No doubt in response to requests by Councillors excluded from the new alliance at Anglesey County Council, the WAG Local Government minister, Carl Sargeant, has sent a letter to all County Councillors clarifying his position on the recent changes. Here are the relevant points:
Although he accepts that the Council has made some progress since last year, Sargeant goes on to say:
"But the underlying issues have never gone away. Council business too often focusses on internal disputes and rivalries rather than on delivering for the citizens of the Island. Too many members still prefer jockeying for their own personal advantage rather than serving those who elected them. As I said to you in February, the people of Anglesey do not care about petty squabbles. They care about vital services, and about their council providing leadership in these difficult times. They are still not getting that."
He clarifies his and WAG's position with regards to the formation of the new Alliance:
"It is not for me to endorse this or any other arrangement, and neither I, the Recovery Board, or any of my officials had any part in negotiating the new alliance or its terms of engagement. We are determined not to enter into local politics or take sides. Nor do we have any power to approve the appointment of a Leader or any interest in influencing such a decision ... But I welcome anything which leads to greater political stability within the Council and more focus on delivering for citizens rather than on internal squabbling."
He ends by making a clear warning that in the event that the Alliance fails, then there will be no more second chances:
"Recent development have shown how quickly change can occur. That works both ways: arrangements can fall apart as fast as they can be put together. Accordingly I have asked my officials in the Recovery Board to prepare contingency plans which we can implement urgently if recovery falters and/or the alliance fails. Those plans would have drastic and possible permanent consequences for the council and its current membership. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that they are never needed."
This is a clear though veiled warning that if the current structure fails then the council will be taken over completely by the Welsh Assembly Government and run from Cardiff. Although this blog is often a critic of Anglesey County Council it also recognises that local people are best served by having decisions about services which affect them taken locally by their elected representatives. Accordingly the Druid hopes that all Councillors will heed Carl Sargeant's warning and none will be so stupid as to 'press the nuclear button' which would lead to the collapse of current arrangements and a WAG take over. It is sad that I should need to write this, but it is time for Councillors to put Anglesey first.
You can read the full letter below:
Letter to all Anglesey Councillors from Carl Sargeant
UPDATE: Cllr Barrie Durkin, one of the councillors "named and shamed" in the Alliance's Terms of Engagement has sent the below open reply to Carl Sargeant's above letter:
Cllr Barrie Durkin's reply to Carl Sargeant
252 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 252 of 252“So we ask again, Cllr McGregor. What contempt are you taking about.”
As you will recall The Audit Commission said there was a minority of Councillors that where obstructing recovery. There was a call for them to be named and shamed.
Carl Sargeant said to the Council shortly after becoming minister:
“Focusing on personal rivalries like this is self indulgent in any circumstances"
“Doing so despite the numerous and pressing problems that this island faces is even worse. It is a betrayal of Anglesey’s citizens and communities, who deserve action and leadership, not petty bickering.”
He told them anyone obstructing recovery should be dealt with “severely”.
Mr Sargeant added it was time for the majority of good councillors to stand up and isolate bad behaviour and prove they are “worthy” of the trust placed in them by the electorate.
Then as reported by the Druid in his post of Saturday 17, April 2010 - The Daily Post as yesterday finally confirms what has remained unspoken until now - that the two councillors expelled from the Original Independents grouping in Early March are part of the "small minority" of "obstructive" councillors that we have been hearing so much about. The two councillors effectively named and shamed are:
* Elwyn Schofield (representing Llanerch-y-medd)
* Barrie Durkin (representing Llanbedrgoch)
Furthermore, it appears that an agreement has been put in place between the various groups that these two councillors should remain isolated and not be admitted to join any other groupings. The Recovery Board has also warned them that should they attempt to form a new group it will be a "highly retrograde step".
In a comment on 8 July 2010 someone asked what contempt when Cllr McGregor had said the following:
"Your group still includes one member who is still prepared to support Elwyn, in clear contempt of the Minister".
Maybe contempt was to strong of a word, but clearly if someone was supporting one of the ‘obstructive councillors’ this was contrary to what Mr Sargeant had said which I repeat as reported by the Druid was:
He told them anyone obstructing recovery should be dealt with “severely”.
Mr Sargeant added it was time for the majority of good councillors to stand up and isolate bad behaviour and prove they are “worthy” of the trust placed in them by the electorate.
Seems to me that Cllr Durkin was standing up and trying to isolate bad behaviour for the good and the reputation of this Council. He was initially commended for his hard work until he was asked to stop routing out the wrongdoers.
Personally, I think that this whole issue (saga) about wrongdoing runs deep
at Council level. Cllr Durkin may well have stumbled upon something wider and maybe much more sinister than anyone could imagine if he was allowed to continue with his investigations into criminal activity. I would`nt be surprised. Heads would then roll at very Senior levels.
Better to stop Cllr Durkin investigating.
G. Pierce
???
As an insider let me assure those of you who are really interested, Cllr Durkin, has not ditched his duty of rooting out dishonesty. he has in fact this week, stepped up a gear with some astonishing results.
