Sandwell Council and College - Taking The Urine

Before reading this post may I invite you to visit WhatDoTheyKnow.com and search for the two FOI requests by Mr Darryl Magher relating to the, still secret, deal concerning The Public, West Bromwich. The quickest way is to simply type "Concordat" in the search box. There you will see that ALL relevant information on the "deal" - which was not put out to tender or open competition - has been redacted (ie blacked-out) so that us mere scum cannot see it. This from two publicly-funded bodies....

It is noteworthy that the Public Accounts Committee have just called for contracts with private providers to be subject to Freedom of Information disclosure and, apparently, G4S, Capita, Serco and Atos are agreeing with this!

We are indebted again to Mr Magher for requesting an internal review of the so-called "disclosure" and this is worth a read as it shows the bizarre route Sandwell Council and Sandwell College have taken in awarding the contracts in the first place - attempting to resurrect the Building Schools for the Future programme which was scrapped by the Government in 2010. It is admitted that they "went to great lengths" to keep the deals secret! I have set out the request for the review below.

STOP PRESS - OUR "FRIENDS" INTERSERVE HAVE JUST "UNDERBID" TWO OTHER LARGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES AND BEEN AWARDED THE NEW SMBC CONTRACT TO BUILD THE NEW WEDNESBURY LEISURE CENTRE!!!!

Here is Mr Magher's request for a review:

To:  (1) Adrian Scarrott, Director of Neighbourhoods, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council;

        (2) Mr C. Davies, Vice-Principal (Standards & Information), Sandwell College.

Application for an Internal Review – Freedom of Information Act 2000

SMBC Ref: INT1-658301905

Sandwell College Ref: 192984-c35c6c92c@whatdotheyknow.com

I repeat my original request dated 15^th January, 2014 in its entirety. The reply does not answer the request in any way and it has been so-heavily redacted so as to have been rendered entirely meaningless. I believe that I am entitled to have the original request answered fully in accordance with Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Background to the Request

In 2013 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) closed the public-owned facility in central West Bromwich known as “The Public”. SMBC is a local authority funded by the taxpayer, both locally and nationally. It is a matter of public interest that their financial dealings are open to public scrutiny save in exceptional circumstances or where the law specifically permits non-disclosure.

SMBC resolved to convert The Public for use primarily as a sixth form school/college and to grant a lease for the educational usage of the building to Sandwell College (SC). There are some ancillary agreements whereby SC are apparently to provide a level of artistic/cultural service to the general public, some adult education and so on.

Sandwell College (SC) is another public body reliant for the vast majority of its income from the taxpayer, mostly via central Government through the Education Funding Agency. It is a matter of public interest that the financial dealings of SC are open to public scrutiny save in exceptional circumstances or where the law specifically permits non-disclosure. It is noteworthy that only in September, 2012 SC took possession of a brand-new £77 million building, also in central West Bromwich, which was funded from the public purse. Ironically, the same contractors responsible for that new building are those that feature in these matters.

The Public was a landmark, bespoke, building designed by an internationally-renowned architect. Nevertheless, SMBC resolved to undertake major conversion works to the building (the “Fit Out Works”) so that it was “fit” for educational usage. This was specifically against the recommendation of reports from property consultants which cost £39,000 excluding VAT. In the normal course of events, one would expect SMBC to tender for the conversion works or open the project to some other form of open competition so that SMBC and the taxpayer could be satisfied that the final accepted quote constituted good value for (public) money but SMBC rejected this approach. Indeed, it resolved to gift the conversion contract to Sandwell Futures Limited (SFL) utilising the “standard form BSF (“Building Schools for the Future”) Design and Build contract” and specifically resolved on 16^th October, 2013 “that any necessary exemptions be made to the Council’s Procurement and Contract Procedure Rules” to permit this transaction. SMBC were acting with considerable haste since the “Cabinet” only formally resolved to proceed in October, 2012 but had already (June, 2013) made public pronouncements that the college/school would be open by September, 2014. This may well have had a significant bearing on the decision to disallow open procurement and to enter into so-called “negotiations” with a single party.

Having excluded the world-at-large from the procurement process, I submit that it is particularly incumbent upon SMBC to show that the said contract was fair, reasonable and represented good value for the taxpayer and public (insofar as it is lawful at all).

