Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had Upton Fire Station valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million and West Kirby Fire Station at £1.085 million in March 2015

                                               

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015). Kieran Timmins (Deputy Chief Executive) is on the right.
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)

Information revealed through a recent Freedom of Information Act request shows that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid a firm of chartered surveyors to value both Upton and West Kirby fire stations in March 2015.

Upton Fire Station was valued for insurance purposes at £1.1 million (with a Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation of £590,000) with West Kirby Fire Station insurance purposes value was £1.085 million (with a Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation of £685,000).

The valuation also revealed that Upton Fire Station has an estimated economic lifespan of ten years and West Kirby Fire Station of fifteen years. In a letter accompanying the response to the Freedom of Information Act request Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stated “Please note the attached Valuations are not market values but Depreciated replacement cost (DRC) valuations, only obtained for insurance purposes, we do not hold information about market values. The valuations have been provided in accordance with the RICS valuation – Professional Standards 2014 (“the Red Book”)”.

Despite Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service stating “we do not hold information about market values” of Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station a report to councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in January 2015 stated “The costs of any new build station are referenced in Appendix F, together with an estimate of the potential income from the sale of the buildings and land at Upton and West Kirby.”

Councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have passed resolutions in October 2014 and January 2015 to keep the estimated capital costs of building a new fire station (along with estimates of what they would receive from a sale of Upton Fire Station and West Kirby Fire Station) out of the public domain.

A report on the recent consultation will be published tomorrow. Councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority will meet next week and decide what happens next.

Out of the eighteen councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, the four councillors representing Wirral Council are Councillor Lesley Rennie, Councillor Denise Roberts, Councillor Jean Stapleton and Councillor Steve Niblock.

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

FOI request reveals Wirral Council issued 168 Fixed Penalty Notices (mainly for alleyway dumping)

FOI request reveals Wirral Council issued 168 Fixed Penalty Notices (mainly for alleyway dumping)

FOI request reveals Wirral Council issued 168 Fixed Penalty Notices (mainly for alleyway dumping)

                                                           

Wirral Council Environmental Streetscene Services Contract page 122 Schedule 2 - Nominees to the Partnering Agreements

Yesterday, Wirral Council responded to a Freedom of Information Act request I made last month for minutes of the meetings of the Partnering Board (which comprises of Wirral Council and Biffa Waste Services Limited) for the last year.

The minutes of the Partnering Board meetings of the 10th March 2015, 18th December 2014, 21st October 2014 and 14th July 2014 contain some interesting information.

Below are extracts from the minutes that hopefully will be of wider public/political interest starting with the meeting held on the 14th July 2014. I have submitted an internal review request to Wirral Council for the minutes without the names of Wirral Council employees redacted. RE stands for Roger Edwards, FPN stands for fixed penalty notices, MS stands for Mark Smith, Cllr BM for Councillor Bernie Mooney and VO stands for variation order.

2. ANNUAL REVIEW
….
Noted garden waste has now exceeded last year’s figure and hope to get to 40,000 properties. RE queried about incentives for signing up however XX noted we have to be very careful as the £5 reduction online has raised objections by some residents and opposition members and that XX is exploring alternative cost effective payment mechanisms. However, XX advised we can market to people who signed up last year who have not signed up this year and there are around 3,000 who have not re-signed.

Street Cleansing
….
The Entry Investigation Team has been introduced and 28 FPNs have been issued as a result of this.

7. AOB

Possible Industrial Action Update
RE updated that Biffa offered pay settlement to the workforce of 1.8% in line with RPI – the request from the workforce was 6%. RE advised the workforce have decided to ballot for industrial action before any decision made. RE is working hard to resolve this situation. The industrial action is planned for Fri 18 July.

There are parts of the minutes of the meeting held on the 21st October 2014 that will be of wider interest too:

Managing Down Demand – Missed Collections

XX have been looking at all the missed bin calls we had in for 2010-14 and the breakdown of unjustified (which was about half) to give an idea of the proportion of calls coming in. The 3 main reasons for unjustified bins are: bin not out, entry work and access issues. Disputes occur where resident is told the PDA said bin not out and they disagree. XX wants to look at the dispute figures and drill down i.e. is it the resident at fault, is it the crew not using the PDA properly etc. When a resident does not agree with PDA data this causes a lot of work in the back office. There could be an education issue here reminding residents that 7am is the time rounds start and the crews can come to roads at different times each week.