David Bowles and Clive McGregor and those giving nothing but lip service to any investigations and expecting us to swallow their propaganda have got quite a shock coming.
We keep hearing that Bowles and Co are in the process of spending thousands of pounds of our taxes getting external solicitors to put a case together against Cllr's Schofield & Durkin to send to the Public Ombudsman for Wales for alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.
Don't they realise that all that will do is give both Councillor's a public stage to expose the Council for what they really are? And we the Public will again be picking up the tab whilst our services are in decline for the lack of money.
I'd Sack Bowles and McGregor right now, if I could.
Leave it till next week boys and girls, we'll see what happens then.
16:32
Plenty to say and all makes sense, save for the fact that no evidence in any shape or form has been shown that either Clr Durkin or Cllr Schofield have shown themselves to have obstructed recovery or behaved badly.
All we have seen is propaganda fed by Bowles and McGregor to the Minister and the Recovery Board. Unless anyone can show different I will stick to the general opinion that all their doing is trying to cover their dishonest backs.
stats man 16:32.
If they were to form a new group it would be a " Retrograde Step".
What do you think Clive McGregor's just Done to keep himself in power?
Druid
23:00 Has a valid poin, no evidence, none at all. So how did we get to this point?
Cllr McGegor and David Bowles have shown themselves through letters on these blogs to have told lies, Cannot say that about Schofield or Durkin.
So why does DB&CM need to tell lies?
Please tell me why.
To Tom Talwrn.
I dont think that Bowles is dishonest. I just dont think he has a clue about what has gone on in the past or what "his" Senior Officials are desperateley trying to cover up.
As for McG, he knows exactly what has gone on.
Letter from Clive McGregor, Leader of the County Council, to Councillor, Goronwy O Parry, MBE.
Dated 09.06.2010.
Extracts from the above.
Dear Goronwy,
"Before I deal with the question which you, Bryan, Gareth, and Aled raised with the Managing Director on Tuesday, I think it might be helpful to explain some of the background to the establishment of the Informal Board".
"When I first stood for election two years ago I and others wanted to help change the Council, for the better, once and for all. But after I became leader I realised that some of those holding the Council back and wasting everyone's time, were in our own Group".
"I currently have concerns about some members of your Group. This is because Your Group still includes some who have shown that they are prepared to support Elwyn, in clear contempt of the Minister".
"Your Group still includes one member and possibly others, who are still prepared to support Barrie".
"Weightmans, Solicitors are now preparing comprehensive complaints to the Ombudsman, against Barrie and Elwyn, involving a range of issues over a long period. As the Alliance is determined that neither of these members has any inappropriate influence on the work of the Alliance, these complaints may not sit well with those members of your Group who have yet to demonstrate decisively that they will not continue to support the members concerned".
"Your Group also includes three members against whom the Ombudsman has made findings and who are soon to face Adjudication Panel hearings, the outcomes of which may be affected by recent and current events, and will draw bad publicity for them and those associated with them".
"I believe that there are steps which might be taken to resolve some of these issues, and to ease the way for most of the members of your Group to join the Alliance".
Some of the members might want to join one of the existing Groups already in the Alliance. they would be most welcome, but in the end, it is a matter for them.
On first reading the letter extracts, I got the impression of a dark agenda, but then the realisation of something even more sinister was afoot, a deep, cynical, almost frighting stench of, (how can I put it) criminal oppression comes to mind. Do as I say or else, but if you do, life can be made much better for you.
Quite frankly I find It unsettling that anyone who could write in such terms is in a position of public trust. I'd be interested in what others have to say on this one.
To 9:36 My thoughts on the matter are:
Allegations against certain councillors have been made, that they are obstructing recovery of the Council following its damaging report by the Audit Commission.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions Councillors have a duty to report such allegations to the appropriate authorities. As some of the issues relate to the Monitoring Officer then it follows that any such allegations would need to be investigated by the Ombudsman for Wales and subject to his report decided upon by the Adjudication Panel for Wales.
As we know other Councillors of the Council are already awaiting a hearing in front of the Adjudication Panel. It has been suggested already that there was more then the 'famous two' obstructing the recovery of the Council.
Whilst anybody that exposes wrongdoing in a public office should be commended, it is important that we do not become the judge and jury on such matters, and neither should we embark on a fishing trip in the hope of landing that big catch.
I may not agree with the wording used by Cll McGregor (in his letter to Cllr Parry MBE) but the message is clear, 'if you want to be part of the alliance driving forward the recovery of the Council you must as Mr Carl Sargeant has asked stop supporting those Councillors whom are deemed to be obstructing it's recovery.'
Of course the Councillors mentioned will have an opportunity to defend themselves in front of the Ombudsman and later maybe the Adjudication Panel.
Finally it does not help the recovery if vexatious allegations in relation to those involved with the Council are made on this blog or in any other public arena.
What steps ? The feedback I get from the letter is that CMcG can influence the adjudication panel.