Sandwell Futures Limited (SFL) has an opaque chain of control/ownership but SMBC itself owns 10% of the shareholding of the Company. The annual return of 17^th June, 2013 shows a further 10% of the shares in the hands of Building Schools for the Future Investments LLP and the remaining 80% in the hands of Environments for Learning Sandwell PSP Limited. There are other companies related to this tangled web but the “ultimate parent company” is Interserve Plc and its subsidiary undertakings of which the aforementioned companies are two. The said annual return also shows that two taxpayer-paid employees of SMBC are Directors of SFL. One, at least, is very senior and highly paid from the public purse.

SMBC appears to state that open tender/competition was not necessary since SFL is a “special purpose vehicle procured as part of the Sandwell Building Schools for the Future Project” and that the BSF Design and Build contract was awarded in 2009 following appropriate & lawful procurement procedures. With respect, this is nonsense.

The current agreement in respect on the fit out works is a secret bipartite affair. The decision by the Cabinet to enter into it was based on a secret “strategic review”, part of a so-called “fundamental review”, which has not been placed in the public domain. The fundamental review and Cabinet decision itself are heavily redacted insofar as they have been disclosed.

The Building for Schools project commenced in 2003 and was always a tripartite affair. The Department of Education appointed a delivery agency called “Partnership for Schools” and the delivery vehicle was the “Local Education Partnership” (LEP). Whilst not an actual shareholder within the meaning of company law, the PFS was, itself, a stakeholder or partner of the LEP in the whole BSF scheme.

A local authority could opt into the scheme and present a “Strategic Business Case” to the PFS. This was followed by an “Outline Business Case” (OBC) which set out, inter alia, the scope of the project, costs, affordability, risks, the procurement route and a timetable. If approved a LEP was formed between the authority and a Private Sector Partner (PSP) which was identified after a tendering process in accordance with EU requirements.

In this particular case, I am prepared to accept that SMBC set up a LEP called Sandwell Futures Limited with a PSP - Interserve Plc and its subsidiaries as the major shareholders (as above) for the SPECIFIC purpose of delivering building and ancillary works pursuant to the BSF programme. I do not believe that the relevant contractual documentation for this has ever been placed in the public domain. Very importantly, the LEP once established was not limited to the first wave of projects but was expected to endure for the 10 or 15 years required to fulfil the whole local authority BSF programme. By a Strategic Partnership Agreement the LEP was granted exclusivity for the programme (but not for anything else).

(For the sake of brevity I will refer to Interserve Plc and its subsidiaries simply as “Interserve” save where the context demands otherwise).

In general, the BSF programme was delivered in “waves” in accordance with a “Funding Allocation Model”. After the first wave, an OBC was still required (save in respect of the formation of the already existing LEP which had by then already been appointed and acquired exclusivity). Once this further OBC approval had been given the authority and LEP did further work on the scope of the next wave to RIBA Stage E which was then forwarded to PFS as the “Final Business Case”. If approved by the PFS in conjunction with HM Treasury a promissory note was issued to fund the “wave”.

The OBC in particular was a significant milestone in that approval demonstrated that the project was robust and prepared for procurement but was not the end of the story. The PFS would then work closely with the authority and LEP through a two-stage process up to FBC where the LEP was required to show evidence of value for money. Costings were compared to the PFS benchmarking system before final approval.

This scheme was highly bureaucratic, costly and time-consuming (one of the stated reasons for its abandonment in 2010) and was “policed” by the PFS/Treasury. This did not suit SMBC in the current case where the “decision” was made and had, accordingly, to be carried through in haste. With a close review of costings, benchmarking etc the scheme was the very antithesis of the secret and private deal allegedly done here between SMBC and the LEP, Sandwell Futures Limited, alone. Further, as far as one can tell from press reports, there is no external funder (PFS/H M Treasury). Rather SMBC is funding the fit out works itself via what it calls “prudential borrowing” and will then lease the building to SC. There is no apparent mechanism to benchmark costings nor, indeed to check standards against the RIBA or other such schemes (although this may be contained within the redacted parts of the so-called contracts). It is not clear whether the lease to the College has been negotiated at less than an open-market rental for what is a very large building and/ or whether there is any mechanism for repayment by the College of any of the borrowing costs. It is in the public interest for the taxpayer and public at large to ascertain who is paying for what? For example only and without prejudice to all issues, the local taxpayers of Sandwell have a legitimate interest in determining that they alone are not shouldering the burden of the borrowing when the College funding should be spread to the whole country via central government taxation and funding. (Although it seems unlikely that central Government would have agreed to the College acquiring a second £70 million plus building so soon after it had moved into its own £77 million one).

