Who was paid a £150,707 salary by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority?

Who was paid a £150,707 salary by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority?

Who was paid a £150,707 salary by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority?

                                          

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.

Monty Python’s famous sketch about chartered accountancy (as it’s very hard to make jokes about this subject)

Councillor Phil Davies shows off the LGC award Wirral Council received for being most improved Council 12th March 2015
Councillor Phil Davies (Chair of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) shows off the LGC award Wirral Council received for being most improved Council 12th March 2015

As it states in the video above, accountancy can be dull. However I wrote this email below (sent the day before the meeting) about a disclosure mistake in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority accounts for 2014/15. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meets this morning to approve the accounts for 2014/15.

It’s quite simple really, about six years ago the law changed so that public sector employees that are paid a salary of £150,000 or more had to be named in the accounts.

For example on page 160 of the accounts for the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority approved last week Dan Stephens, the Chief Fire Officer (on a salary of £170,000) is named. In fact Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority also name the Deputy Chief Fire Officer and Deputy Chief Executive, as despite their salaries being below the £150,000 threshold it is more transparent to do so as the total they receive is over the £150,000 threshold.

The Chief Executive of Merseytravel (David Brown) on a salary of £150,707 should’ve been named in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s accounts. The email below from myself details the reasons why (KPMG are the external auditors for the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority). Hopefully this will be sorted out at the meeting and corrected.

Subject: agenda item 7 (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Final Accounts 2014/15) meeting 20th September 2015

To: Cllr Phil Davies
CC: Mayor Joe Anderson
CC: Cllr Barrie Grunewald
CC: Robert Hough
CC: Cllr Andy Moorhead
CC: Cllr Rob Polhill
CC: Cllr Ian Maher

CC: David Brown (Chief Executive/Director General, Merseytravel)
CC: Louise Outram (Monitoring Officer, Merseytravel)
CC: Angela Sanderson (Monitoring Officer, LCRCA)
CC: Stephanie Donaldson (Head of Internal Audit, Merseytravel)
CC: Tim Cutler (Partner, KPMG LLP (UK))
CC: Ian Warwick (Manager, KPMG LLP (UK))
CC: Richard Tyler (Assistant Manager, KPMG LLP (UK))

Dear all,

I am bringing this up in advance of Monday’s meeting, in the hope it can be amended. If it isn’t amended, please class this as a formal objection by a Merseyside local government elector to the accounts of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority for 2014/15.

The draft statement of accounts at note 9 (which is page 41 in the numbering of the report or page 67 of the supplementary agenda) contains details of the remuneration paid to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s senior employees.

For the year 2015 (I presume this means financial year 2014/15), the Chief Executive/Director General received a salary of £150,707.

A number of years ago the Accounts and Audit (Amendment no 2) (England) Regulations 2009, SI 2009/3322 changed the audit regulations (this change started in financial year 2009/2010) and added the paragraph below:

"(c) the remuneration, set out according to the categories listed in paragraph (d), by the relevant body during the relevant financial year of—

(i) senior employees, or

(ii) relevant police officers,

in respect of their employment by the relevant body or in their capacity as a police officer, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, to be listed individually in relation to such persons who must nevertheless be identified by way of job title only (except for persons whose salary is £150,000 or more per year, who must also be identified by name)."

This requirement was kept in The Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/817 reg 7(2)(c) and the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015, SI 2015/234 (which although referred to in the draft statement of accounts will apply from the 2015/16 financial year onwards).

Clearly, the Chief Executive should’ve been explicitly named and wasn’t. I think everyone I write this email to will know he’s called David Brown, but the draft statement of accounts should be amended to state this.

It’s a basic issue of openness and transparency (which I’m sure you’d expect the press to take a viewpoint on).

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

P.S. I know Merseytravel’s accounts are audited separately to the LCRCA, has the same error been made there too?