I wonder what the Adjudication panel will say when it hears that the Leader of Anglesey County Council has implied that he or someone else can influence them in their finding for political reasons.
McGregors letter sounds more like blackmail to me. what a terrible person he must be, and an ex police officer at that.
Lets not forget. It is McGregor and Bowles making allegations against named councillor without any evidence. not the other way round.
The letter from Cllr McGregor sounds to me like the end of the line by exposing how far he is prepared to go to destroy the honesty and integrity of others to get his own criminal way.
Its over McGregor, you've driven your final nail in to the Council's coffin, it is really now time to go.
"When I first stood for election two years ago I and others wanted to help change the Council, for the better, once and for all. But after I became leader I realised that some of those holding the Council back and wasting everyone's time, were in our own Group".
You did`nt realise anything Cllr McGregor, you wanted to help change the Council, for the better, once and for all.
It was Bowles who told you that it was a waste of time.
Bowles is not the man to change this Council around and never was. He is just concerned with looking after number 1.
The only man capable was you Cllr McGregor and with the help of good men like Cllr Durkin, you may well have achieved your goal.
But now youve fluffed it.
Stats Man:
Thank you for your summary of events that you posted on 9 July 16:32.
I think it gives a good account of recent developments.
The only ambiguity is in the paragraph after the names of the ‘named and shamed’ two councillors where it is not clear who ‘they’ are:
“The Recovery Board has also warned them that should they attempt to form a new group it will be a "highly retrograde step””
One would assume that ‘they’ means the two councillors, but could mean that ‘they’ are the council in general being warned against forming any new group. It would seem that the first option is most likely, however the notion of two people forming a group is stretching the meaning of group a wee bit. I’m not aware of any working relationship between BD and ES that would suggest any grounds for a political alliance.
I have to conclude, as I note you (Stats Man) have done in your later post, that the ‘group’ of obstructive councillor’s numbers more just the two named councillors and going by your later post that at least five councillors are involved (the two named in the terms of the alliance and three already being investigated by the Ombudsman).
I would add some other points of interest to your account.
The first being the situation that developed when Philip Fowlie resigned as leader of the council and Derrick Jones ‘left the council by mutual consent’ as described in the Daily Post here:
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2009/06/20/anglesey-council-conflicts-exposed-in-letter-55578-23929811/
Obviously at this date (20 June 2009) there were significant tensions between councillors and council officers. John Chorlton (leader of the opposition) expressed his concerns that “This throws into the doubt the way Derrick Jones was got rid of.”
The second point, also from the Daily Post (1 Feb 2008):
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2008/02/01/anglesey-council-guilty-of-maladministration-55578-20422660/
In this report ‘Anglesey council guilty of maladministration’ the Ombudsman is reported as saying “... the planning committee failed to take its decision in a rational manner as required by law”
The report goes on to identify “The councillors who voted to approve the planning application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, (who) were:
Eurfryn Davies, Plaid Cymru, Cwm Cadnant
Philip Fowlie, Original Independent, Rhosneigr
J Arthur Jones, Radical Independent, Cyngar
Glyn Jones, Original Independent, Aberffraw
Richard L Owen, Original Independent, Beaumaris
W J Williams, Anglesey Forward, Llanddyfnan”
From the dates given above it would appear that tensions had been developing between some councillors and some council officers over a period of at least 18 months.
Thirdly, there have been postings on earlier threads of this blog of extracts from a letter allegedly written by Councillor McGregor, when he first came to the council, claiming there was wrong-doing in IOACC, much as Councillor Durkin is perceived to be doing now.
Lastly, it was reported on this blog that Councillor Goronwy Parry M.B.E had resigned as a senior councillor for his written correspondence in support of BD, (April 29 2010 - ++ IOACC Senior Councillor to resign ++ ) though it was not clear whether he had resigned a position on the council executive or had resigned as a councillor. No further information about this has been made public, however he is still listed on the IOACC web-site as a serving councillor.
So what conclusions can we draw from all of this? The obvious one is that the group of ‘obstructive councillors’ originally referred to consists of more individuals than the two named, as Stats Man points out in his last message. However the ‘frontlines of interest’ are somewhat more blurred as the Daily Post article of 2008 suggests, (given the breadth of political groupings involved in the maladministration).
It this last point that inclines me towards ‘incompetence’ as opposed to ‘conspiracy’ though these two are not mutually exclusive.
Following on from previous post:
I am in favour of bringing IOACC into line and would understand the need for the 'terms of engagement of the alliance' were it not for the clause that effectively condons the scapegoating of individuals, which is hardly a paradigm of 'good governance'.
To use an ealier metaphor: it appears that the captain is attempting to steer the ship back on-course, but has failed to preventing it listing and taking on more water.
Prometheus - a good recap and suitable metaphor.
One point: Goronwy Parry resigned his portfolio only. He is still a councillor and has indeed now rejoined the rump Original Independents.
It appears to me that the Captain attempted to steer the ship out of troubled waters but his new ship mate advised him to go astern instead of ahead which landed the ship on some rocks.
