3 invoices about the Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement with Peel which raises a VAT question?

3 invoices about the Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement with Peel which raises a VAT question?

3 invoices about the Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement with Peel which raises a VAT question?

                                                    

I’d better start this piece by declaring an interest in that I can see the Wirral Waters site from where I live as it’s not that far away.

Below are three invoices that however many times I look at them don’t make much sense to me. However maybe through writing about them I can make more sense of them. I may have this wrong, so if I have please leave a comment as elements from one invoice appear on the other ones so maybe I’m not counting things correctly.

All three are from Eversheds LLP (a firm of solicitors) with an office in Manchester. I’ll put them in chronological order:

20/2/13 Interim Invoice | Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement (to November 2012) | £10,000 + VAT £2,000 = £12,000 | £10,000 paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited | £2,000 paid by Wirral Council (VAT element)

15/4/13 Interim Invoice | Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement (to November 2012) | £8,133.90 + VAT £1,617.58 = £9,751.48 | £8,133.90 paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited | £1,617.58 to be paid by Wirral Council (VAT element)

29/4/13 Invoice | Wirral Waters Section 106 agreement (28 June 2011 to 31 July 2012) | £8,000 + VAT £1,577.20 = £9.577.20 | £8,000 paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited | £1,577.20 to be paid by Wirral Council (VAT element)

Total (across three invoices) paid by Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited: £10,000 + £8,133.90 + £8,000 = £26,133.90
Total (across three invoices) paid by Wirral Council : £2,000 + £1,617.58 + £1,577.20 = £5,194,78

Which leads me to the obvious question about VAT. When a developer such as Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited have a legal firm (in this case Eversheds) to draw up a section 106 agreement between themselves (Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited) and Wirral Council, why does Wirral Council pay the VAT?

I’m not an accountant, so maybe somebody out there with a better understanding of the tax code and VAT issues can help me! Please leave a comment if you understand this better than me!

Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Wirral Council 20th February 2013 £12000
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Wirral Council 20th February 2013 £12000
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited 15th April 2013 £9751 48p
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement interim invoice Peel Land and Property (Ports) Limited 15th April 2013 £9751 48p
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement invoice Wirral Council 29th April 2013 £9577 20p
Wirral Waters section 106 agreement invoice Wirral Council 29th April 2013 £9577 20p

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

Expense claim forms for Councillor George Davies (Wirral Council) 2013 (continued)

Expense claim forms for Councillor George Davies (Wirral Council) 2013 (continued)

Expense claim forms for Councillor George Davies (Wirral Council) 2013 (continued)

                                             

Wirral Council have provided a further four pages of expenses returns for Councillor George Davies. Cllr George Davies is a Labour councillor for Claughton ward. His expenses return are for car mileage, tunnel tolls (cash and Fast Tag), car parking and tickets. These four pages cover the period of 11th July 2013 to 13th November 2013.

The tunnel toll of £3.20 on 1st August 2013 is a return trip through the Mersey Tunnel using cash. However on 11th September 2013 (£2.60) and 18th September 2013 (£2.60) these other trips are return trips using a Fast Tag. Cash tolls were £1.60 (each way) during this period and Fast Tag was £1.30 (each way).

There is an entry for £2.50 for two tickets for the 29th October 2013 which relates to the Child Poverty Working Group. I’m not sure exactly what it’s for as it’s written in the “tolls and parking” group and appears to not relate to tunnel tolls.

On the mileage side thankfully Cllr George Davies has provided mileometer readings.

For example on a trip to visit Chief Officers on the 29th July 2013, his start mileage is 53960, his finish mileage is either 53970 or 53974 (as both figures were written here although it looks like 53974 is the later figure) and mileage claimed is 14 miles.

His four page claim consists of:

658 miles travelled @ £0.40/mile = £263.20
Tunnel toll (cash) @ £1.60 each * 2 = £3.20
Tunnel toll (fast tag) @ £1.30 each * 4 = £5.20
Parking (18/9/13) = £2.80
Tickets (29/10/13) (2) = £2.50
Unknown but probably parking (31/10/13) = £1

Total: £277.90

The rest of Cllr George Davies’ expenses claims for the 2013/2014 financial year, which were published on this blog last month can be read here.

Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 4
Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 1 of 4
Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 2 of 4
Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 2 of 4
Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 3 of 4
Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 3 of 4
Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 4 of 4
Cllr George Davies expenses claim 2013 page 4 of 4

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

Which 7 councillors will recommend Wirral Council’s new Chief Executive?

Which 7 councillors will recommend Wirral Council’s new Chief Executive?

Who will choose Wirral Council’s new Chief Executive?

                                                         

One of the bigger stories on this blog recently has been the news that the current Chief Executive for Wirral Council Graham Burgess has handed in his notice and will retire at the end of the year.

So as Wirral Council has the Chief Executive’s three-month notice period (30th September 2014 to 31st December 2014) to find his replacement, what’s happened so far?

Well because the Chief Executive is a political appointment of councillors, the politicians have to decide. So a meeting of the Employment and Appointments Committee has been set up for the 27th October 2014. Graham Burgess is also currently Returning Officer (many people reading this may also know what a Returning Officer is but in simple terms it’s the head person at Wirral Council for elections), Electoral Registration Officer (another role to do with elections) and Head of Paid Service.

So what’s the timetable for picking a new Chief Executive and will one be in post by 1st January 2014? According to the draft timetable it won’t so temporary appointments will have to be made! The proposed timetable means the job advertisement will be advertised around the start of December 2014, which will give people until nearly a week after Graham Burgess leaves to apply for his job.

It is proposed that Penna PLC be paid about £15,000 for helping find a new Chief Executive and a further about £15,000 for finding a new Head of Specialist Services (who is also leaving in December 2014).

However paying out about £15k to Penna PLC to aid Wirral Council’s Human Resources department is not enough! No a “professional adviser” from the Local Government Association will also be advising the Appointments Panel.

This in fact has always struck me as a bit of an anomaly. Penna PLC and the LGA aren’t officers or councillors at Wirral Council. In the past though, they’ve remained in the meeting room after the press and public were excluded from the public meeting.

So who is the Appointments Panel going to be and what will it do? It will consist of seven councillors who will make a recommendation for the post of Chief Executive to the sixty-six councillors. It will probably be four Labour councillors, two Conservative councillors and one Lib Dem councillor. I have some guesses now below about who will make up this appointment panel for the Chief Executive. It hasn’t yet been decided yet which councillors will be on it, but below are my names along with my reasons:

Labour (4 councillors)
Cllr Adrian Jones * reason is already Chair of Employment and Appointments Committee
Cllr Phil Davies * reason is already Vice-Chair of Employment and Appointments Committee & Leader of the Council
Cllr George Davies * reason is Deputy Leader of Wirral Council, Cabinet Member and Labour councillor on Employment and Appointments Committee
Cllr Ann McLachlan * reason is Deputy Leader of Wirral Council, Cabinet Member and Labour councillor on Employment and Appointments Committee

* Note although Cllr Moira McLaughlin is a possibility, she’s unlikely for the reasons listed above

Conservative (2 councillors)
Cllr Jeff Green * reason there are only 2 Conservative councillors (apart from deputies) on Employment and Appointments Committee
Cllr Lesley Rennie * reason there are only 2 Conservative councillors (apart from deputies) on Employment and Appointments Committee

Lib Dem (1 councillor)
Cllr Phil Gilchrist * reason only Lib Dem (apart from deputies) on Employment and Appointments Committee

The seven councillors on the Appointments Panel will all be from the Employment and Appointments Committee and due to the high-profile nature of the appointment unlikely to be deputies. The Employment and Appointments Committee has eight councillors on it (plus twenty-one deputies). So the seven will come from those twenty-nine.

The Appointments Panel doesn’t actually choose the Chief Executive though. They just recommend who the Chief Executive should be to a meeting of all sixty-six councillors at Wirral Council.

From a practical perspective though, as Labour have a majority of councillors on the Appointments Panel and Wirral Council it will be down to the Labour councillors to decide who the next Chief Executive/Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer/Head of Paid Service is. As the process will probably be going on after Graham Burgess leaves and it’s a legal requirement to have somebody appointed to some of these roles, temporary people will have to be found before a permanent appointment is made.