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

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to ask government for further powers over Mersey Tunnels, transport, fire, police, skills, employment, European funding, trade, housing, health, energy and more!

                                                           

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.

The video above of the Special Meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority of the 2nd September will finish uploading by about 16:30 on the 2/9/15. Once processed it should be available for viewing but is not available at the time this blog post was published.

Mayor Joe Anderson speaking about devolution at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2nd September 2015) thumbnail
Mayor Joe Anderson speaking about devolution at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (2nd September 2015) thumbnail

At a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, councillors, the Mayor of Liverpool and co-opted members agreed a revised set of recommendations. The revised recommendations appeared only minutes before the meeting started.

The revised recommendations approve a request to the Conservative government to devolve powers to the city region as part of a devolution deal.

Here are the original recommendations (with the crossed out parts deleted by the revised recommendations):

It is recommended that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:-

(a) comments upon, and endorses the devolution themes that will form the basis of the Liverpool City Region’s input to the Comprehensive Spending Review on the 4 September 2015 (NB: this detail will form the basis of a follow-on report for members’ consideration); and

(b) notes that the devolution process will remain an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Authority, for members’ consideration."

Here are the revised recommendations agreed today:

1.1 Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is recommended to:

  1. Approve the initial scope of the proposals as outlined in the supplementary report and the presentation made to the Combined Authority as the Liverpool City Region’s formal submission to the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, subject to a delegation to the Head of Paid Service in consultation with the Chair of the Combined Authority and the Lead Officer: Economic Development to make any drafting amendments to the final document;
  2. Continue negotiations with Government over the Autumn period in advance of the publication of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review to secure a bespoke devolution ‘deal’ for Liverpool City Region which will:
  1. Drive economic growth and increase productivity;
  2. Reduce costs and improve outcomes across the whole of the public sector;
    and
  3. Improve social outcomes and better health and wellbeing for local residents.
  1. Note that any actual agreement with Government would require the approval of constituent Councils with appropriate consultation put in place;
  2. Note that devolution negotiations are an iterative process and that further information will be presented to future meetings of the Combined Authority, for Member’s consideration and approval; and
  3. Note that any Agreement will only be signed by both the Constituent Councils and Government when both parties are fully satisfied with the final details of the Devolution Deal.

So what are the proposals that the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority are asking the government for?

The proposals are in this supplementary report and include the points below (plus other asks):

  • Abolishing Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
  • Abolishing the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside and transferring its functions to an elected Liverpool City Region Mayor
  • Asking for a legislation change so that any surplus Mersey Tunnel tolls can be used for economic development
  • “the repayment of historic Mersey Tunnels debts by government”
  • Development Corporation Status for the Liverpool City Region
  • Creation of a Land Commission
  • “Designation of catapult Centres in the City Region for Manufacturing Technology Centre focused on marine and renewable energy and a Centre of Excellence for Infectious Diseases”
  • “A Free Trade Zone designation for the Liverpool Wirral Port system that includes provision for Global Zone-to-Zone Transfers, No Duty on Value Added and Enhanced Customs Warehousing”
  • “We want government to give us a long-term Special Rail Grant (SRG) to help
    secure a new fleet of Merseyrail trains.”
  • “the development of a generation system of regional significance, for example, an offshore tidal lagoon”
  • Also requested are “asks” under the headings of “cultural partnership and creative dock”, “community safety, enforcement, licensing and regulatory services”, “education”, “children’s services” and “health, wellbeing and social care”

Certainly the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is asking for many changes from the government, which if agreed in principle will be subject to consultation.

Here are what some of the people on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority had to say at today’s public meeting that agreed the proposals:

Mayor Joe Anderson (Mayor of Liverpool, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) said, "There will be opportunities, there also will be more negotiations of more substance with businesses, with other political parties, with other interested groups like health, the voluntary sector, the trade unions and others to engage and involve themselves in the process."

