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:
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 2013Wirral Council invoice Weightmans £720 7th June 2013Wirral 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:
So first is the list of firms of solicitors sorted alphabetically that Wirral Council could use during 2010-2014 through the North West Legal Consortium Collaboration Agreement.
Addleshaw Goddard
Anthony Collins
Ashford
Beachcroft
Berrymans Lace Mawer
Bevan Brittan
Brabners Chaffe Street
Cobbetts
Davitt Jones Bould
Devonshires
Dickinson Dees
DLA Piper
DWF
Eversheds
Field Fisher Waterhouse
Forbes
Forshaws Davies Ridgway
Freeth Cartwright
George Davies
Glaisyers
Halliwells
Hammonds
HBJ Gateley Wareing
Hill Dickinson
Mace & Jones
Pannone
Pinsent Masons
Stephensons Solicitors
TPP Law
Weightmans
Whiteheads
Second is the list of firms of barristers chambers sorted alphabetically that Wirral Council could use during 2010-2014 through the collaboration agreement.
2-3 Grays Inn Square
4-5 Grays Inn
5 Essex Court
7 Harrington Street
11 Kings Bench Walk
18 St John Street
39 Essex Street
Arden Chambers
Atlantic Chambers
Cobden House
Deans Court Chambers
Exchange Chambers
Field Court Chambers
Garden Court Chambers
India Buildings
Kings Chambers
Lincoln House Chambers
Old Square Chambers
Oriel Chambers
Ropewalk Chambers
Serle Court
St Ives Chambers
St James Chambers
St Johns Buildings
Young Street Chambers
So why was Wirral Council trying to keep these lists of solicitors and barristers such a secret?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
A Rosemary Lyon (one of Wirral Council’s in-house solicitors) refused this request on grounds of commercial confidentiality (its own and other third parties). She stated that providing the information would “adversely affect its [Wirral Council’s] bargaining position concerning potential regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre which would result in less effective use of public money” and “make it less likely that companies or individuals would provide the Council with commercially sensitive information in the future and consequently undermine the ability of the Council to fulfil its role”. They even went so far as to claim that releasing the information “would adversely affect the course of justice”.
However, this blog post is the story behind what went on behind the scenes that Wirral Council clearly (according to the response to my Freedom of Information Act request) didn’t want to be disclosed to the public or written about in the media for reasons I will go into below.
On the 16th July 2013, the Leader of Wirral Council Cllr Phil Davies (under delegated decision making powers meaning that he made the decision on his own) gave his agreement to a “preferred development agreement” with Neptune Developments Limited to “allow them to work up a comprehensive redevelopment proposal for Birkenhead Town Centre incorporating Council owned land on Europa Boulevard and involving the re-modelling and offer of Birkenhead Market”.
In the report seen by Cllr Phil Davies before reaching his decision reference was made to “a commitment to develop a clear master plan for Birkenhead Town Centre” in the 2013/16 Corporate Plan. Reference was also made to the previous offer to Wirral Council in 2010 by William Tar Developments to build a casino on two out of three plots of land owned by the Council on Europa Boulevard. That offer was rejected in September 2010.
However what’s not been known widely by the public until now is that “At the same time and in response to the marketing exercise Neptune Developments Limited (NDL) submitted a proposal requesting that the Council move away from disposing of the sites separately and instead work with them to develop a wider regeneration scheme for Birkenhead. NDL had already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street and they suggested that this coupled with Council owned land on Europa Boulevard could be combined to allow a more comprehensive redevelopment scheme to be worked up and in turn would give a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites were developed separately” and that “negotiations have been continuing with NDL since the completion of the marketing exercise”.
Detailed below is Neptune’s proposal,
“Neptune proposes that the project is taken forward on the basis of a two stage agreement. The first, which is the subject of this Report, will involve granting NDL Preferred Developer Status which will be extendible to a period of 12 months and will be subject to NDL meeting the following performance targets:
Work up the Master-plan into a detailed implementation strategy for approval by the Council
Working with the Council, NDL will develop proposals which will reposition the town as a retail and leisure destination
NDL will negotiate further site acquisitions if necessary to deliver the agreed strategy.”