Looking back to July 2012 when Graham Burgess was appointed as Chief Executive by Council, he then had to serve his period of notice before starting in post in September 2012.

If the new Chief Executive has to also serve out a period of notice, it could be as late as May 2015 before he or she starts (which if it is after General Election and local elections it will make the election side of their job easier).

So here’s the proposed job description & person specification for the Chief Executive/Head of Paid Service/Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer.

Certainly it will be interesting to see who the politicians eventually recommend for this key post at Wirral Council! If anyone wishes to leave a comment comparing the appointment of Wirral Council’s Chief Executive to the complicated process of appointing a Doge of Venice, feel free.

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

Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?

Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?

Isn’t it time Cllr Phil Davies remembered his 2009 U-turn on closure of Ridgeway and did the same now on Lyndale?

                                                                                      

Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts

I wrote yesterday about “Is Lyndale School under threat just so Wirral Council can provide a further £2 million to a company that already has plenty?” , so I thought today I’d write a little more on the topic.

Last year, Wirral Council wanted to introduce a banding system for the extra costs at special schools. However at the last-minute they withdraw their application to the Secretary of State to do this.

Despite the fact it actually couldn’t be implemented in 2013-14, the policy was agreed by a close 8:7 vote at a call in meeting back in February 2014, so if it gets implemented next year for band 5 children at Wirral Schools the top up element for band 5 children is capped at £16,000 (this is in addition to the £10,000 each school receives per a child).

If however a child with special needs based on the Wirral is at a school outside Wirral or at an independent special school (such as West Kirby Residential School) on the Wirral this £16,000 upper limit at least by my reading of the policy doesn’t apply.

When questioned at the Coordinating Committee meeting on October 2nd 2014 and asked to explain this unfairness, David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) explained that because independent schools are run as a business, Wirral Council pay more to independent schools because such businesses are run to make a profit.

I used to go to an independent school, called St. Anselm’s College. Between the ages of 12 and 14 the school complained bitterly at people like myself whose places were funded by Wirral Council because we were all told many times that the school got (if memory serves me correct nearly 20 years later so I may be a little rusty on the figure) £100 per a term less than this was actually costing them and this meant in effect they had to cross subsidise the education of people like myself by putting fees up. Across about 35 pupils, this was a deficit of about £10,000 a year at 1992 prices.

The school felt (or maybe influential parents on the board of governors felt) it was unfair to expect the well off parents to subsidise the education of other students and they chose to opt out of the local system becoming grant maintained in the mid 1990s (as grant maintained schools no longer exist it is now called an academy).

In other words even when I was actually a child in the Wirral education system (and too young to vote), I was being made aware of how angry (and let’s face it political) schools got at Wirral Council’s funding formula a whole two decades ago! This may sound awful to write like this but to a lot of large schools, each child at the school meant £x,xxx a year, which meant management trying to balance the books each year veered towards seeing children as a source of income and forgot that people prefer to be treated as people and not a line on a balance sheet. Each year children got old enough to leave, so there was the usual advertising in the local newspapers and open evenings each year to try and persuade parents to pick that particular school for their children.

That is the mistake that I sadly feel politicians and upper management at Wirral Council have made. It is very easy to just see Lyndale School as a line on a balance sheet and that there’s an underspend in the budget for closing schools and try and spend that budget. The debate has sadly got too much about money and dare I write the unthinkable “nobody really understands the full complexities of education funding anyway”?

It’s harder to look at the social fabric of what makes up a school, not just the staff and children at it but its place in the community. To give one example of this there’s the history of a school and the fond place in the hearts of people who no longer have children there but did at one stage. These are not factors that can never truly be measured by accountants at Wirral Council. Unlike other consultations, the consultation responses made to the Lyndale School closure weren’t published by Wirral Council, although you can read them as an exclusive on this blog.

In the recent past there was a move to close Ridgeway High School (a secondary school) here in Birkenhead. Ridgeway was the controversial political issue back then (I even remember speaking on TV about it), there was a large petition of thousands against closure handed in to Wirral Council and a call in meeting held in the Council Chamber which a lot of people associated with the school attended. It was controversial, but in the end in 2009 the Labour/Lib Dem Cabinet did a U-turn and Rock Ferry closed instead. The rest as they say is history.