In any event, future BSF schemes were stopped by the Secretary of State for Education in July, 2010 and so any concept of SFL having exclusivity in procurement terms is absurd. The alleged contracts are based on false premises and are a sham to avoid an open procurement process and to allow the project to proceed with all possible haste, regardless of the costs to the public purse. Accordingly, I will seek to persuade the Information Commissioner (“the IC”) that the contracts are unlawful and void. It follows, if the IC is with me on that point, that ANY and ALL clauses in the said “contracts” purporting to thwart disclosure of information pursuant to the FOA are also null and void and cannot protect any information that has been redacted on the grounds of either “commercial confidentiality” or “commercial sensitivity”. I shall rely on the statement of the Secretary of State for Education of 5^th July, 2010 that all future BSF projects which had not reached financial close would not go ahead together with his further comments in letter form, “In particular, I do not wish to allow the creation of area-wide exclusivity agreements over many years with a single contractor”.

If the IC does not accept that point, it is in the public interest to see the terms of the contract and full costings so that an attempt can be made to benchmark those costs. There is clearly a very real risk that the taxpayer will not have received best value. As the situation is obviously not one in which BSF applies at all there is also the question of whether there is any conflict of interest in two taxpayer-funded employees (one, at least, highly paid) working for both parties to a secret bipartite transaction.

Further, the only information that has been forthcoming about the fit out costs has come purely from SMBC press releases which have suggested two quite different but significant sums of money ie £5.5M on one hand and £6.7M on the other. Once again, it is the public interest that full procurement and costing arrangements are available for scrutiny to clarify this apparent and considerable discrepancy. There is also the question of any mechanism for payment of extra sums in the event of the project “running over” or for any other reason.

As far as one can tell from the limited press reports and the heavily redacted information available through my original request there should be the following principal documents:

1. An agreement between SMBC & the so-called LEP;

2. An agreement between SMBC & SC plus a lease.

Although most of the shareholding of SFL is in the hands of Interserve it has specifically sub-contracted the fit out works to one of its own subsidiaries, Interserve Construction Ltd, and this has been disclosed in heavily redacted form as the “Design and Build Contract”. As above, this contract which also purports to have been made pursuant to the BSF, is no such thing and is a sham created purely for the convenience of the parties. I will submit to the IC that it too is unlawful so that any clauses therein designed to thwart the disclosure of information pursuant to the FOA can have no legal effect. Again, if the IC is not with me on that point then I will say that the public interest is not served where public money is manipulated through a company controlled by one party (Interserve Plc in this case) and paid to a subsidiary of the same company (Interserve Construction Ltd in this case). Accordingly, the IC should allow public disclosure of any information which is alleged to be either commercially confidential or commercially sensitive between two companies which are, in fact, two parts of the same organisation. It is noteworthy in this context that one of the contracts provides for notices relating to same to be sent to SFL via an Interserve address in Birmingham and for notices to the other contracting party (an Interserve subsidiary) to be sent via Interserve’s Head Office in Reading!

If the shareholding of 10% in SFL owned by SMBC has any bearing upon the matter then it is anathema that a public body – SMBC - should seek to use contractual clauses drawn up by its own lawyers to thwart the operation of the FOA and to attempt to use a small shareholding in a private company to subvert an open procurement process and award contracts to a single, favoured, party.

Response to the Disclosure to Date

May I deal firstly with the lease between SMBC and SC which appears to be of 25 years duration. It is said that the lease need not be disclosed as it will be registered at HM Land Registry in due course. I believe the lease was signed on or around 19^th December, 2013 but as at 8^th March, 2014 it has NOT been registered and so it is not in the public domain. As a matter of law, the lease may be considered an outright disposal of the property by SMBC and it is in the public interest to determine the true position. As above, it is in the public interest to determine that the lease terms accord with those available on the open market.

