old games.
So, do I understand correctly that, even in light of that final report, someone somewhere is saying that the complainant was in the wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong!
Post a Comment