Category: Cabinet

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)

                          

Continues from Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2)

Julia Hassall said, “I think the point I was just going to raise is that we’ll make sure that the high level notes, I think it’s a very valuable suggestion looking at grouping them for each meeting to get a sense of the themes, are made public when we go to Cabinet with our report. So those will inform in part along with other things, the recommendations that are made to Cabinet.”

A member of the audience described the consultation document as “not worth the paper it’s written on” and “utterly deceiving”. Phil Ward replied with “point taken” and asked for any other questions?

A different member of the audience asked whether they would look at the banding system and see whether it was adequate? Phil Ward replied, “No, there is an intention for the work around the children, not n relation to costing but it was in relation to in the event of Cabinet agreeing to close the school and it finally does so, then we had captured the up to date information that we retain on the children so that we could begin, on an individual family basis, because we’re not talking about groups of children looking for one place or another, I have to speak up on an individual basis just to ensure that discussions with parents and discussions around the receiving schools and so forth we just had to give the fullest information. That was the purpose of that.”

David Armstrong said, “Just on the banding system, the banding system where we have five bands because of the special schools budget. Clearly, it’s new so it’s only been in place for a short while and I mentioned the Schools Forum before. We had an issue before to review that, clearly we’ve got to make it run for this financial year.” He referred to the Schools Forum and how questions about the banding feed into the Schools Forum.

Someone in the audience said that even if the school was full, that this didn’t matter as what mattered was whether they were adequately funded because without that they couldn’t stay open. Phil Ward replied to that and Councillor Dave Mitchell referred to a petition to Council five years ago about Lyndale School and a presentation. He referred to bullet points from the agreed notice of motion and other issues presented at that time. He asked if that would be presented to Cabinet?

David Armstrong replied, “The Cabinet report will have to include the history of all the previous reports that have gone over the last couple of…”

Councillor Dave Mitchell asked, “Will that include the decisions made by Council which were fully supported by all parties?” David Armstrong answered, “No, it would just include references to previous reports.” Councillor Dave Mitchell replied, “I think that’s a very important issue, it should be actually highlighted. It was a notice of motion to Council and it was fully supported by the local authority at that time.” Julia Hassall said, “We did make very clear reference to that to my recollection at the call in.” Phil Ward thanked Councillor Dave Mitchell for his point.

Someone from the audience said they wanted to raise a point about outdoor space at the three schools (Lyndale, Elleray Park and Stanley). She said she thought it was where it’s going to fall down on the SEN [Improvement] Test. Lyndale School was described as “it’s an absolutely fabulous site, it’s got established gardens, it’s got established trees, we take children out into the garden, we take lessons in the garden, we take children at a lunchtime”. She said, “the idea of squashing people in is not conducive to a good education”. Phil Ward replied, “Thank you for that point.”

The next question was about Stanley School. David Armstrong replied, “The school’s brand new and what we learnt when the Lyndale School was built was looking at primary schools. We built them absolutely tight on the existing campus. We found that the schools became more popular and also you’re building something for fifty or sixty years. We’re building something for fifty or sixty years, so we’re building to a generous standard and the new style that was built to a generous standard.

The school, the school that we’re building had a capacity of ninety pupils. The new building is capable of taking a hundred and ten and the reason for that is that we’ll be building to the maximum standards in place, we’re building some spare capacity because we’re investing several million pounds for the next couple of years.”

The next question was if there were any children with profound and multiple learning disabilities at Stanley School? David Armstrong answered, “The school was built to take the full range of pmld [profound and multiple learning disabilities]. The same questioner asked, “Are there any there at the moment?” followed by asking that if you put four or five from Lyndale into the school surely it would fail the SEN [Improvement] test as Lyndale provided one to one care in a school that catered for their complex needs? Phil Ward replied, but people started talking over each other again.

Julia Hassall said that she’d talked about the children with profound and multiple learning disabilities not growing in size, but that there had been an increase in children with complex learning difficulties, the questioner referred to the numbers over the last five years. Julia Hassall replied, “In terms of how we meet the SEN Improvement Test we are confident that the staff at the Stanley School…” and then was then interrupted.

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about Stanley, Elleray, Foxfield, the educational psychologist (Part 4).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2)

                      

Continues from Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1).

David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) said, “OK, thank you. Apologies to those of you who’ve heard this five times before. This is the last time for you. I wanted to just set out the bones of how the school is funded and set out some information requested by staff and I’m responsible for the two budgets and I’ll come back to those and I’m also responsible for school assets and school buildings and I have been responsible for those back in fact to the days when it was relocated from Clatterbridge.