It is said that information as to personal data within the meaning of s40(2) should not be disclosed ie principally in respect of persons signing the documentation and also, as far as one can tell from the redacted information, names of persons appointed to a joint “strategic body”. I do not accept that where two public bodies are concerned – both funded by the taxpayer – that any secrecy is necessary as to appointments to joint boards etc and will ask the IC to order disclosure in the public interest. (I also specifically reserve my position noting the heavily redacted disclosure to date). I have no particular objection to the redaction of names of signatories etc unless any of the documents are signed by Sarah Melanie Dudley and/or Kerry Anne Bolister since these individuals are both employees of SMBC and Directors of SFL and it is in the public interest to determine that no conflict of interest has arisen in respect of their involvement in these matters. As Directors of a Company they must have a reasonable expectation that their identities will not be private in respect of these matters and disclosure would not be unfair to them.

It is said that some information is redacted pursuant to s21 FOA on the basis that it is available elsewhere. I have already dealt with the question of the lease which has not, as yet, been filed at HM Land Registry. Apart from a few press releases, I am not aware of any other information relating to these matters that has been placed in the public domain save that there is an argument from the College that the SMBC Cabinet decision of 16^th October, 2013 and fundamental review are already in the public domain although they accept this is in heavily redacted form. (It seems that I will have to make a separate FOI request in that regard). I say for the purposes of this review that SMBC and SC should state publicly where such information may be located. Accordingly, at present, I do not accept redaction of information on this ground.

Section 22 FOA is also raised ie that certain information is to be released at a future date. I refer to my original request. The vast majority of the information requested was clearly in existence when the purported “contracts” were executed on 19^th December, 2013, now some 3 months ago. I accept that it APPEARS that certain programme details are to be finally determined in respect of ancillary cultural/artistic/adult education “offerings” but these matters have, presumably, been budgeted for and those sums were what was originally requested. For both of these reasons I do not accept redaction of information pursuant to S22.

It is claimed by SMBC and SC in respect of the main bulk of the redacted information that it is either commercially confidential and/or commercially sensitive. Firstly, they rely on clauses within the various agreements themselves which are designed to protect such information and, secondly, they rely upon Sections 41, 42 and 43(a) FOIA.

I have already rehearsed the arguments above that the contracts are not what they purport to be. They are shams designed to avoid an open procurement process and to prevent the details thereof from entering the public domain. Again, if this view is not accepted, it is abhorrent that SMBC should seek to hide the facts of its transactions behind a 10% shareholding in a private company so that they are unavailable to public scrutiny. I have quoted above the precise wording whereby SMBC sought to restrict its “normal” contract and procurement procedures and so it is particularly incumbent on them to show that their dealings are open, fair and constitute good value for public money. As there is not, so far as I can tell, any mechanism for a third party (as in the BSF arrangements) to check or benchmark costs this information is of public interest so that full independent scrutiny can be made thereof. Where the “public interest test” applies, therefore, I say that the information must be disclosed.

Interserve are a very large public company with multi-national interests and although costing many millions of pounds of public money, in the general scheme of things this is a one-off, bespoke “contract” for them and a small-scale one to boot. It is, when all said and done just a conversion of an existing building to them and it is difficult to imagine what details thereof would constitute either “commercially sensitive” information or “trade secrets”. There is not, nor is there likely to be a comparable job in the area that one can foresee and so it seems unlikely that competitors (who have been deliberately excluded from this work) are likely to obtain any unfair competitive advantage from knowing the details of this unique transaction. Indeed, it is in the public interest that competitors DO see the details as they have been deliberately excluded from tendering since they are the persons/companies who may be best able to give an informed opinion on the “agreements”.

It is advanced that the disclosure of commercially sensitive information would mean that the “LEP”, ie SFL, would be likely to refrain from “bidding” for future public sector contracts which would lessen the competition available when public bodies are letting public contracts in the future. This again, is nonsense as rehearsed above. SFL was a single purpose delivery vehicle within the BSF scheme as is clearly stated by the parties themselves in the recitals to the various so-called contracts. It is a curious argument to advance noting that all competition was excluded so that ONLY SFL could bid for this particular project and it is difficult to imagine what contracts SFL would be bidding for as BSF has been cancelled.