Cllr Phil Davies (Chair, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) asked, "In the near future presumably we’ll be drawing up a consultation programme if you like as the negotiations roll out?"

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

How much does a Superlambanana cost to repaint?

How much does a Superlambanana cost to repaint?

How much does a Superlambanana cost to repaint?

                                   

I went to Merseytravel’s headquarters to inspect various invoices and contracts. A Superlambanana costs £500 to repaint, but a penguin only costs £400 as you can see from the invoice below.

Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014

Below are invoices that I requested from the first month of expenditure in 2014/15 that had something blacked out on them.

First there’s a larger invoice for £1,241.08 from Bircham Dyson Bell. This is for a “claim by Charles Denton as owner of Olympia Public House” and more specifically “To professional charges acting for you in the above claim for compensation in connection with advising you by Mr Charles Denton for the period from 21 December 2013 to 26 March 2014 for the Olympia Public House as set out in the attached breakdown. Actual fees £1,721.90 less £771.00 as per email dated 19th March 2014.”

Blacked out are the hourly rates charged. These are:

(Partner) 0.10 hours @ 141.92 per hour = £14.19
(Partner) 1.00 hours @ 141.92 per hour = £141.92
(Partner) 5.60 hours @ 141.92 per hour = £794.79

Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice repainting Lambanana Artopia £900 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £1241.08 Claim by Charles Denton as owner of Olympia Public House 28th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Bircham Dyson Bell £1241.08 Claim by Charles Denton as owner of Olympia Public House 28th March 2014

Next is a two page invoice from Hays for agency staff. Whereas Merseytravel have blacked out the name of the person whose services this invoice relates to on the front of the invoice, the name is clearly visible on the timesheet on the second page of this invoice (Melissa Waring). The timesheet also shows this is for 35 hours of work (a detail again blacked out on the front of the invoice) at a rate of £30.35 an hour + VAT.

Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1019.77 assistant senior accountant 15th April 2014 timesheet

There are three further invoices from Hays from that month which are each for the services of Melissa Waring. However the timesheets on the back of those invoices aren’t included. Those invoices (including the second page where you’d expect the timesheets) are below.

Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accountant 3rd April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accountant 3rd April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accounant 3rd April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1092.61 assistant senior accounant 3rd April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1153.06 assistant senior accountant 27th March 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014 timesheet
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014
Merseytravel invoice Hays £1274.71 assistant senior accountant 9th April 2014

Finally there is an invoice for £3,800 from DWF for the services of Martin Stafford seconded to Merseytravel at £200 a day. It was pretty pointless blacking out the daily rate of £200 a day on this invoice and leaving in “for 19 days work carried out from 3rd March 2014 to 31st March 2014” along with the amount of £3,800.

Merseytravel invoice DWF £4560.00 Martin Stafford secondment 31st March 2014
Merseytravel invoice DWF £4560.00 Martin Stafford secondment 31st March 2014

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

BBC launches consultation on collaboration with hyperlocal blogs but do bloggers know there's a consultation?

BBC launches consultation on collaboration with hyperlocal blogs but do bloggers know there’s a consultation?

BBC launches consultation on collaboration with hyperlocal blogs but do bloggers know there’s a consultation?

                                                             

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting 19th June 2015
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority meeting 19th June 2015

I’ll start by declaring an interest in this piece as I write for and run this blog. Earlier this week I got an email from a well-known journalist about a consultation the BBC is running. More information on this is on the BBC’s website.

Personally I’m not sure what to make of it. I don’t have the benefit of working for a media organisation like the BBC that is funded by taxes so gets a guaranteed income. Tomorrow I’ll be filming a public meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

At the previous meeting (19th June 2015) there were three filming the meeting itself:

a) myself
b) Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and
c) the BBC for the Sunday Politics show.

However out of those three the footage I took was available to the public first. However I am getting off the point a little. The BBC just used clips of the meeting with a voice over during its Sunday Politics show.