I look after two budgets, a £80 million budget for the Children and Young Peoples Department budget which pays for things like fostering, adoption and a whole host of the other none related schools services. We also have a £240 million budget which is the schools budget. It comes with the title of Dedicated Schools Grant, it comes from government summarised as DSG, it comes into the Council it has to be passed onto schools.

So as Julia [Hassall] said, it’s not about the Council somehow undertaking some of that money and treating it as a saving. It’s about the long term financial security of the school. The DSG when it comes in covers four areas, early years, primary, secondary and special.

(drowned out by someone’s mobile phone)

It goes through a formula, a local formula and that is distributed into schools.”

He explained how the Schools Forum decided on the formula and how it the Schools Forum comprised of volunteers representing the various types of schools. He said that when he was a head in the 1980s, he only managed two budgets in the school. One was books and paper and the second was whatever the school made selling photos. In 1990 there was a change and the big budgets that had been managed by councils were redistributed to schools.

Mr Armstrong said that to begin with each council had its own formula and that every council used different things to redistribute the schools budget. With special schools he said “it has always been slightly different”. He said that nationally that there was a movement at least in part to fund special schools by pupil and not just by place. David Armstrong said that the numbers at Lyndale School had fallen, making it difficult to run the school. In the last few years he said Andrew [Roberts] working with the school governors, the Schools Forum and the other special schools had funded Lyndale School for a number of empty places.

Looking forward, he said that Wirral Council would have to seek authorisation on whether they could do that from a national body called the Education Funding Agency. In his view the future was less certain because the EFA had said that they’d like Wirral Council to come to a point where they were funding per a pupil and not per a place. He said it was a question about the long term financial stability of the school and it wasn’t about making a quick saving by closing the school.

David Armstrong said that they’d been through this process with other primary schools and a secondary school and that the savings had been recycled into the formula. He was happy to take questions.

Phil Ward (chairing the meeting) thanked Mr. Armstrong and said that before they started the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues, he referred to an attendance sheet and asked people who hadn’t signed it to do so. He said, “A lot of people have lots of things to say with conviction and passion and we would ask they allow everybody a chance to speak and put forward to the meeting to hear what’s been said. So on that basis, are there any questions?” After twenty-five minutes (of a two hour consultation meeting) the people present finally got a chance to ask questions.

The first questioner introduced herself and asked if they could get a copy of the notes being taken? Interrupting the questioner before she’d had a chance to finish and talking over her, Phil Ward barked at the questioner in the tone of voice you’d usually reserve for someone who’d stood on your foot, “I’ve answered that one a few times! We’re not taking minutes of the meeting but high level notes and these notes will be used to capture some of the key points raised at the meetings and these notes will also be reported to elected members [councillors] of the Cabinet. They’re not for circulation. Is that clear?”

The same questioner replied with, “but this is a public consultation!”, Phil Ward again interrupted her and said, “It is a public”, she continued, “it should be for everyone”. Phil Ward replied, “I’ve answered that already but the high level notes, we will capture the views, as we have done for the last five meetings and those views, and those views will be reported to members of the Cabinet.”

Councillor Phil Gilchrist asked whether the notes would set out so that they could get a feel of what’s been raised at the consultation meetings? Phil Ward replied, “We can do it in a different way, we can collate all of the notes together and just do a summary report of the key points or alternatively we could choose to do a summary report on each of the individual meetings laying out if you like the issues raised and I think that’s what you’re alluding to in terms of about each meeting the way it seemed to be borne out with these issues, there are those with these issues so we’ll look at that.”

Another question was asked about the notes to which Phil Ward replied, “They’re notes recording the high level points raised at the meetings and importantly we will be reporting them to Cabinet.”

A different questioner stated that he thought the meetings should be fully minuted. He described himself as a support worker that worked full time over three fourteen hour shifts. He referred to previous meetings that people hadn’t turned up to. A meeting at Lyndale School had been arranged and only seven councillors had turned up to it.

He continued and said that despite working full-time, he had found the time to come to the meeting. Continuing, he said he had asked people if they were against the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School and said that a hundred percent of those he had contacted were against closure of Lyndale School. He referred to flaws in the consultation and that there had been “100% disapproval” on “ploughing ahead” when Wirral Council was there to serve the people of Wirral.