As above, these contracts (unlike BSF) do not appear to be “policed” by any third party and so the three parties here have set themselves up as the sole arbiters of what is or what is not commercially confidential/sensitive. The contractual clauses, insofar as they are lawful at all, are too widely drawn for contracts (mostly drafted by their own lawyers) involving public money and two public bodies should not be allowed to determine between themselves what is commercially confidential/sensitive and therefore not disclosable. This is not in the public interest and it is, in law, inequitable.

It is also said that disclosure would impede future discussions and the viability of current proposals and future projects in particular the renovation of The Public and that disclosure would in some unspecified way affect the ability to secure “best value” in the future. As the so-called contracts were signed some three months ago and Interserve are in the building and gutting it, I do not understand these arguments nor, for the reasons outlined above, do I consider they apply on the facts of this highly-unusual  and unique case.

Finally, it is said on behalf of the College that disclosure can be adequately dealt with by transparent College decision-making and reporting and accountability through regular monitoring. I am afraid this is nonsense again since ALL publicly available College Board and Audit minutes have been released with all references to The Public redacted. This, indeed, is now subject to a separate FOI request (from another member of the public).

Noting the substantial delay in dealing with my original request by both SMBC and SC, please conduct an internal review as a matter of urgency.

Mr Darryl Magher

11^th March, 2014

THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG

CONTACT:   thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

TWITTER:    @bcrover

Skidder Shorts - #1 - The Things Lawyers Say!

The things lawyers say! This is the first in an occasional series of short blogs to relieve the diet of all the "heavy" stuff surrounding the SMBC/College deal, the "highly-unusual" Ice Rink deal etc etc.

The following is a direct quote, with only some irrelevant bits omitted, from a submission by a lawyer acting for Sandwell Council. I wonder whether it is indicative of SMBC's general approach to matters.....

"Mr B, the legal advisor to the (SMBC) licensing panel, advised the panel that the effect of the words 'may not be issued' .... was not to impose a prohibition .... Mr B submitted that the words 'may not' should be construed as 'may' ..."

Strangely, a High Court Judge said that this submission was rightly rejected by the lower court!

VERNON GRANT - thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

The Sandwell Skidder - a community blog!

Hussain Hoaxed! Red Faces at The Kremlin?

Ah, the vanity of politicians - especially as an election approaches.....

For those readers unfamiliar with The Socialist State Of Sandwell, "Birchley Island" may conjure images of a verdant sanctuary amid a tumbling stream whereas the reality is a hideous, traffic-clogged roundabout next to Junction 2 of the M5. A picture of the wretched place of torment follows:

Picturesque Birchley Island

Nevertheless, Labour Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) have attempted to polish this particular turd with the liberal use of taxpayers' money. And so in November, 2009 Hussain, one of the so-called deputy leaders of SMBC, announced the start of "major improvements". Even he thought Birchley was a "blight on the Borough" (which is saying something in Sandwell) but SMBC always feel they can "do a deal" with big business and Hussain said he was negotiating a sponsorship deal "with a number of parties". He was suggesting a name change and gasped excitedly, "it could be The AA Island" - presumably named after the motoring organisation rather than a type of battery.

Of course, no sponsorship was forthcoming for this hell-hole and the taxpayer duly stumped-up £450,000 on new lights, flowers, semi-matured trees, ornamental shrubs and gravel paths to give drivers a "more welcoming entrance point to Sandwell". It was claimed that the huge sum - including a ludicrous £30,000 (yes, thirty thousand pounds) "Welcome to Sandwell" sign - had turned the former eyesore into "an urban oasis" - albeit one somewhat disturbed by 92,000 motorists a day. Judge for yourselves:

Urban Oasis

At this point, SMBC had spent the thick-end of half a million quid on this nonsense but Hussain was still claiming that sponsorship talks were continuing.......Needless to say the Express and Star were happy to puff all this - take the headlines, "Island basks in £450,000 improvements" and "Sign of a warm welcome to Sandwell". Unfortunately, some "bask-ards" risked life and limb to cross the road and nick the exotic plants so that SMBC had to invest in something called a "dome hawk camera" (no, I am not making this up!)

