Ever since the Wragge Report there has been a cull of disastrous employees of the Council who were only too happy to facilitate the corruption. But are their replacements up to snuff? Well they - here in the form of Shokat Lal and Alice Davey - appear to have a cavalier approach to the crucial legal business of contract tendering. New legal supremo, Mike Jones, needs to get a grip on this or else another disaster looms.
 |
| Lal (left) using taxpayers' money for p*ss-up with Labour Cllrs |
Under Britton/Stevens and Surjit Tour there was a disastrous record of failure in respect of keeping documentation ranging from deliberate destruction of incriminating documents/deliberate failure to keep records to general non-compliance with normal retention practice.
Contract tendering is a serious business designed to prevent corruption and deliberate awards of deals to cronies. Thus it is meant to be a very open process and tenders are available for all to see on various websites (Sandwell use "In-tend".) The process is simple - SMBC wants, say, a knackered old van out of which it can dispense coffee and cakes. It should retain records of the decision to spend taxpayers' money on the contract and then advertise it. Anyone can then bid to supply the van. The Council is not bound to accept the "best" price but must keep detailed records if deciding to accept a different bid clearly stating its reasoning. There can be legitimate reasons for this. For example, one tender may provide better quality work/materials than one at a lower price from a chancer.
So far so good, but there are various problems with the system - some of which have featured in Sandwell Labour's bent history and are described elsewhere in this blog. We have seen in bent Labour Sandwell's similar "closed bid system" for land sales that Labour people put in an offer to acquire land and then cronies put in much lower, fake, offers. Hey presto - the highest offers "legitimately" won.
Another problem with the corrupt Council is failing to put mega contracts out to tender at all - as with the bent deal with a property developer to destroy 19 ha of green space at Lion Farm Fields.
Then there is, at worst, corruption and, at best, gross incompetence. We saw in a recent post that the unfinished restoration of Alfred Gunn House - where Labour is said to have accepted a ridiculously "lowball" offer from a contractor, and the contract is now £8m (yes, that's eight million pounds) over the tender price already. (Full story so far via the link below*)
Two problems arise for journalists and campaigners in respect of the system. Firstly, only the basic results of tendering contests are available via the (useless) Freedom of Information Act. The Council usually has a "get-out" in respect of disclosing other bids on the grounds of "commercial confidentiality". Thus in the Alfred Gunn House contract we cannot establish the price other contractors offered to do the work - although The Skidder is aware that one reputable contractor was amazed that Seddon's figure was - originally - so low, and considerably lower than it's own quote. But, as above, Labour has coughed up millions of pounds more - of OUR money - since the work started.
Another problem - short of actual clear criminal activity - is that only bidders can litigate in respect of the tender. Thus if Bidder A prices a job at £1 million but the Council accepts a higher bid at £1.5m from Bidder B then Bidder A has the opportunity to take legal action if it thinks it has a good case. The problems are manifest. No outsider can usually bring civil action in respect of a bent contract even if funding is available. And Bidder A. in this example, will often take the loss of the deal on the chin and just get on with other bids to get new business. It may not wish to incur the high costs of civil litigation and it may also wish to put in future bids to the same Council and so is reluctant to queer its pitch. But this is where Sandwell needs to keep meticulous records of contract tenders since it could be on the receiving end of enormous litigation costs if it corruptly or incompetently gets contracts wrong.
One very small case which has already featured in this blog illustrates the continuing shambolic governance under Lal's stewardship. One of the bent Labour Council's most brilliant ("lol") appointments of recent times was that of Matthew Huggins - who has recently, and belatedly, been shown the door amidst a whole series of allegations and rumours.
It was said that Huggins wanted a "vintage" Citroen H coffee van from which to dispense coffee and cakes at Lightwoods Park following the closure of the caff there. (It was also claimed that Labour would hire the vehicle out for other functions.) It is always strange when a number of employees contact The Skidder with the same story. Here, a number of employees told me that Huggins had bought the van via eBay. An employee, who wished to remain anonymous, sent me a picture purporting to show the van SMBC eventually purchased on the eBay site (which, unfortunately, I have lost).