Back then Cllr Phil Davies was the Cabinet Member for Education and was quoted as saying this about that U-turn in the Liverpool Echo, he said that it was a “pragmatic decision, based on the clear view from Ridgeway that they do not want to be part of these options” and “We are not going to force the school to close and be part of a review which they now no longer wish to be involved in.”

In the interests of balance I will point out the same article has a quote from Cllr Stuart Kelly saying he is “delighted” and this quote from Cllr Jeff Green “The Cabinet really must start thinking things through before making such critical decision on the future for Wirral residents. The anguish and alarm the decision to close Ridgeway created was wholly avoidable by a simple application of common sense, it would also have prevented this subsequent embarrassing climb down.”

Now, five years later when somebody else is Cabinet Member for Education (Cllr Tony Smith) and Cllr Phil Davies is Leader of the Council where have those fine principles of pragmatism that Cllr Phil Davies displayed back in 2009 gone? Where is the politician’s desire to actually represent the views of thousands of people that signed a petition against closure of Lyndale? Try replacing Ridgeway in those quotes with Lyndale and you will get the following two quotes (the kind of words I’m sure plenty of people wish Cllr Phil Davies would actually say):

Cllr Phil Davies that it was a “pragmatic decision, based on the clear view from Lyndale that they do not want to be part of these options” and “We are not going to force the school to close and be part of a review which they now no longer wish to be involved in.”

and Cllr Jeff Green “The Cabinet really must start thinking things through before making such critical decision on the future for Wirral residents. The anguish and alarm the decision to close Lyndale created was wholly avoidable by a simple application of common sense, it would also have prevented this subsequent embarrassing climb down.”

Certainly if those words were said today (and for the sake of everyone involved in this let’s hope something similar is said in the near future!), Cllr Jeff Green’s position would seem to be entirely consistent over time if you compare Ridgeway in 2009 to now. Ridgeway of course is and was back then a much larger school that Lyndale is, so therefore had the clout back then and political influence to make sure it was never closed.

Why does the Cllr Phil Davies of 2014 over Lyndale not display the same sense of pragmatism he showed over Ridgeway in 2009? What’s happened in the last five years? I know U-turns are embarrassing for politicians to make, but he should take a really long, hard look at one of his predecessors as Leader of the Council Cllr Steve Foulkes who refused to U-turn on library closures until the Minister launched a public inquiry and learn the lesson that that it can be disastrous for the Labour Group’s reputation to rely on the “professional” advice of Wirral Council officers and listen to those Wirral Council officers more than the views of many Wirral residents. Aren’t politicians supposed to be there to represent the public in the political process?

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

Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?

Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?

Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?

                                              

Ministry of Truth George Orwell 1984 comment removed
Ministry of Truth George Orwell 1984 comment removed

As I run a blog, I will declare an interest at the start of this article in that I am the operator of this blog. Before anyone accuses me of bias again (I will point out that much of the below is an opinion piece based on a recent court case, legal changes and experience).

One of the things I enjoy about writing (and reading other blogs) is that people do leave comments (although many others read without leaving a comment). The United Kingdom is however not an ideal place to base a high-tech business, which is part of the reason that in an ideal world doing what I do, I wouldn’t be based at all in the UK but somewhere that doesn’t have such a peculiar regulatory environment.

Previously the UK was well-known for its “libel tourism” because of the way the courts here operated when it came to libel. However from past cases certain things can’t be libelled, such as a political party or a local council. Even on matters published abroad, in the past lawyers had preferred to sue in the UK because of the way the court system was here and how easy it was to win their case (and how disastrous financially for the defendant even if they won!).

A lot of the laws that govern the media in this country were based on print publications and arguments about censorship have raged for centuries. A lot of the laws were written before the internet actually happened and were frankly, well overdue for reform. Eventually reform came.

For an example of what used to happen, I direct you to the case of what happened involving Carmarthenshire County Council. Details of the judgement in Thompson v James & Anor ([2013] EWHC 515 (QB) can be read by following that link.

Please note this next bit is in reference to Wales (a country within the UK that borders the Wirral but has a different set of laws and legal system (as well as political system) to here in England).