I find the letter from Cllr McGregor, to Cllr Parry, so contemptuous I think I want to throw up.
It is at best, threatening, bordering on blackmail.
The very suggestion that Cllr McGregor, "Believes that there are steps which might be taken to resolve some of the issues" is abhorrent to justice and implies that the Adjudication Panel can be influenced (got at, that is) providing those members joins his Alliance on his terms.
This one single issue alone shows how dishonest Clive McGregor and David Bowles are, and because of that, any hearing by the Adjudication panel against the three said members has been so prejudiced that the cases should not now be heard.
Further to my posts, this is what the Technical Principal Officer and the Senior Planning Officer were happy with, with one days work left :-
(Extracts from Surveyors Report)
1. the Schedule requires that all existing roof timbers should be replaced. This has not been done in the main roof,
2. New slating to be of heavy quality (6.5mm thick)Measurement of slates used (5mm thick)
3. Schedule requires the rain water goods to be of cast aluminium.rain water goods are standard upvc.
4. Underslating membrane to be dressed into the rain water gutters to avoid spillage of water between the wall and the gutter. This has not been done.
5. New facias to be of softwood not upvc.
6. Facias have been poorly fitted, with serious deviations from a true line.
7. Whilst some attempt has been made to refurbish front windows the results are unsatisfactory with crude joinery, difficult or impossible operation, no draughtstripping and no provisions for double glazing.
8. Schedule requires ground level at rear to be reduced 350mm below the internal ground level. This has not been done. The existing ground level is some 1200mm above the finished first floor level and this will be contributing to the serious damp noted in the rear utility room.
9. External wall of unrendered rubble, with several large voids on the surface where stones have come out. The schedule does not cover this, but the defects will allow serious amounts of rainwater to enter the interior of the wall. 10. In two locations adjacent to the utility rear wall water enters the building at floor level and runs accross the floor during periods of rain.
11. Floors in both flats are in most cases out of level and whilst some deviation from a true level surface may be acceptable in an older building it is felt that in many locations the variation is excessive and could present a safety hazard.
12. External rendering is of a poor standard, with many areas where the rendering is not adhering properly, a sparsity of spar finish and some variations in shade of spar used.
13. Schedule requires both staircases to be taken out and replaced with new. This has not been done. Whilst an attempt has been made to refurbish one of the staircases, this will not be effective in the long run, and the winders fall below current building Regs standards, presenting a safety hazard, particularly so for children and infirm persons.
14. I am concerned that shower rooms contain electrical switches and that some of the electrical sockets are to close to sink taps for safety.
15. lead flashing at the abutement of the annexe with the main house has not been continued far enough and could result in water ingress.
16, Schedule requires lead (1.8mm thick) but that used appears to be (1mm thick)
17. Living room to front flat has a gap of 40mm under the door, which will completely negate smoke control. The gap is due to the degree of slope in the floor, is unacceptable.
18. Slate cills to windows to be either taken out and cleaned or replaced. This has not been done, and, in most cases the provision for drainage from the window frames between the frame and the cills is inadequate.
( Continued )
19. Not possible to confirm if fire protection and acoustic insulation had been fitted in accordance with schedule.
20. wood stud partitions replaced metal stud partitions.
Fifteen Minor defects were also listed although the surveyor did not propose to list them all.
Twenty Four contraventions were also found by Building Control.
1. A 30 litres per second extract fan required in kitchen front flat.
2. all new windows fitted require external sealing and restrictor fitted where openable parts of windows are below 800 mm from finished floor.
3. Fire doors do not self close and has excessive gap along bottom of door.
4. Window second floor landing requires external sealing and restrictor fitted.
5. Roof slates to roof above kitchen has poorly fitting and cracked roof slates.
6. Fire door of bedroom front flat does not self close.
7.Extract fan to bathroom not fitted.
8. Floor between kitchen and bedroom needs sound testing.
9 Party stud walls need sound testing.
10. Entrance doors to flats do not self close and have excessive gaps underneath.
11. smoke seals to doors poorly fitted.
12. External Grills to extract fan required.
13.Beading to window outside bathroom to rear flat needs installing.
14. Extract fans to rear kitchen required.
15. Manufacturers details for heaters required.
16 Isolator switches for heaters and extract fans to be located outside bathrooms.
17. New roof structure covered without being inspected.
18. fire collars are required where two soil pipes pass through the floor and requires inspecting before boxing in.
19. Two soil pipes in shop need boxing in, in fire resisting construction.
20. Foul drainage has been laid without being inspected. Pipework requires exposing in order to check suitability of drains laid.
21. Fire detection/alarm not yet fitted within the shop area.
22. Emergency light required to entrance hall of both flats.
23. Commissioning certificates required for fire alarm/detection, emergency lighting and electrical installation required.
24. The location of electrical sockets adjacent to the kitchen sink are not acceptable and should be relocated.
The TPO and the SPO were not unhappy with the materials and workmanship. One day away from signing over the property to the Council for ten years.