Below is my footage on Youtube (which can be viewed in resolutions to 1080p HD). It has at the time of writing 19 views.

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.

In comparison here is the footage on Youtube filmed by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (at the start of each meeting the Chair generally announces they’re filming and the meeting can be watched on their Youtube channel). It can be watched in resolutions up to 480p. As you can see when they uploaded it to Youtube it’s resulted in a blank black area right, left and top. Generally my view is that if there’s a natural source of light in the room you should try to film with the light behind the camera (this was what the BBC cameraman was trying to do at the start too). Some of the time they film pointing at the windows. However at the time of writing they have 28 views.

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.

Now I’m definitely biased but I think my footage is better (but not as good as the BBC’s (unfortunately I don’t have a link of their video footage to hand to show)).

It’s very hard for me to fairly compete though with Knowsley, who have a Twitter account with 8,842 followers compared to my Twitter account with 970 followers.

I do see competition in the media as a good thing though. If people want to watch footage of this public meeting they have a choice.

That’s why I don’t fully understand what the BBC is proposing. We’re all competing with each other, which means over time we learn from each other and get better. Providing people with a choice is good. It’s how the marketplace and media works.

Collaboration between competing bodies could work to reduce that choice in the long-term if two or more previous competitors collaborate.

Links from the BBC’s website to a hyperlocal blog (through this proposed external linking system) would cause a spike in traffic to the hyperlocal blog as links from the BBC’s website carry a lot of weight.

However hyperlocal blogs who weren’t collaborating with the BBC would lose out on this source of visitors.

What’s really needed is not what the BBC propose. A lot of hyperlocal blogs have filled a media void once occupied by the newspapers. Newspapers get a guaranteed income from the taxpayer through things like public notices as the legislation specifically refers to public notices being published in local newspapers.

Considering the community benefit of hyperlocal blogs what’s really needed is a decent discussion about their long-term sustainability and how essentially their community benefit is priceless. They’re doing media work that otherwise wouldn’t happen. Hyperlocal blogs (including this one) have written stories that lead to front page news stories in newspapers, have highlighted extremely important issues and contributed to greater scrutiny of public bodies.

Apart from the first of these issues, the two latter have a “community benefit” can’t be easily measured or quantified. Anyway going back to the BBC consultation I was asked a further few questions so I thought I’d do a poll here (or you can leave a comment).

http://johnbrace.polldaddy.com/s/bbc-consultation-on-blogs

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 Merseytravel spend £33,781.20 last year with Veale Wasbrough Vizards about its move to Mann Island?

Why did Merseytravel spend £33,781.20 last year with Veale Wasbrough Vizards about its move to Mann Island?

Why did Merseytravel spend £33,781.20 last year with Veale Wasbrough Vizards about its move to Mann Island?

                                                

I went to a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s Audit Committee yesterday and if you wish you can view the video of that meeting below. The agenda and reports for that meeting is on Merseytravel’s website.

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.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Audit Committee meeting 12th May 2015

What did occur to me after the meeting finished was that since the Local Government Transparency Code applies to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, that Merseytravel (which is now part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) would be required to publish a list of payments made over £500 each month on its website.

Unlike Wirral Council and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, who also publish comma separated values files of the same information (which can then be sorted in a spreadsheet) Merseytravel just publish this information as PDF files.

Links to each of these files which cover the last financial year are below.

Merseytravel payments over £500 Period 1 – 01 April 2014 to 27 April 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Period 02 – 28 April 2014 to 25 May 2014

Ed – added on 22/5/2015 – see edit note below for why Merseytravel payments over £500 Period 03 26 May 2014 to 22 June 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Transactions Period 04 26-06-2014 To 20-07-2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Transactions Period 05 21-07-2014 To 17-08-2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure August September 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 expenditure September October 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure October November 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure November to December 2014

Merseytravel payments over £500 expenditure December 2014 to January 2015

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure 5th January to 1st February

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure 2nd February to 1st March 2015

Merseytravel payments over £500 Expenditure 2nd March to 31st March 2015

If you’re observant, you’ll have noticed a gap for the month from the 26th May 2014 to the 25th June 2014. I’ve emailed Merseytravel to ask for the missing month of payments. Ed – 22/5/2015 – Merseytravel got back in touch with me on the 21st May informing me the missing month had now been put on their website, so it is now linked to above. The missing month includes another payment of £680 made to Veale Wasbrough Vizards for legal costs to do with the HQ relocation that was not available to me when originally writing this article.