A local blogger there, Mrs Thompson sued the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council Mark James, alleging that he had libelled her. This was in reference to a letter written from Mark James that referred to Mrs Thompson that was published on another blog (that is not the blog of Mrs. Thompson) that writes under the nom de plume madaxeman.

When sued, the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council used public funds to pay his legal costs (Carmarthenshire County Council had provided him with an indemnity for his legal costs) and his legal team also counterclaimed against Mrs Thompson for references made about Mr. James on her blog which he took exception to.

The court dismissed Mrs Thompson’s libel claim, but upheld Mr James’ counterclaim.

Although the audit bodies in Wales in relation to Carmarthenshire County Council have questioned the issue of whether using public funds for his employer to pay the Chief Executive’s legal costs in a libel lawsuit is actually lawful, Mark James is now vigorously pursuing enforcement of the court order he was granted against Mrs Thompson through a Land Registry charge on her property in respect of damages awarded to him and the defendant’s legal costs (paid for by the taxpayer).

Partly to prevent the courts getting completely clogged up with libel cases (because let’s face it if everyone who had ever had anything written about them untrue online actually filed a lawsuit with the court that would happen), whereas in the past somebody could sue not only the author of a comment, but the publisher and the editor as well, the law was changed. The UK ended up with a new libel law (Defamation Act 2013), which completely reformed the old libel laws, introduced defences of truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest and also new regulations were introduced that came into force on 2nd December 2013.

The new libel law also introduced a test that had to met. Any statement that was claimed to be defamatory had to have “caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”. The new regulations are referred to as the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 and cover comments left on blogs.

This blog (and comments left on it) fall under the new regulations as I’m the operator of the blog and am based in the UK. In theory if I wasn’t based in the UK but the people leaving the comments were, their comments would probably fall under the new regulations too.

In relation to user generated content (such as comments) on blogs, it means that now the operator of the blog (such as myself) is not liable if the operator of the blog follows the rather strict procedure laid down in the regulations when a complaint is made.

The regulations can be read online, but basically as an operator of a blog if a complaint (that falls within the regulations or even a defective notice) is made about a comment on my blog, I have to within 48 hours (assuming the commenter complained about actually has provided an email address) get in touch with the poster of the comment and they then have 5 days to respond. I also at this stage contact the complainant too.

If no response is received from the person who left the comment within 5 days, the comment is removed, otherwise I’m in breach of the regulations. The person who left the comment has five days to respond and the regulations give them a variety of options which partially determine what happens next. For example they can withdraw their comment in which case it is removed at that point. There are however other options also available to them.

Other larger technology businesses aren’t entirely happy with the current regulatory framework under which they have to operate here in the UK and have published transparency reports as to complaints received and outcomes. I have decided it is high time that I did this too, especially considering the views of the media on censorship.

Out of many thousands of comments currently on the blog since the new regulations came into effect on the 2nd December 2013 there have been complaints so far about two. Detail is provided below.

However, I’d like some feedback from you the reader as to the level of detail provided below and how open and transparent I am being. Are there things you think I should include in future reports, that I am not including currently?

Obviously in the case of complaint #1 I’m not allowed to republish the original comment as that has concluded and the author of the comment has withdrawn it. However there seems to be a general pattern emerging as to the type of stories I get requests for comments to be removed on, doesn’t there?

==============================================================================================================
STATUS: Completed (comment removed 4th July 2014 see here)

Complaint number: Complaint #1

Comment author: John Hardaker

Complainant: Surjit Tour of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (Wirral Council)

Article comment attached to: Graham Burgess invites Wirral Council councillors to 5 days of the Open Golf Championship

Outcome: Comment author (Mr. Hardaker) decided to withdraw comment and text of comment was edited out with details inserted explaining why.

Note: see also partial transcript of BBC Radio Merseyside broadcast at Councillor Walter Smith “I must say I enjoyed lavish hospitality” which discussed this.

===============================================================================================================
STATUS: Completed (comment removed 13th October 2014)

Complaint number: Complaint #2

Comment author: James Griffiths

Complainant: He/she have chosen to remain anonymous

Article comment attached to: Graham Burgess (Chief Executive) announces he will retire from Wirral Council on 31st December 2014

Outcome: Comment author (Mr. Griffiths) sent email wishing to withdraw comment.

Note:

===============================================================================================================

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