Could be many more properties out there in this state. Who knows ?
G Pierce
( continued )
Extract from the Senior Planning Officer`s final Work Inspection Sheet.
RECCOMMENDATIONS
"In accordance with the approved drawings and specifications and my inspection of the works on the25.10.07 I can confirm that all the eligible external work is complete. I can also confirm that the materials and workmanship met with my approval. I can thus recommend the final payment of this claim be certified and processed as soon as possible"
You have read the evidence, the defects and the failings.
Extracts from WAG Investigation Stage 1
Point 3 "Again, in respect of the TIG eligible works, I am satisfied that the Councils inspection report fairly reflects the stage reached in the completion of the works"
Point 5 "I am completely satisfied that (name SPO) has undertaken his inspection duties in a manner which is entirely consistent with the standards agreed with the County council as managing agent for TIG"
Head of Infastructure WAG
Extracts from WAG investigation Stage 2
To ensure that I fully understood the substance of you complaint I have interviewed the relevant officials within the Department and reviewed all the documents you have provided.
a) As you know, WAG have a formal management agreement with YMCC to ensure the services it provides in the administration of TIG schemes is of the highest standard.
In this case I am satisfied that the County Council has fully discharged its duties and responsibilities in the management of this project in relation to the TIG.
c) From my review of the inspection reports provided by the County Council in support of grant claims, I am entirely satisfied that payment has only been made in respect of works that have been satisfactorily been completed.
I know that you may be disappointed that I am unable to hold up your complaint. However, having reviewed your case in detail Ican find no grounds upon which I could draw a different conclusion to that reached previously by my Head of Infastructure.
Director, North Wales, Enterprise & International Business Wales
G. Pierce
( Continued )
Extracts from Report by Internal Audit Services WAG Final - Third Stage
Point 1.4 Mr Pierce originally complained to the WAG in April 2008He raised nine allegations that related to the performance of ACC officials in approving grant claims and that work was not carried out to a satisfactory condition.
Point 2.6 However, although we are satisfied that the award of TIG followed the standard procedures we do have some concerns over the effective operation of these procedures. These concerns impact on our overall assessement of the allegations made by Mr Pierce.
Point 2.7 In particular we are concerned over the controls in place to ensure that the WAG only makes payment for approved and suitable work. The only responsibilities in the scheme guidance are to ensure we pay grant money on work that was approved. There are no checks to confirm that the work is carried out to a suitable standard. The lack of these checks raises the risk that government money is used for poor quality work as has materialised in this case.
SECTION 2
Point 5 The agreement between the WAG and ACC is dated November 1996This sets out what is expected from both parties. However, the agreement only specifies that ACC has to instigate Effective procedures to carry out its obligations and use adequate and competent staff for the administration of the TIG scheme. These details are brief and there is a risk that ACC may not be doing all that the WAG would wish for in the administration of the scheme.
Point 4. We are also concerned about the lack of process descriptions or desk instructions that detail how the initial applications under the scheme should be processed and how subsequent requests for payment should be processed. None were sent to us and we recommend that these be introduced as soon as possible.
QUALITY OF WORK DONE
Point 11 Although there has been no reason to doubt the quality of the work before there has been some information supplied with this complaint to suggest that there are problems with the work done in this case.
Point 12 The problems that remain are with the roof, windows, doors and external painting (should be rendering). Some are quite fundamental i.e. roof joists were supposed to be removed and replaced but they have not been.
Point 13 From the investigation file it is apparent that WAG officials and council employees were aware of the problems Mr Pierce was having with the building work on his property. In October 2007 the council confirmed that they were happy with the quality of the work subject to some snagging. The WAG confirmed in February 2008 that the works were unfinished.
Point 14 This seems to support Mr Pierce in his contention that the quality of the work performed went beyond what would normally be considered as snagging (minor) issues to be resolved.
(This is how they hold me to account. I signed to claim forms for the TIG before I knew of any defect and the other because I was told I could claim the final £4,000to control payments) :-
Point 15 However, it is clear from the guidance notes issued to all applicants to the TIG scheme that the quality of the work is for them to be satisfied with.
G. Pierce
( continued )
This is a good extract from the Councils Head of Housing Services :-
3.1 "Having discussed Mr (Name of surveyor) report of July 2008 (His Final Report outlaying everything)
with the (Technical Principal Officer) and (Assistant Principal Technical Officer) they disagree with the majority of its findings. Contrary to Mr (name of surveyor) statement "the works were generally of an unacceptably poor standard many of which were serious and could endanger the health and safety of persons using the property" they are of the opinion that the HRG works, with the exception of the two items listed below, was of an acceptable standard"
The surveyor is only a Member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute Of Builders with 50 years experience.
G. Pierce
TIG Town Improvement Grants ?
HRG House Renovation Grants ?
Aren't they different grants and different works ?
As Cllr McGregor has implied that the Adjudication Panel Members are open to influence and manipulation.Doesn't that show the whole system to be rotten to the core and that not only the Adjudication Panel is corruptible but the IACC is lawless?