This is categorically denied by bent Sandwell who insist they put the matter out to tender via the In-tend system. A Freedom of Information Act request has also flushed out that it was not Huggins but our old friend of video fame, Director of Borough Economy [sic], Alice Davey who approved the purchase of the van (rather than, say, a gazebo and a coffee machine at much lower cost). Indeed Davey had to request an exemption from normal procurement rules to acquire the van at a mere £39,000. She reported that after advertising for a catering van on In-tend, only one offer was received and the Council rules usually require three quotes.
This is slightly odd in itself as even a cursory Google search generates dozens of catering vans (and trailers) for sale at very considerably less than £39,000.
But what really went on here? The eBay page printed and sent to me by the anonymous employee (and lost) was definitely of a Citroen H van and these are more expensive on the net than many other catering trucks/ trailers. Nevertheless bent Sandwell advertised, "We are looking to purchase a vintage vehicle (ideally a Citroen H van) which is fully equipped as a catering vehicle with coffee machine ...".
Sandwell employees told me that Huggins particularly wanted a Citroen H as it fitted the "aesthetic" vibe he wanted to create (aesthetics not being something which has bothered the comrades in the urban dystopia previously!) The point here is (a) that Huggins and Davey deliberately chose a "vintage" look which was likely to cost the taxpayer considerably more than other options, (b) specifically, they wanted to splurge on a Citroen H (perhaps after seeing the vehicle on eBay?) - again at greater cost to the taxpayer, and (c) Lal's circus say that there is no documented record whatsoever of them actually decided to splurge on the more expensive option rather than cheaper ones.
Incidentally, when Davey applied to ignore normal procurement rules she made out at the cost of the vintage vehicle was somehow good value by comparing it with the costs of a brand new vehicle which would then require conversion. This is absolute nonsense since, as above, the market is absolutely awash with second-hand catering vehicles and trailers at considerably less than £39,000!
Davey eventually paid £39,000 for a clapped-out Citroen H and the taxpayer has had to pay for Sadders to send a trailer to collect the supposedly roadworthy vehicle from Dorking in Surrey.
This is not a massive deal of course given the multi-million pound losses bent Labour clock-up but not only did Davey & Co. not keep any records of the decision, but they did not keep any records of the eventual advert on In-tend. I sh*t ye not when all Lal's team could produce was only PART of the above advert referred to. This read: "We are looking to purchase a vintage vehicle (ideally a Citroen H van) which is ..." That is literally it! After an Internal Review and 67 days this was all that could be produced concerning a £39,000 contract. I went back to SMBC pointing out that this was absolutely risible. I said that there MUST be at least a draft of the full advert kept electronically or on paper but 155 days after the FOIA request Lal's team confirmed that, no, there was absolutely zilch. The good news [sic], however, was that an employee had - after 155 days - managed to get into In-tend and take a screenshot (yes, honestly) of the full advert!
And so, here we have the new regime in action. No records of decisions taken. No records of actual public tender adverts. Anyone smell another rat here? Several employees did! And imagine if this happens with a larger, contested tender - bent Sandwell will be taken to the cleaners.
Still it's only OUR money not theirs ...
LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)
I cannot list every previous mention of individuals referred to in the entirety of this blog. Where I refer to a specific story please follow the supplied hyperlink since this forms legal justification for later comments. Similarly references to “posts or Skidders passim” and to earlier posts mean any individuals concerned about purported defamatory or otherwise unlawful material must read later posts in the context of earlier posts. Full information can also be supplied within a reasonable time upon application via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
We may also add hyperlinks or references to content in our associated blogs, “As The Crow Flies!” (at crowmultimedia.blogspot.com) and Rotten Council Governance - Legal Review (at rottencouncils.blogspot.com). Reference to content in those blogs also forms part of the context, meaning of, and justification for, contents in this blog.
In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.
Every now and again we make a genuine error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall
use our best endeavours to remove offending material and/or publish appropriate corrections forthwith (together with an apology, if applicable).
We have had to remove the direct comment facility from this blog due to the malicious activity of a West Bromwich woman but we are pleased to receive comments via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com, on Twitter via our publishers @CrowMultimedia or via our dedicated Facebook Group: “The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth to Power!” We are happy to publish any sensible commentary and offer a right of reply where applicable. We can also publish “guest” posts on mutually agreed terms.
If you consider that anything written is defamatory or otherwise unlawful please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com or telephone 07470 624207 forthwith. If your complaint has merit we shall endeavour to make immediate amends.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.