Phil Ward replied with, “Is that something which you’d like to submit to us?”. He replied, “Oh, yes” and Phil Ward said, “Just to remind you the consultation finishes on the 25th June.”

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Wirral Council: It’s time for some “openness and transparency” in the Lyndale School closure consultation!

Wirral Council: It’s time for some “openness and transparency” in the Lyndale School closure consultation!

Wirral Council: It’s time for some “openness and transparency” in the Lyndale School closure consultation!

                             

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors vote at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

The consultation on closing Lyndale School closes in about a fortnight (the consultation ends on 25th June 2014).

One of the reasons that an officer gave at the call in meeting for closing Lyndale School is Wirral Council reducing its contribution towards PFI (private finance initiative) costs and expecting the schools budget to cover it. The reduction is £600,000 this year and a planned reduction of £2.3 million for 2015-16 (the budget for 2015-16 will be agreed in 2015). This year the £600,000 PFI shortfall in the schools budget is being met from an underspend in the SEN budget, which I wrote about previously “Wirral Council officers want to spend £600,000 of £1.4 million special educational needs underspend on PFI deal”.

Expecting the schools budget in 2015-16 to pay for a further £2.3 million of PFI costs will according to this report to the Schools Forum “require permanent savings to be identified within the overall Schools Budget”. The PFI payments Wirral Council make go to a company called Wirral Schools Services Limited. One of the issues brought up at the last Schools Forum meeting was whether there was flexibility in PFI contract or whether the whole contract could be renegotiated so that the payments would be lower. As part of the Wirral Council’s annual audit, any person has a right to “inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them, and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents.”. Unfortunately the period when the public can do this will probably start after the Lyndale School consultation has finished.

I made two freedom of information act requests for copies of the invoices of the January 2014 PFI payment to Wirral School Services Limited of £1,092,160.12 and the February 2014 PFI payment to Wirral School Services Limited of £1,092,160.12. Both requests were turned down as Wirral Council claim they will be publishing these invoices in the next six months. I’ve submitted an internal review to both requests a week and half ago and Wirral Council have yet to respond.

On Saturday I wrote this email below requesting a copy of Wirral Council’s contract with Wirral School Services Limited. Five days later I am yet to receive a reply.

from: John Brace
reply-to: john.brace@gmail.com
to: David Armstrong
cc: “Sault, Tom W.”
date: 7 June 2014 09:32
subject: contract with Wirral Schools Services Limited

Dear David Armstrong,

I was talking with Tom yesterday and he reminded me that the period when the public can inspect (and receive copies) of contracts and invoices is coming up soon. I told him I was interested in the
Council’s contract with Wirral Schools Services Limited about the PFI matters.

He suggested I make an FOI request for it but I told him I hadn’t done so as I thought such a request would be turned down on grounds of commercial sensitivity (despite the fact that previous requests I’ve
made that fall within the Children and Young People’s Department have tended to be answered fully and quickly).

As you know there was quite a heated debate at the last Wirral Schools Forum about the Council reducing its funding for the PFI affordability gap. There is a current consultation on the closure of Lyndale School and clearly some sort of compensatory savings will have to be made to the schools budget to compensate for the Council’s contribution being reduced.

Providing the contract (which I’d quite happily publish) during the consultation on closure of Lyndale School would help with public understanding of officer’s assertions as to why savings need to be
made. I realise that I could wait until after the consultation is over and request it, but due to the reasons outlined and officers previous commitments at public meetings to be open and transparent during the consultation could the contract be provided electronically via email or if this is problematic copied and I’d be happy to pick up a copy at the Town Hall?

Thanks,

John Brace
——————————————————————————————————-
Here’s a quote from what Julia Hassall said on the 27th March 2014 at the call in meeting to councillors, officers and those present, which was reported on this blog “OK, by way of reassurance that we will have a very full and open and transparent consultation. “. In a Wirral Globe article of 17th March 2014 Julia Hasall is quoted as saying “There is a commitment to make sure that the 12 week consultation is a thorough, open and transparent process.”.

If I’m getting stonewalled and ignored over my requests for information that form part of the rationale for consulting on closing Lyndale School, then from my perspective Wirral Council isn’t being “open and transparent”.

There are some other points I will make about this consultation. In the consultation document it is written (in relation to financial years after 2014-15) “This budget deficit has the potential to increase in subsequent years by £120,000 per annum (every year), based on the numbers of children currently on the school roll.” and it also refers to a deficit this year of £19,000.