If we do some re-training around contamination to show the importance of the PDA and show the impact of not using the PDA correctly that should be beneficial. RE noted if we do not have confidence in the PDA data then everything else becomes difficult.”


Alleyway Dumping

XX advised had over 600 referrals for the Waste Investigate Unit (WIU) and issued 168 FPNs to mainly the Seacombe/Birkenhead areas. XX noted we need to do some work around where issuing the FPNs. 5 court cases regarding litter have gone well with the offenders being fined and this information is on the Council website. XX hoping to do full leaflet drop to relevant properties to say what we are doing and what success we have had. Currently drafting up a second leaflet to get out before Christmas to all terraced properties to highlight the good work we have been doing.

XX noted some new anti-social behaviour laws which are coming out and she is looking if we can go down this route with landlords. XX going to be looking at the licensing scheme and if we can make that work for us by adding in further conditions (Selective Licensing scheme). MS noted when speak to Senior Members of the Council enforcement is now an issue they are behind it. Noted 260 good neighbourhood packs have gone out to a variety of areas.”

From the meeting held on the 18th December 2014:

Alleyway Dumping

XX advised the Waste Investigation Unit are doing a fantastic job. XX noted an incident where a disgruntled member of the public, because of his threatening behavior, was issued with an ASBO. Main issue is the Courts are only letting us take 5 cases a week. Legal services need to approach the courts to get more time to hear more cases. XX plans to do another leaflet drop after Christmas to highlight to the public the financial costs of failing to manage their waste responsibly, or through ignoring fixed penalty charges. XX next steps are to meet the selective licensing team. Birkenhead and Seacombe have been identified as a selective licensing areas which means we can prescribe to landlords what they must do re bins and as Birkenhead and Seacombe are where the most is, it is hoped this will have a significant impact over time.”

Transparency Code

The code is about being more transparent about what we publish for the public to see and waste collection is one of the things requiring more details including publishing a version of the contract. XX are going to look at refreshing the contract, redacting certain bits and then send to Biffa to consider. Agreed a good idea would be a half day session with both parties to look at updating and modernizing the contract.”

Finally from the meeting held on the 10th March 2015.

Action Log

50 Street Cleansing Transitional Money

MS advised there is £116,000 available. XX is currently working on a briefing note recommending how that money could be used. MS has the authority to spend this money however he would get endorsement from Cllr BM first.

64 Benchmarking Data

XX advised some of the information required is deemed as commercially sensitive and there is a strong reluctance to share this information at the moment. MS felt we do need to be getting to a stage where we have the mechanism in place to demonstrate value for money from this contract. XX also safeguard the financial position of Biffa. XX to send through further details to XX & SC showing exactly what it is we are looking for.

67. Contract under the Transparency Code

XX has started this piece of work. By the end of April we have to publish the contract on Council website. XX noted his intention to incorporate the VOs and XX send to Biffa to redact the finance. XX commented that there are inaccuracies in the contract in relation to execution on the ground but nothing of serious concern. MS noted as we are signing off a significant VO if there are any anomalies we need to resolve them before we publish.

CONTRACT PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW

SC queried whether there had been any thought about the garden waste service passing to Biffa? MS advised if Biffa want to put an offer to the Council formally they were welcome to.

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

Incredible: Why did ICO find Wirral Council twice broke the law by taking too long to reply to 2 requests?

Incredible: Why did ICO find Wirral Council twice broke the law by taking too long to reply to 2 requests?

Incredible: Why did ICO find Wirral Council twice broke the law by taking too long to reply to 2 requests?

                                                                  

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

A bit like the experience I had recently of waiting ages for a bus in Liverpool recently, only for four buses back to back to turn up, the Information Commissioner’s Office have in the last fortnight issued two decision notices involving FOI requests to Wirral Council.

There is a small delay in decision notices being published on ICO’s website, but the first (FS50576394) involving a request I made that was considered under the Environmental Information Regulations can be viewed here. I previously wrote about Wirral Council’s U-turn about disclosing information in response to this request back in May.

The decision notice states “As the information was disclosed outside the 20 working day timescale the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached the requirements of regulation 5(2). ”

I made the request on the 26th January 2015. Wirral Council ignored my request, so on the 24th February 2015 I requested an internal review. Wirral Council responded to the internal review on the 23rd March 2015 stating it had the information but was withholding it based on a regulation 12(5)(e) exemption.

