In response to a FOI request Wirral Council pulls a rabbit out of a hat and the invoice mysteriously disappears!
John Booth with white rabbit
Above is a picture of a magician with the famous white rabbit out of a magician’s hat trick. First the hat is empty, then the magician makes the white rabbit appear out of nowhere.
Wirral Council seem to be wanting to pull a similar magic trick when it comes to this FOI request. Let’s just recap what Wirral Council have stated so far.
On the 21st April 2015 Wirral Council refused this FOI request for the fees notes (note plural) on the basis of legal professional privilege (you can read the full text of that refusal here).
On the 11th June 2015 Wirral Council at internal review refused this FOI request for the fees notes (note plural) on the basis of commercial interests (you can read the full text of that refusal here). At internal review Wirral Council stated "The original responder considered the contents of the fees notes".
On the 27th October the Information Commissioner’s Office issued decision notice FS50585536 which required Wirral Council to produce the fees notes within 35 days.
The fee note for the £2,700 invoice, which they have been claiming for the past nearly nine months has been carefully considered by its officers when refusing this request (twice) has conveniently and somewhat mysteriously vanished.
Yes like the reverse trick of the white rabbit appearing out of nowhere and just when it would be contempt of court not to produce it, it vanishes!
Of course the observant among you will have long witnessed the "magic and miracles" that goes on at Wirral Council by its employees.
ED: 1/12/15 9:49 Just for clarity, here is the invoice this refers to which quite clearly states "See fee note attached for description of work".
I will finish with this clip of Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister. Wirral Council’s responses to FOI requests will be discussed by councillors on Thursday evening, in response to this Lib Dem motion.
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.
Why did Wirral Council spend £48,384 on a London-based barrister in benefits battle with landlord?
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
For those who don’t remember Wirral Council’s motto is "by faith and foresight" and last night’s meeting of Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Commmittee (which you can watch in full by following that link) had a number of comments and queries by councillors about why when Wirral Council seeks legal advice from outside third parties, the usual procurement rules don’t apply.
Many justifications were made at the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting for Wirral Council’s legal expenditure, such as paying for the best advice. Miss Jennifer Richards QC’s services came with a price tag of £48,384 so I’m not surprised that Wirral Council spent 8 months wasting my time and theirs by arguing about whether I should have access to this (until the Information Commissioner’s Office issued decision notice FS50585536) which I can summarise in the following sentence.
Stop being silly Wirral Council and just give John a copy of the invoices within 35 days (or appeal within 28 days) otherwise it may be dealt with as contempt of court)!
Although this may seem for a small amount of legal expenditure in the grand scheme of things, it’s just one of a series of legal expenses for Wirral Council in a case that ended up in the Court of Appeal and is in some ways connected to the Anna Klonowski Associates/Martin Morton issues and Wirral Council’s Department of Adult Social Services.
As referred to in that later decision it was about “a protracted dispute between Salisbury Independent Living (“SIL”) and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“the local authority”) concerning housing benefit claimed by SIL to be due to its tenants and former tenants.”
I have mentioned in a question at a public meeting to a councillor before that there is a cost to the public purse in legal expenses for Wirral Council not resolving issues and then these matters ending up being adjudicated by the courts.
In the interests of openness and transparency I am reproducing the invoice supplied below in full (the scan with bits blacked out by Wirral Council is of a rather poor quality).
Thirty Nine Essex Street (or 39 Essex Chambers) is the name of the London-based chamber of barristers. Weightmans is a firm of solicitors that does a lot of work for Wirral Council.
DX stands for document exchange (it’s a system that legal practices use for exchanging documents). DWP stands for Department for Work and Pensions. It seems this invoice is for the earlier Upper Tribunal stage of the legal proceedings (I hate to think what the total legal expenditure comes to for this whole case as that decision was then appealed by Wirral Council to the Court of Appeal).
Yes there are typos in the invoice (which I’ve left in the copy below). If I’ve made any mistakes in typing it up compared to the original please leave a comment pointing out where I’ve made a mistake.
In converting it from print to HTML I’ve tried to keep the formatting as close to the printed invoice as possible.
Professional Fees of Miss Jennifer Richards Q.C VAT Registration No: 606103782
DX: 718100 LIVERPOOL 16 Weightmans LLP (Liverpool) India Buildings Water Street Liverpool L2 0GA England
Your Ref: MHL/186279/97 Case Ref: 174541
Page: 1/2
Various tenants of Salisbury Independent Living -v- Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council – Upper Tier Tribunal
Court: Upper Tribunal CH/1528/2012
Date
Description of Work
Fees
VAT
27 Feb 2012
Drafting application for permission to appeal from First tier Tribunal to Upper Tribunal
£1,650.00
330.00
03 Apr 2012
Drafting Grounds of Appeal to Upper Tribunal
£2,200.00
440.00
04 Jul 2012
Perusal and Consideration of various documents, emails, correspondence etc and advising by telephone
£1,650.00
330.00
04 Sep 2012
Perusal and Consideration of submissions of Department for work and Pensions filed in support of Upper Tribunal appeal and adsvising by telephone
£600.00
120.00
06 Sep 2012
Preparation for and Advising by Telephone re order of XXXXXXXXXXXX DWP and progress of Upper Tribunal
£70.00
14.00
10 Sep 2012
Perusal and Consideration of draft directions and drafting position statement and further directions for Upper Tribunal = 4 hours
£1,100.00
220.00
13 Sep 2012
Preparation For and Attending Hearing
£2,500
500.00
25 Oct 2012
Between 18th October and today’s date considering bundles of evidence and identifying documents for inclusion in the bundle for the Upper Tribunal
£3,000.00
600.00
31 Dec 2012
Reviewing Trial bundle and drafting skeleton argument
£6,325.00
1265.00
07 Feb 2013
Perusal and Consideration of transcripts FTT proceedings and proposed amendments/ corrections
£4,125.00
825.00
Note: items marked ‘*’ are previously unbilled
Rate
Fees
V.A.T.