During the consultation, the headteacher Pat Stewart retired. Until the uncertainty over the future of Lyndale School is resolved I doubt they will be recruiting for a headteacher and the position will be vacant. Therefore due to Pat Stewart’s retirement, the figures used in the consultation are incorrect. According to the Times Educational Supplement from 2010 the average female special school headteacher was paid £59,000. As Lyndale School won’t have to pay her salary (as she’s retired) even if she is paid much less than the average as Lyndale is a small school this should lead to a surplus not a deficit this year.

I’ve no idea how this £120,000 per annum deficit figure is calculated. This report to Cabinet in January gives a different figure of £160,000 a year.

Personally I think it’s based on a lot of assumptions. As detailed in the government’s consultation on next year’s funding “We will retain the Minimum Funding Guarantee, which has been in place over many years and which dictates that for the vast majority of schools, funding per pupil cannot drop by more than 1.5% per year”. £120,000 (a drop of 15.75%) represents more than a 1.5% drop to Lyndale School’s budget, so Wirral Council must be assuming they will make a successful application to the Education Funding Agency for an exemption to the minimum funding guarantee for 2015-16 and that this will be approved.

This table which was presented to the Wirral School Forum meeting of the 13th November 2013 showed what effect moving to the “Place plus” system of funding would have had on Lyndale School’s budget for the 2014-15 financial year. Lyndale School’s budget allocation in fact increases from the previous year. In 2013-14 it is £761,733 and under place plus it’s £768,121.

So why have figures of £160,000 been used in a previous Cabinet report and £120,000 been used in the consultation document? I’ve no idea why and if you do, please leave a comment.

The final point I will make is that I look forward to reading the SEN Improvement Test, like many others I don’t understand fully how the proposal to close Lyndale School will meet the SEN Improvement Test.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

                           

This is going to be a rather long and detailed piece about whether Wirral Council’s eviction notice for Fernbank Farm was valid (or in other words lawful). It is something that Wirral Council and I have a difference of opinion on. I have numbered these paragraphs for ease of reference in any comments people might wish to make.

1. On the 8th August 2012, Wirral Council started a case in the Birkenhead County Court requested a possession order for the land known as Fernbank Farm at Sandbrook Lane, Moreton. The defendants were two trustees of the Upton Park Pony Owners Association and are called Mrs Kane and a Mrs Woodley.

2. The statement of truth to Wirral Council’s claim and particulars of claim was signed on the 5th August 2013 by Surjit Tour.

3. Attached to Wirral Council’s claim form were particulars of claim and a map detailing the land the matter was in relation to, which was 10.12 acres. The particulars of claim outlined the history between Wirral Council and the defendants. The history was that Wirral Council had entered into a lease of the land with the two defendants on the 29th July 2008. This fixed term lease expired on July 2011 and became a monthly periodic tenancy. Rent was paid by the defendants of £4,200 a year payable by equal monthly instalments.

4. On the 13th July 2012, Wirral Council served a notice on the two tenants. The notice served on each tenant were identical and were both of the form which is form one in Schedule 2 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004. This form is headed “LANDLORD’S NOTICE ENDING A BUSINESS TENANCY WITH PROPOSALS FOR A NEW ONE”.

5. Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 state “The form with the number shown in column (1) of Schedule 1 to these Regulations is prescribed for use for the purpose shown in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that Schedule.” The prescribed purpose for the form that Wirral Council used is stated as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” “Act” refers to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

6. According to the notice, if a new tenancy was not agreed between Wirral Council and the defendants before 31st May 2013, then the defendants had the right to apply to the court to order the grant of a new tenancy. If no agreement was reached and no application made then the tenancy would end on the 31st May 2013 (unless Wirral Council agreed to extend the deadline).

7. The form itself which contains the words (attach or insert proposed terms of the new tenancy) was accompanied with Wirral Council’s proposals for a new tenancy. Wirral Council’s offer was to increase the rent to £4,500 and charge £500 for legal fees.

8. Before the deadline of 31st May 2013, Mrs Kane wrote to Wirral Council agreeing different terms to that which were proposed. She agreed to no increase in the rent (£4,200 instead of £4,500) and for a waiver of legal fees for reasons outlined in her letter. Wirral Council did not agree her proposed terms.

9. On the 27th September 2012, Wirral Council’s Cabinet (comprising of ten Labour councillors) discussed an item called “Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Publication of Proposed Submission Draft”. The minutes reflect the following concern about one of the recommendations expressed by a Councillor Pat Hackett “Councillor Pat Hackett raised concerns that planning policy was being revoked which could have implications on greenbelt land. He asked Officers to take all necessary steps to try to ensure that the greenbelt was not eroded.”