Subject to securing Members (Ed – Members means councillors) approval to the Strategy and Master-plan NDL would then be required to enter into a second Conditional Development Agreement which would commit them, at their own risk, to work up the proposals into a position were they could be implemented and to deliver the returns that are needed to secure the wider regeneration of this part of the Town.
It is proposed that the Conditional Development Agreement with NDL will be structured to ensure the Council receives the best value obtainable for the 3 sites on Europa Boulevard which will be determined by an independent valuation and all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk.”
In a section titled “Other options considered” it’s basically stated that no other options were considered because NDL has an interest in the land needed to build Birkenhead Market on once its moved.
“An initial assessment of the NDL proposals confirms that if delivered the scheme will have the potential to revitalise an important part of Birkenhead Town centre delivering a far greater regeneration impact than if the sites identified in this report were developed out separately. No other options have therefore been considered as NDL has already secured an interest in the balance of the land that is needed to deliver the re-provided market.”
The section on consultation states this “There will be a need to carry out extensive consultation on the scheme prior and during the detailed planning process. This will be carried out jointly between the Council and NDL.”
The section on legal implications refers to the advice that my Freedom of Information request in September was about (and refused). Once again Members means councillors.
“7.1 In the event that Members want to pursue this proposal and to ensure that it is compliant with current EU procurement law, Officers have sought advice from Weightmans LLP and Counsel about its legality.
7.2 The advice has now been received and it concludes that the Council would at this stage be able to enter into a Stage 1 Preferred Development Agreement on the proviso that a final test of lawfulness is carried out when the Stage 1 work has been completed and the detailed arrangements can be assessed.
7.3 NDL is aware of this advice and would be prepared to complete the first stage obligations at risk to allow the final lawfulness test to be undertaken when the scheme has been fully worked up.”
In other words Wirral Council’s happy to pass on the advice it received (at a cost of £7,404 of taxpayer’s money) to Neptune Development Limited to help them in a commercial venture as it may result in Wirral Council receiving money in the future for land in Birkenhead that it doesn’t want.
Neptune Development Limited clearly as they have “already secured an interest on a vacant site on Conway Street” have a commercial interest in any master plan proposals and would be able to “negotiate further site acquisitions” in advance of the master plan becoming public knowledge.
Doesn’t this all sum up how Wirral Council tries to operate though and considering the public interest in the regeneration of Birkenhead Town Centre being done in accordance with EU procurement law do you dear reader think I should make a further Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the advice they received from Peter Oldham QC and Sean Crotty of Weightmans in relation to this matter in the hope that they would provide it this time?
P.S. If anyone would like to have a stab at translating ”all works will be undertaken on an open book basis with NDL working on a fixed developer return on cost which varies depending on the nature of the risk” into plain English that can be understood by the average person please leave a comment!
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Thousands of pounds spent by Wirral Council on legal advice for safeguarding and Salisbury Independent Living
Thousands of pounds spent by Wirral Council on legal advice for safeguarding and Salisbury Independent Living
A comment left yesterday by Paul Cardin made me think about three legal invoices which seem to be (at least it seems reasonable to assume) tied in with issues raised during Martin Morton’s whistle blowing.
SIL on this invoice stands for Salisbury Independent Living (who was service provider 3 in the Anna Klonowski Associates Ltd report). Ninety-five pages of her two hundred and forty-nine page report were about Salisbury Independent Living. In stark contrast to the other invoices for thousands of pounds, this is for £360 representing 2.5 hours of an associate’s time on “financial abuse”. Unless this was independent legal advice to someone who was overcharged by Wirral Council, you wonder why it wouldn’t have been cheaper to do this in-house instead.
However, Wirral Council isn’t always so frugal in cases involving disabled adults. This interim invoice comes to £3,024 for “adult safeguarding advice” for one person from August to October of last year.
Morris Hill of Weightmans was also involved with legal work for Wirral Council in [2012] WLR(D) 31, [2012] EWCA Civ 84, [2012] PTSR 1221, a Court of Appeal case between Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and Salisbury Independent Living Ltd which Wirral Council won. The case was about a claim by Salisbury Independent Living Ltd that Wirral Council owed them £3 million and was an appeal from [2011] UKUT 44 (AAC) this earlier decision. There’s also a further invoice for £8,017.20 concerning Salisbury Independent Living.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