11: 43
Yes they are.
11;03
Yes they are, as well.
Information about the Adjudication Panel for Wales can be found at:
http://wales.gov.uk/apwsubsite/APW-PDC/?lang=en
Mr Pierce, I think you are being very courageous for posting the details of your grant problems and to put your name to your postings.
As I understand from your postings there were three internal monitoring reports (STO, the Director of North Wales, Enterprise & International Business Wales, {who are they?} and Internal Audit Services, WAG). The first two say the standard and quality of the works is satisfactory and the last (reluctantly) acknowledges that “there has been some information supplied with this complaint to suggest that there are problems with the work done in this case”.
On the other hand, the building control department found 24 contraventions (presumably of building regulations) and your own surveyor (Member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Builders) found 20 major and 15 minor defects in the (scheduled?) works.
I believe your grant assistance has been in the region of £100,000. There have been about half-a-dozen other complaints (by my reckoning)on this blog about the unacceptable standard of building works on housing grant projects, some going back to around 2000. At a cost of (on average) £25,000 per grant we are talking ball park figures of around £250,000 (just for these examples).
The recent House of Commons MP’s expenses scandal involved an amount of around £1,000,000 (and that covered the whole of the UK, to put it perspective) and led to a public outcry and an independent enquiry to ensure probity, as it was felt that the (then) current internal monitoring system was ‘unfit for purpose’.
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. The question taxing me is ‘Do not WAG have any checks and measures in place to ensure that public money has been spent on work of a standard that at least meets the requirements of Building Regulations and the Welsh Housing Act’?
And if not then: ‘in whose interest is it for matters to remain so’?
I suspect the answer is to be found in that old adage ‘follow the money’.
So, does anyone know what advice the IOACC legal department has received from its insurers about these and related matters?
To Prometheuswrites.
Stage 1 was a Dept of the WAG also.
The HRG was approved, the estimate provided by the Council was £53,149 exc VAT. My contribution was £26,751. However, despite discovering approx £12,000 of omissions my contribution increased to over £30,000
The TIG was initially £54,213 exc VAT. I discovered so many omissions I had the work revalued. They sent the same Regeneration Manager and Senior Planning Officer who revalued the work at £38,318 but I contest this figure as they did not take into account the lighter weight slates, the cheaper lead throughout, they charged over £1,200 for a shop ceiling which when I complained about it, was done as a favour and did not count.
Massive sums of money involved.
At the third and Final Stage, five recommendations were made. Two Merited Attention and three were significanr recc0mendations.
Management rejected two as follows ;-
Significant
A process should be introduced to verify the work done by the local authorities.
Rejected
The performance of individual La`s issubject to continuous review and regular meetings are held with the relevant Regeneration Managers and the lead officer within the respective LA. The LA is under a positive obligation to keep WAG informed of progress and monitoring of TIG projects on a regular basis.
and
Significant
TIG procedures should be expanded to ensure that the quality of the work done is independently checked as well as the work done is what was applied for.
Rejected
The inspections carried out by the LA ensure that any works are carried out in strict accordance with the plans and specifications upon which any TIG award is made. There would be no merit in employing a third party to undertake this role or expanding it to include a more detailed assessement which might impose a contractual/legal obligation upon either the LA or Welsh Assembly Government.
The Councils Internal Audit concluded :-
"The service level agreement between the Council and the WAG does not clearly state the role of the Council in terms of the inspection process. There is no guidance as to the level of inspections that should take place and whether this includes the quantity, value and quality of works carried out"
"The paperwork provided by the contractor and agent in support of invoices and Interim/Progress Payment certificates is inadequate to provide an audit trail of actual works completed. etc, etc"
As you can see there is no Monitoring of Contractors or Agent.
There are no checks with other systems i.e Building Regs.
They could literally get away with murder. Someone could have had a fatal accident at my property, fallen down stairs, electrocuted themselves, who knows.
No one grasps the seriousness of this case, if there are no checks and monitoring, dozens if not hundreds of properties may have gone through the grant system like my property all waiting for an accident to happen. I consider myself lucky in one respect and I may have saved a life. But, tell that to Senior Officials or the Ombudsman. Talk about shoot the messenger.
G. Pierce
Does anyone know who made the complaints about the three councillors to the Ombudsman in the first place?
Mr Pierce:
You write "they charged over £1,200 for a shop ceiling which when I complained about it, was done as a favour and did not count"
I believe that this is specifically singled out as a legal (criminal?) offence under the Sales of Goods and Services Act.
And rightly so as it can be seen as an act of bribery on the part of the builder. Do you have their offer in writing? A good solicitor would romp home with that one.
I certainly grasp the seriousness of your case. From what I understand the council would have been complicit in renting your property out to council tenents despite it being unfit for habitation, (according to the building control breaches) - they could not have done otherwise given that their own senior technical officer (STO?) had authorised payment of money on the basis that it was 'fit for purpose'
This is especially alarming given the numerous reports we have each year on the BBC about the number of deaths in North Wales from domestic fires.