However the other 11 months make for interesting reading.

There are a number of payments to a Veale Wasbrough Vizards (which is a Bristol based firm of solicitors) relating to Merseytravel’s controversial headquarters move from Hatton Gardens to Mann Island.

1 Mann Island (Liverpool City Region Combined Authority)
1 Mann Island (Merseytravel’s new headquarters)

Here’s a list of the payments made to Veale Wasbrough Vizards:

VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 21/3/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £720
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 30/4/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £862.50
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 30/4/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £1,200
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 23/4/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £4,342.25
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 18/8/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £1,169.89
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 23/9/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £2,084.00
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 23/10/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £648
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 18/11/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £10,315.20
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 18/12/2014 Other Contractor 15 S-7116- HQ – Direct Costs £7,600
VEALE WASBROUGH VIZARDS 22/12/2014 Legal Fees S-7108- HQ Relocation £4,839.36
        Total £33,781.20
           

Payments are also still being made to Bircham Dyson Bell as you can see below. The Liverpool Echo reported back in 2012 how £1.7 million was paid by Merseytravel to Bircham Dyson Bell without the work being put out to tender.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 28/3/2014 Court Fees S-2031 Legal and Committee Team £1,050.90
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 28/3/2014 Specialist Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £754.70
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 29/4/2014 Court Fees S-2031 Legal and Committee Team £1,362.10
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 30/6/2014 Consultants Fees R-0200 Rolling Stock Programme £1,915.79
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 19/2/2015 Consultants Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £1,665.50
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 27/11/2012 Consultants Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £7,427.50
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 20/5/2013 Consultants Fees K-2501 L.A. Subscriptions etc. £7,800.00
BIRCHAM DYSON BELL 25/2/2015 Consultants Fees R-0200 Rolling Stock Programme £5,210.89
        Total £27,187.38
           

Merseytravel also paid £977.50 to Sara Bradbury in October 2014 for “Counsels Fees”.

A number of insurance payments were made by Merseytravel with compensation given as the reason.

ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 16/5/2014 Compensation – Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £7,008
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 18/7/2014 Compensation – Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £2,717.00
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 14/8/2014 Compensation Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £8,500.00
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 25/7/2014 Compensation Misc S-2101 Ins – General £11,575.00
THOMAS COOPER 8/8/2014 Compensation Misc S-2101 Ins – General £7,300.00
MERCURY LEGAL LLP 18/12/2014 Compensation Employers Liability S-2101 Ins – General £7,182.17
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE 18/12/2014 Compensation Public Liability S-2101 Ins – General £16,790.00
        Total £61,072.17
           

There was a payment for £507 to Weightmans LLP for an invoice dated 31st March 2014 for “specialist services”. Merseytravel also paid five amounts (£3,800, £2,600, £4,400, £750 and £2,145) to a firm of solicitors called Davies Wallis Foyster LLP for invoices in 2014 for the services of a solicitor.

Two payments of £15,115 and £15,590 were made to Royal & Sun Alliance for invoices dated 27th August 2014 and the 3rd December 2014 for the costs of external 3rd party solicitors.

Robert Jackson Solicitors charged £2,000 in an invoice dated 13th February 2015 for legal costs associated with an insurance claim, in the same month Merseytravel paid £4,812 to CS Cooper C/O Collins Long Solicitors which was again for legal costs to do with an insurance claim.

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