Despite Councillor Pat Hackett’s concerns, the Cabinet agreed the following recommendation (which was recommendation four out of nine agreed): “recommends to the Council that the Interim Planning Policy be revoked, to allow decisions to be determined in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan, the Regional Spatial Strategy (until it is revoked) and the National Planning Policy Framework and to allow sites within the previously restricted areas to contribute towards the ongoing housing land supply;”.

10. A meeting of all of Wirral Council councillors (except three who had sent their apologies) met on the 15th October 2012 to consider the Cabinet’s recommendation. An objection to the Cabinet minute (Local Development Framework for Wirral – Core Strategy – Publication of Proposed Submission Draft) had been received. This objection was proposed by Councillor Stuart Kelly and seconded by Councillor Dave Mitchell. This objection (if passed) would’ve deleted recommendation 4 and replaced it with a new recommendation 4: “(4) Council, therefore, requires that the LDF policies retain the principles and policies currently outlined within the current interim planning policy for new housing development for the purposes of development control and regeneration.”. The matter was not debated and there was a vote on the objection. Twenty-six councillors voted in favour of the objection and thirty-six councillors against (with the Mayor abstaining). The voting was split along party political lines. The twenty-six councillors who voted in favour of the objection were the Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors (apart from the Mayor who abstained). The thirty-six councillors who voted against the objection were Labour councillors. The objection was therefore lost and in mid-October 2012 Wirral Council’s planning policy changed.

11. Wirral Council’s position, which in July 2012 had been stated in the eviction notice unequivocally as “I am not opposed to granting you a new tenancy” to “I am opposed to granting you a new tenancy”. Mr Dickenson told those at the fast track trial that answered that he had been told not to engage in discussions with the tenants between November 2012 and May 2013.

12. Wirral Council’s change of position was not communicated to the tenants. If the landlord is opposed to the granting of a new tenancy then the regulations require that a different form (form 2) should be used which has very different wording to form 1. Wirral Council could have (in either October or November 2012) sent the tenants a new eviction notice and explained to the tenants that their position had changed. However they did not, leading the tenants to believe that Wirral Council still wanted to renew the tenancy. When questioned Wirral Council maintain that there is no legal mechanism to withdraw their earlier eviction notice.

13. Wirral Council asserted in their particulars of claim that as a result of the eviction notice that the “tenancy had been terminated in accordance with the law and the Claimant is therefore entitled to possession”.

14. There are a number of questions that arise however. If Wirral Council genuinely were not opposed to granting a new tenancy, why was a new tenancy not agreed between Wirral Council and the defendants between July and October of 2012? Does Wirral Council’s later change of heart in October 2012 render the earlier eviction notice of July 2012 invalid as they did not send out another?

15. Various court cases have determined the questions that need to be asked to determine whether eviction notices are valid or invalid. In a decision of the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) [2012] UKUT 20 (LC) paragraph 42 of the judgement of George Bartlett QC, President stated:

Mr Barnes submitted that, save in a few exceptional circumstances, a failure to comply with a procedural requirement in relation to something such as the content of a notice will not invalidate the notice if either (a) the non-compliance is insubstantial so that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement or (b) the non-compliance has been waived or (c) the non-compliance does not result in any significant detriment to the other party. He relied for this submission on R v. Home Secretary, ex p Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354. Mr Baatz said that Jeyeanthan did not provide the right test, because it was concerned with a failure to comply with a statutory procedural requirement and not, as here, a failure going to jurisdiction. The correct approach in relation to statutory notices in respect of property was that set out by the Court of Appeal in the later decision of Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd [2002] 1 EGLR 61. This simply required asking two questions: what does the statute require? and does the notice fulfil those requirements?

16. Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 states “The form with the number shown in column (1) of Schedule 1 to these Regulations is prescribed for use for the purpose shown in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that Schedule.”

Schedule 1 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 states in relation to form one that Wirral Council used that the purpose for which it is to be used is “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).”

17. The date the eviction notice was sent was 13th July 2012. The date the eviction notice stated that the tenancy would end was 31st May 2013. If the serving of the eviction notice ended the tenancy on the 31st May 2013 and its purpose is defined in statute as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” surely on the date the eviction notice ends the tenancy (31st May 2013) then the landlord has to not be opposed to the grant of a new tenancy on the date the tenancy ends?