To Anon 17:06 No, I do not know, however I find the minutes of this years Audit Committee minutes interesting (see Council Web site).
Someone resigned because they where outraged (yes outraged) and then at the next meeting apologised, and all because they could not agree who was going to chair a meeting of the Governance and risk management sub-committee.
Laugh or cry, you decide, but I bet you could not have made it up though.
To Prometheuswrites
A meeting was arranged by myself in April 2008 because I had not seen the builder since he was paid £8,450.07 by IOACC after he re-laid an out of level floor.
In attendance was the Technical Principal Officer, Senior pLANNING Officer, The Town Councillor and myself.
The following e.mail was sent by the TPO to the Town Councillor :-
Dear (first name)
Further to our meeting this morning I would like to confirm a few of the points discussed if not agreed.
1. Work to the shop area is not grant aided henceit is nothing to do with the Council. I will instruct the builder to tidy up around one of the inspection chambers. The toilet and wash basin were removed as part of the drainage works and if Mr Pierce wants them replaced he will have to pay because there is no residual grant monies to do any extras.
2. The cupboard along the left side of the shop near the electric inlet needs to be cut back to permit meters to be installed. Mr Pierce agreed to let the joiner cut it back one cupboard door width (approx 18") Manweb will then need to install meters in the shop area.
3. The mess and debri left around the shop area is a matter for Mr Pierce to clear up or sort it out with (Builders name) or his own builder.
4. The damage to the newly skimmed ceiling in the shop was not part of the contract (done as favour) is a matter for Mr Pierce to sort out with (builders name ) or his own builder.
5. The snagging to the flats is on going with only minor items now outstanding. One of the main issues this morning was concerning the break in damaging the back window.
As you are now probably aware, this has been a very difficult contract from day one, with lack of funding from Mr Pierce, the CIG grant running out and one agent after another been sacked by Gwynfor Pierce. This I believe has caused him problems and coupled with the fact that he actually paid (Agent) the full amount of their fees at the beginning of the contract, left him in a rather weak position. When he sacked them he then left himself in a worst position with no agent to chase the builder and (Agents name) laughing all the way to the bank. He actually sacked the builder at one stage but was persuaded by everyone concerned, including his solicitor and (surveyor) to let them back to finish the work.
As you were also aware this morning Mr Pierce has misunderstood his agents role in the contract, he either refuses to understand or cannot understand that its the agents duty to ensure that the contract is carried out in accordance with the specification, not the council. Normally, I would not get so involved in such works (unless it was a Council contract as was the old group repair schemes) but in this instance I felt that Mr Pierce needed help and to be honest I believe that we as Council officers have bent over backwards for him, to try and resolve his problems out.
Mr Pierce almost insisted on a contract been drawn out at this late stage before allowing the builder back to finish off the snagging works, which you saw yourself, were minor. The main item of concern was the kitchen floor flat 1 which appears to have a small area of dampness but again, this floor was not tanked because the CIG grant was omitted. To do any work to it now would mean more expense for which there is no more funding and hence payable by Mr Pierce. Thankfully, mr Pierce did allow the the builder to finish off the snagging and by the end of the week, everything being equal they should be finished.
The flat roof maintenance was discussed and Mr Pierce was informed that the leaves on the roof will lead to problems later on unless they are cleared. The issue of the condition of the roof was also mentioned and I believe that it was left for Mr Pierce to contact the builder direct to get this sorted.
I think that sums it up pretty much unless I have missed something out, in which case let me know.
(Technical Principal Officer)
To Prometheuswrites
A meeting was arranged by myself in April 2008 because I had not seen the builder since he was paid £8,450.07 by IOACC after he re-laid an out of level floor.
In attendance was the Technical Principal Officer, Senior pLANNING Officer, The Town Councillor and myself.
The following e.mail was sent by the TPO to the Town Councillor :-
Dear (first name)
Further to our meeting this morning I would like to confirm a few of the points discussed if not agreed.
1. Work to the shop area is not grant aided henceit is nothing to do with the Council. I will instruct the builder to tidy up around one of the inspection chambers. The toilet and wash basin were removed as part of the drainage works and if Mr Pierce wants them replaced he will have to pay because there is no residual grant monies to do any extras.
2. The cupboard along the left side of the shop near the electric inlet needs to be cut back to permit meters to be installed. Mr Pierce agreed to let the joiner cut it back one cupboard door width (approx 18") Manweb will then need to install meters in the shop area.
3. The mess and debri left around the shop area is a matter for Mr Pierce to clear up or sort it out with (Builders name) or his own builder.
4. The damage to the newly skimmed ceiling in the shop was not part of the contract (done as favour) is a matter for Mr Pierce to sort out with (builders name ) or his own builder.
5. The snagging to the flats is on going with only minor items now outstanding. One of the main issues this morning was concerning the break in damaging the back window.