For those who don’t know what a regulation 12(5)(e) exemption is it’s:

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect

(e) the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;

I appealed this to the Information Commissioner’s Office on the 25th March 2015 and on the 11th May 2015 Wirral Council did a U-turn stating (you can view the exchanges between myself and Wirral Council on the whatdotheyknow website):

“Following your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Council has decided to reverse its position, having previously relied on the exception contained in Regulation 12 (5) (e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I do not consider that releasing the information would now adversely affect the legitimate economic interest of a third party. The address of the property, which you have requested is 13 Thorneycroft Street, Birkenhead. I have copied this response to the Information Commissioner’s Office.”


As mentioned in my opening sentence, I’m also aware of a decision notice involving a Freedom of Information request that’s been issued recently that hasn’t yet been published on ICO’s website.

This decision notice (FS50568736) (which is not about a FOI request I’ve made) relates to the lack of response by Wirral Council to this FOI request made by Paul Cardin here.

This decision notice states:

“2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request.

3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

  • The Council should inform the complainant whether the requested information is held. If the information is held it should provide it to the complainant or else issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
4. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this Decision Notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

and

“9. On receipt of the complaint the Commissioner contacted the Council to remind it of its duty to respond to requests for information within 20 working days and to ask that it respond to the complainant. Neither the complainant nor the Commissioner received a response.”

as well as

“11. The complainant made his request for information to the Council on 6 May 2014 but has failed to receive a response. The Council has clearly exceeded the 20 working day limit very significantly and therefore the Commissioner has found that the Council breached section 10(1) in its handling of the request.”

Certainly the common theme running through the two decision notices is Wirral Council exceeding the time limits in the legislation on responding to requests.

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

168 pages of Wirral Council's Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited

168 pages of Wirral Council’s Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited

168 pages of Wirral Council’s Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited

                                                                 

Below are the first 168 pages of Wirral Council’s Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited. It’s not the complete contract which runs to many more hundreds of pages. The contract is for collecting rubbish from households on the Wirral and other services such as removing litter from the streets.

The end date for the contract was extended from 2017 to 2027 by Wirral Council’s Cabinet in December 2014. It’s important to read section 7 of the contract with this variation order which changes (from July 2013) the frequency of street cleansing as the frequencies for street cleansing were changed. Pages 89 to 101 of this contract have been previously published on this blog. Wirral Council have stated they will publish the full contract by May 2015.

Pricing information on certain pages wasn’t provided by Wirral Council on grounds of commercial confidentiality. The pages that fall into this category are page 109 of 164 (8.14 Schedule 2A – Waste & Recycling (Alternate Weekly Residual Collection), page 111 of 164 (8.16 Waste and Recycling Daywork Rates), Page 112 of 164 (8.17 Schedule 3A – Street Cleansing) and page 116 of 164 (Street Cleansing Daywork Rates) and page 117 of 164 (Cost Summary).

If you’ve arrived at this page trying to determine what day your bin will be collected, simply enter your street name on this page on Wirral Council’s website to find out.

Continue reading “168 pages of Wirral Council's Environmental Streetscene Services contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited”

Why did Wirral Council pay £48,384 to Weightmans and what has DASS got to do with it?

Why did Wirral Council pay £48,384 to Weightmans and what has DASS got to do with it?

Why did Wirral Council pay £48,384 to Weightmans and what has DASS got to do with it?

Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £2700 7th June 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £2700 7th June 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £720 7th June 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £720 7th June 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £48384 11th July 2013
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £48384 11th July 2013

Above are three invoices to Wirral Council from Weightmans, one for £720, one for £2,700 and one for £48,384.

Apart from “Counsel’s fees” and the always cryptic “professional services” I’ve no idea what these are for, other than the two smaller amounts are to do with Wirral Council’s Department of Adult Social Services. Two refer to a fee note attached to the invoice describing the work done in more detail. I’ve made a Freedom of Information Act request for the fee notes.

All three invoices would seem to be related as they have the same account number. Certainly there’s a public interest in having some openness and transparency as why Wirral Council spent £51,804 on legal costs. However considering how much of the detail on these invoices are blacked out, I don’t hold out much hope that Wirral Council won’t do the same to the fee notes in response to the Freedom of Information Act request.

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