18. If the regulations stated that the purpose of the eviction notice was “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord was not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” then I would agree with Wirral Council’s position that the eviction notice brought the tenancy to an end. However Wirral Council’s position on the 31st May 2012 was that it was opposed to the grant of a new tenancy.

19. Therefore does this render the eviction notice invalid and therefore it did not end the tenancy on the 31st May 2013? If so then the monthly periodic tenancy is still in effect and the tenants are also in lawful occupation of the land.

20. The result of the fast track trial was that Wirral Council has a possession order awarded in February 2014 which will come into effect in February 2015. Therefore this needs to be cleared up before then.

I’d be interested to hear other people’s opinion on this matter. Please point out if I’ve made some error or mistake. The above is just my opinion. As detailed here I did ask Surjit Tour to produce a report on this matter. His position is that when the eviction notice was served, Wirral Council weren’t opposed to granting the tenancy. However Wirral Council’s position later changed (before the date for ending the tenancy stated in the eviction notice). Therefore he views the eviction notice as lawfully ending the tenancy and valid. He therefore does not see this as a matter, that he as Monitoring Officer has a legal duty to write a report on for councillors.

Personally, I think it’s a matter that reasonable people can take a completely opposite viewpoint on. Sadly the wording, meaning and interpretation of the regulations of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 weren’t brought up (apart from the Judge asking Wirral Council to provide a copy of the prescribed form) during the fast track trial.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Steve Foulkes welcomes 9 new councillors & Cllr Phil Davies announces Cabinet reshuffle

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Steve Foulkes welcomes 9 new councillors & Cllr Phil Davies announces Cabinet reshuffle

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Steve Foulkes welcomes 9 new councillors & Cllr Phil Davies announces Cabinet reshuffle

                                 

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Mayor of Wirral Councillor Steve Foulkes and councillors listen to Councillor Phil Davies announce his Cabinet reshuffle 9th June 2014
Mayor of Wirral Councillor Steve Foulkes and councillors listen to Councillor Phil Davies announce his Cabinet reshuffle 9th June 2014

Craig Manning has already written in the Wirral Globe about the chairs issue decided later in the meeting, so I thought I’d write about some other things announced earlier on in the meeting.

The Mayor’s announcements were brief, so I will directly quote what the Mayor of Wirral Councillor Steve Foulkes said below:

MAYOR OF WIRRAL COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
The next item on the agenda are Mayor’s announcements. I’ll be extremely brief. I have been informed of two other apologies. I have Tracey Smith, John Hale, I also have Councillor Leah Fraser and Paul Hayes. Are there any other apologies for absence tonight? OK, thank you for that.

OK, Mayor’s announcements, I would personally really like to welcome our nine newly elected Members, I hope they enjoy their time as an elected Member. As I said during my Mayoral acceptance speech, I will be championing the role of the councillors and I think it’s important to whilst we’re welcoming the new councillors, it’s actually fair to put on record our gratitude to those who didn’t return for whatever reason either through the electoral results or people, many people stood down. So with that, with the permission of the Council I’d like to then as Mayor thank them for the service they’ve given to this Authority.

COUNCILLORS
Hear! Hear!

MAYOR OF WIRRAL COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK, the other thing I would like to say is well done to everybody and the attendance at Councillor Kate Wood’s funeral. It was a very, very apt send off for a great politician and a great friend to many of us in this room and congratulations to everyone who made the effort and the other issue is, a couple of dates for your diary. I’m going through this as quick as I can.

You’ll notice there is no chaplain, there’ll be no chaplain at Council meetings throughout the year. However we will be holding a civic Sunday and that will be at Saint James’ church on the 10th August, 10.30am, at St. James in the heart of the North End of Birkenhead where I was brought up. Please if Members could come along and attend that and another one for your diary is the Charity Ball. Mayor’s Charity Ball at Thornton Hall on the 17th October, so if any of you would like to go there for Members and that is the end of Mayor’s announcements.

Councillor Phil Davies announced a Cabinet reshuffle. He said that he’d have ten councillors in his Cabinet. He was welcoming two new councillors to his Cabinet. Councillor Bernie Mooney was now the Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability and Councillor Stuart Whittingham the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport.

Councillor Phil Davies said, “I would like to take this opportunity to record my sincere thanks to Councillor Harry Smith who is standing down from the Cabinet. Harry has made a unique contribution to Cabinet and Council over many years and I greatly appreciate the excellent work that he has done as Lead Member for this portfolio.”

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.