As you are now probably aware, this has been a very difficult contract from day one, with lack of funding from Mr Pierce, the CIG grant running out and one agent after another been sacked by Gwynfor Pierce. This I believe has caused him problems and coupled with the fact that he actually paid (Agent) the full amount of their fees at the beginning of the contract, left him in a rather weak position. When he sacked them he then left himself in a worst position with no agent to chase the builder and (Agents name) laughing all the way to the bank. He actually sacked the builder at one stage but was persuaded by everyone concerned, including his solicitor and (surveyor) to let them back to finish the work.
As you were also aware this morning Mr Pierce has misunderstood his agents role in the contract, he either refuses to understand or cannot understand that its the agents duty to ensure that the contract is carried out in accordance with the specification, not the council. Normally, I would not get so involved in such works (unless it was a Council contract as was the old group repair schemes) but in this instance I felt that Mr Pierce needed help and to be honest I believe that we as Council officers have bent over backwards for him, to try and resolve his problems out.
Mr Pierce almost insisted on a contract been drawn out at this late stage before allowing the builder back to finish off the snagging works, which you saw yourself, were minor. The main item of concern was the kitchen floor flat 1 which appears to have a small area of dampness but again, this floor was not tanked because the CIG grant was omitted. To do any work to it now would mean more expense for which there is no more funding and hence payable by Mr Pierce. Thankfully, mr Pierce did allow the the builder to finish off the snagging and by the end of the week, everything being equal they should be finished.
The flat roof maintenance was discussed and Mr Pierce was informed that the leaves on the roof will lead to problems later on unless they are cleared. The issue of the condition of the roof was also mentioned and I believe that it was left for Mr Pierce to contact the builder direct to get this sorted.
I think that sums it up pretty much unless I have missed something out, in which case let me know.
(Technical Principal Officer)
Druid, I dont know why that last post came up twice. Would you care to remove one please and this comment.
G. Pierce
Would that letter/report from the TPO be before or after the surveyors and the building control reports?
Druid:
At the top of the comment box it says that there have been 308 comments made. The thread says there have been 245 comments made.
What's happening here - or have you deleted 63 comments?
Initial Surveyors Report was October 2007, Building Regs Report January 2008.
After the e.mail I called in the surveyor again, he identified over two dozen failings between the two grants and Building Regs discovered there was still a dozen contraventions.
Work was meant to be completed by 17 June 2007 initially. A 16-20 week project which started in January 2007.
Gwyn
On the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west_wales/10595315.stm
"Dr Elan Closs Stephens said improvements had been made but the board was unconvinced progress would continue after supervision ends."
The chair of the recovery board is echoing similar concerns as have been expressed by many posts on this blog.
Also: "Leader of the council, Clive McGregor, said: ...
"What is needed is that all of us councillors pull in the same direction to make this county council a far more open and transparent authority than it has been over the year."
Makes one wonder what things have not been transparent over the last year.
Gwyn:
After Grant payments of ~£20,000 were made on my property, I employed a RICS approved chartered surveyor who valued 'latent defects' in the works at ~£16,000 - meaning that 80% of the grant money paid out was for crap work. (Work that was so bad that it damaged and devalued my property, despite the works being classified as 'emergency works to bring the property up to Welsh Housing Standards').
I think the rest of it was spent on the scaffolding.
The e.mail from the TPO was 7 April 2008. The minor snagging according to him was "a touch up of paint and polifilla to cracks"
Besides yet another damning report by the surveyor on 14 April 2008identifying such things as the stairs not being renewed, failing to meet standards.
Building Regs identified the following on the 22 April 2008 ;-
1. Roof slates to roof above kitchen to rear flat has poorly fitting and cracked roof slates.
2. The fire doors to bedroom of front flat does not self close.
3. The floor between the kitchen on the second floor and bedroom on first floor requires sound testing.
(It failed testing by the way)
4. Party studd wall separating flats need soundtesting. (Which failed)
5. Manufacturers details of heaters in bathrooms are required to confirm they are suited to be located within the bathroom.
6. The new roof structure above the rear flat have been constructed and covered without being inspected.
7. Fire detection/alarm and emergency lighting not yet installed within shop area.
8. Commissioning certificates for the fire alarm/detection, emergency lighting and electrical installation will be required.
9. Entrance door to front flat not selfclosing.
10. Timber guarding to sash window unacceptable.
11. Boxing in of soil pipes has not been done using fire resistant material.
12. Both manholes require opening for inspection.
The builder never did come back and no builder I have asked wants to put their names to it to finish.
G. Pierce
To Anon 12:30 It's a problem with Blogger that has affected it world wide, they are fixing it slowly. Nothing to do with Druid me thinks.
tape and the tape
..not letting go..
I would be interested in any form of evidence to support claims mentioned here, please send documentary evidence or contact me with your knowledge maybe we could meet up in private. my email:
investigativejournalist.thomps@gmail.com
21.23
Investigate the abuse of public office by the pipe-puffing Councillor...ask around...its not difficult to find....Anglesey is a small Island !
Post a Comment