The Turdmeister and the Law

The moronic "leader" of Sandwell Council - Darren "The Turdmeister" Cooper - is, like many politicians, a bullshitter of the first order and that is nowhere more apparent than in his comments on Labour's "great legal triumph" and on their recent utter humiliation in the High Court (all given credence by the Wolverhampton C-S's).

Let us look first at that "triumph" - the alleged "defeat" of Michael Gove over the ending of Gordon Brown's ruinously expensive Building Schools for the Future [sic] programme.

That case was brought by 5 councils plus Sandwell and was actually decided on very narrow grounds indeed. The High Court Judge decided that Gove was entitled to end the scheme but that he had failed to take into account equality considerations and had not consulted adequately in respect of certain school building projects which has reached a defined procedural stage during a particular 6-month period. He was ordered to reconsider those particular projects again.

The six councils expressed "jubilation" at their great "triumph". The egocentric Cooper brought everything back to his favourite topic - himself - and told the BBC that he was "personally vindicated" by the decision.

But there was an interesting little point that was missed by the mainstream press. Sandwell obviously thought their own huge legal department was not up to the job of dealing with the case and brought in a private firm of solicitors, Bevan Brittan LLP. But due to some sort of cock-up along the way Sandwell actually missed the time limit for bringing the claim! And so Turdy's "triumph" almost didn't get off the ground at all but was eventually allowed only after the Trial Judge "stretched a benevolent discretion to Sandwell". So much for "fighting" for the children, parents and teachers of the Borough as alleged by Cooper! Just more incompetence.

As it was, of course, the "jubilation" was short-lived. Sandwell Labour failed to heed the final words of the Judgment:

"126. Finally, the extent of my decision is that the Secretary of State must, I stress must, reconsider the position of each of the claimants with an open mind and paying due regard to whatever representations they may respectively make. But provided he discharges that duty and his equality duties, the final decision on any given  school  or project still rests with him. He may save all, some, a few, or none. No one should gain false hope from this decision."

And so it came to pass. Gove still axed the local projects. A triumph for Sandwell Labour indeed!

Now let us turn to the recent High Court humiliation already described in my posts "Local Media Blackout on New Sandwell Council Scandal" and "Lord Mayor of Sandwell - Hypocrite!" Anyone with a few brain cells to rub together who read the Judgment in that case would have realised the absolute demolition job done on Sandwell's "case". A leading Housing Law blog - nearlylegal.co.uk/blog - headed their erudite commentary on the case, "Just Bonkers, absolutely bonkers" and the first line of their excellent post reads, " Just what did Sandwell think they were doing?"

Enter Cooper and the Wolverhampton C-S's. Despite the fact that Sandwell accepted during the Court case that Eling's (?) reckless decision, unanimously supported by the ovine Labour Group, had affected 3,600 of the most vulnerable souls in society, Cooper says that no compensation will be payable to them despite the action being unlawful and discriminatory. I am not at all sure about that and we shall see what further action the Child Poverty Action Group (who brought the case) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (who intervened) take.

Cooper said the legal costs were £40,000 but, again, we shall see. Sandwell did use their own solicitors this time and who knows how much time they spent on the case at taxpayers' expense? But they also had to pay a QC and Junior Counsel to put forward their piss-poor case. Clearly they will have had to pay the costs of the CPAG solicitors and barristers (again including a high-powered QC). Sandwell also have recent form for underestimating legal costs. Readers of my post, "Casino Costs Cock-Up by Sandwell Labour" will recall that Eling (again) claimed SMBC would recover its costs from the Casino debacle whereas a FOI request confirmed that the comrades had actually had to pay out taxpayers' money of £18,500.28p! Ooops!

But the idiotic Cooper still tried to bluff his way through the disaster and told the C-S's that Sandwell were considering spending a further £50,000 fighting an appeal (not with the money of the Labour councillors, of course, but with our money). The C-S's were happy to print his grandiose but totally ridiculous claim, "If it's a case of spending £50,000 to save a million I'm prepared to do it" (but again, not with his personal money....).

Of course there was never any real prospect of a successful appeal as all the legal commentators pointed out. I was confident enough to offer £100 to charity if Sandwell won an appeal on all counts. Today the inane Cooper has had to attempt a reverse ferret via what he purports to be "his" blog and is implying that the decision not to appeal is some sort of rational decision by him whilst still saying that if he had his way he would re-introduce the discriminatory policy!

BUT THERE IS ONE THING THE TURDMEISTER AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAVE NOT SAID ALTHOUGH IT HAS FEATURED IN MY POSTS REFERRED TO ABOVE. As a DIRECT result of the incompetence of Sandwell Labour in rushing their crazed scheme through the Council meeting they lost Sandwell a transitional relief grant of £675,000 even though they were desperate to claim it! You don't believe me? Then just read the actual words of the High Court Judge below the subscription......

And finally, even the comrades must now realise that although they do not give a toss what people think, their failure to consult on a raft of issues, if continued, is likely to lead to more very expensive trips to Court.... Nice work for m'learned friends and more bleak days for the taxpayer!


THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG

e   thesandwellskidder@gmail.com                           t   @bcrover (Vernon Grant)

Confidential phone no: 07599 983737



Per Mr Justice Hickinbottom:

17. On 16 October 2012, the DCLG issued a paper, "Localising support for council tax: Transitional grant scheme", which indicated that £100m had been set aside to provide transitional grants to authorities which adopted schemes which ensured that (i) those who would be entitled to 100% support from council tax benefit would pay no more than 8.5% of their net council tax liability; (ii) the taper rate would not increase above 25%; and (iii) there was no sharp reduction in support for those entering work. Applications for transitional grants had to be made by the same 31 January 2013 deadline.

21. The Council's Cabinet considered the consultation results and other preparatory work (including a full EIA dated 22 October 2012) at a meeting on 7 November 2012. It considered the perceived problem that if the Council went ahead with the scheme in its then-current form, it would not be entitled to a transitional government grant of about £675,000. The Cabinet approved and recommended adopting the scheme, but with modifications to make it eligible for that additional funding, by deleting (i) the reduction of capital cut-off limit from £16,000 to £6,000, and (ii) the restriction to the maximum payable on a band C property. It was clearly still considered that the CTR Scheme as drafted would result in an appropriate level of savings, when compared with the previous council tax benefit. The modifications did not include a residence requirement. It was expressly noted that an EIA had been carried out.

25. In the event, the Council did not acquire the transitional assistance from central government (see paragraphs 17 and 21 above), because those who were on full CTB, but failed to obtain a council tax reduction because of the residence requirement, had a greater than 8.5% impact on their relief from the tax. On the evidence, it appears that this became evident to the Council after the 4 December 2012 decision but before the scheme was implemented. In any event, the introduction of the requirement led to a loss of the £675,000 transitional relief.