TOTAL FEES
C/Fwd
C/Fwd
20.00%
£40320.00
£8064.00
TOTAL VAT
C/Fwd
TOTAL DUE
C/Fwd
Rendered on 21 Feb 2013, 22 Feb 2013, 05 Mar 2013, 28 Mar 2013, 01 May 2013, 03 May 2013, 13 Jun 2013
THIS IS NOT A TAX INVOICE
04 Jul 2013
Please make payment to the following account: XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
We also accept payment by cheque to XXXXXXXXXXXX
Please quote case number and barrister name on BACS payment and notify us of bank tranXXXXXXXXXXXX
Professional Fees of Miss Jennifer Richards Q.C VAT Registration No: 606103782
DX: 718100 LIVERPOOL 16 Weightmans LLP (Liverpool) India Buildings Water Street Liverpool L2 0GA England
Your Ref: MHL/186279/97 Case Ref: 174541
Page: 2/2
Various tenants of Salisbury Independent Living -v- Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council – Upper Tier Tribunal
Court: Upper Tribunal CH/1528/2012
Date
Description of Work
Fees
VAT
25 Feb 2013
Preparation For and Attending Hearing Preparation beofre trial 30 hours Preparation after court 4 hours Full day in court
£12,500.00
2500.00
26 Feb 2013
Refresher Ful;l day in court Preparation 4 hours after court
£2,000.00
400.00
27 Feb 2013
Refresher Full day in court Preparation 1 hour
£2,000.00
400.00
04 Sep 2012
Perusal and Consideration of Respondents’ Post Hearing Note and Drafting Note in Response
£600.00
120.00
Note: items marked ‘*’ are previously unbilled
Rate
Fees
V.A.T.
TOTAL FEES
£40,320.00
£8,064.00
20.00%
£40320.00
£8064.00
TOTAL VAT
£8,064.00
TOTAL DUE
£48,384.00
Rendered on 21 Feb 2013, 22 Feb 2013, 05 Mar 2013, 28 Mar 2013, 01 May 2013, 03 May 2013, 13 Jun 2013
THIS IS NOT A TAX INVOICE
04 Jul 2013
Please make payment to the following account: XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX
We also accept payment by cheque payable to XXXXXXXXXXXX
Please quote case number and barrister name on BACS payment and notify us of bank transfer byXXXXXXXXXXXX
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service pay a consultant £2,500/day + expenses?
Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service pay a consultant £2,500/day + expenses?
Principea Consulting Ltd Training Expenses invoice £2901 06p Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
The above invoice was paid by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service for a speaker from Principea Consulting Limited for a training event called Exercise Black Swan.
The first part £401.06 is for travel expenses that break down to these categories on the invoice.
£11.60 Single fare on hovercraft to Southsea
£80.00 taxi to/from Southampton Airport
£136.96 Air Fare return to Manchester
£166.50 Two nights in the Premier Inn in Liverpool
£6.00 Single return on fast catamaran
Total £401.06
The second part of the invoice is £2,500 for Speakers Fee for presentation on 3rd of May 2013 (although this might be a typo and possibly should read 2014) and detailed as for the development and leadership of Exercise Black Swan. The rest of the invoice deals with VAT.
So, if I’ve read this invoice correctly Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid for someone to speak at a one-day training event the sum of £2,500, plus their travel and accommodation expenses of £401.06? Does anyone reading know what Exercise Black Swan was?
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council spent £16,412.04 on legal advice for Birkenhead Town Centre regeneration
EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council spent £16,412.04 on legal advice for Birkenhead Town Centre regeneration
Indicative illustration of Neptune Development Limited’s masterplan for Birkenhead Town Centre
Invoices published below for the first time today show that Wirral Council spent £16,412.04 with Weightmans on legal advice on proposals for redevelopment of Birkenhead Town Centre. Advice was given by Weightmans to Wirral Council on the preferred development agreement (later referred to as a lock out agreement) with developers Neptune Developments Limited.
Wirral Council’s Cabinet agreed last month to consult staff at Europa Pools, which might be relocated as part of the regeneration proposals.
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £3,328.32 29th July 2013Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £4,482 2nd April 2013Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £735.48 30th August 2013Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £960 8th October 2013Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £1929.60 28th June 2013Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £4976.64 27th March 2013
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Why did Wirral Council not check an invoice from Weightmans for £2,185.20 was correct before paying it?
Why did Wirral Council not check an invoice from Weightmans for £2,185.20 was correct before paying it?
Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £2185.20 29th April 2013
Above is an invoice from Weightmans to Wirral Council for £2,185.20. However it doesn’t add up. If the hours part is to be believed then these are the real figures:
As the “Certified correct for payment” signature is blacked out, you can’t tell who at Wirral Council just paid it without scrutinising whether it was correct or not.
So perhaps somebody leave a comment answering are employees at Wirral Council supposed to check invoices are correct before paying them?
In Wirral Council’s constitution it specifies the following under “Financial Regulations”.
5.3.2 The key controls for ordering and paying for work, goods and services are:-
…
(v) payments are made to the correct person/supplier, for the correct amount and are properly recorded, regardless of the payment method;
5.3.5 Chief Officers are responsible for ensuring that all goods and services are properly ordered, received and paid for in accordance with Guidelines for Financial Systems.
Quite what the mysterious “Guidelines for Financial Systems” are I don’t know. The Chief Officer for legal expenditure would be Surjit Tour, although it’s clearly not his signature on the invoice.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