Then a casino came on the scene despite SMBC having banned them in Sandwell from 2006. An application from Grosvenor Casinos (Rank) apparently pre-dated the ban and so the lure of filthy lucre proved irresistible to the socialists under the usual cover that it would create jobs (see also the current ice rink scandal). Accordingly, the Planning Committee approved the casino plan with all thoughts of concern about gambling in an area of high deprivation put to one side and Hussain was able to say, "I am really pleased. It is another way we are improving a major gateway to Sandwell." As ever the Express and Star jumped in with the headline, "Oldbury Casino brings jobs joy". 

But oh dear....after a legal challenge a High Court Judge ruled that SMBC should not have granted a gambling licence and they should consider an application to revoke it but the "licensing bosses" decided the licence was valid and should remain in place. All this has cost the taxpayer at least £5,800 in legal fees which SMBC "finance boss", Eling, says he hopes he will "get back" (we wait we bated breath particularly as SMBC seems to have been at fault and therefore not usually entitled to a costs order.......)

In the meantime SMBC have decided to block the casino idea anyway by driving a new road straight through the "urban oasis" including the near half million quid worth of trees, exotic plants etc etc so that the bulk of that money looks to have been totally wasted by Hussain and his Labour colleagues.

If this situation could become anymore farcical, it has today. Step forward jolly Kevin Beresford who shot to fame a while ago with his infamous "Roundabouts of Redditch" calendar which achieved national cult status. He apparently approached SMBC with a view to presenting them with an award from his "UK Roundabout Appreciation Society" and the morons fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Clearly anyone who claimed Birchley was "attractive" with "high quality design and layout" was likely to be either mentally-ill or taking the mickey but so obsessed are SMBC with spinning "good news" no-one seems to have bothered to have a look at cheeky Kev's website - roundaboutsofbritain.com. There they could, for example, have seen Kev's "roundabout jargon" and if you haven't got time to look here are a few:

"Desert Island" - a somewhat uninteresting island with nothing on it.Can be made more interesting if placed in an exotic or unusual location. Thinking about it there is no such thing as an uninteresting roundabout;

"Gyratory Galactico" - a roundabout with the X-Factor:

"The Monty Don" - a roundabout in full bloom;

"Toker" - grass only roundabout!

Someone, presumably in the press office, saw an opportunity for spin, arranged an "award ceremony" and good-old Kev had the chutzpah to turn up and go through with it. Even Hussain felt he had to get in on the act and this is the unbelievable result:

http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/news/article/2889/key_sandwell_gateway_recognised_by_appreciation_society

The spin doctors start, "An attractive gateway traffic island....has been praised by a national body which encourages high-quality roundabouts" and Hussain pronounces himself "pleased" with the "recognition" for the key gateway. He is pictured receiving a calendar from Kev.

Once again, and so swiftly after the ridiculous "dog-shit" campaign, Sandwell Labour have managed to bring the Borough into disrepute and they even seem to be in denial that they have been duped.

A £10 donation to MacMillan for the best "new name" for Birchley Island via thesandwellskidder@gmail.com within next 7 days (result will be announced via @bcrover twitter a/c). To start the ball rolling, how about "Hussain's Folly"?

Special thanks to Kev for his brilliant jape.

THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG

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

Confidential phone - 07599 983737

The Curious Case of Ian Crow

Mr Sherlock Holmes was hunched over his new tablet device, his pale face and aquiline features appearing more ghostly still in the machine's glowing light. He suddenly leapt to his feet and handed the contraption to me.

"I am afraid", said the great detective," that I must away to the city to make enquiries. I fear that our old friend Grant is in grave danger."

"No shit, Sherlock," I ejaculated! "Who would wish harm to that amiable fellow?"

Holmes handed me the electronic gizmo. "Read the twitter feeds, Watson, of @sandwellleader and @crow_ian * and let me have your deductions when I return," he stated as he departed in some haste.

For several hours I stared at the device until my head was spinning.Much of these entries may as well have been written in the tongue of a remote African hill tribe for all I understood them. Who are 'the Baggies,' I wondered? Why is a #ukipper different from a breakfast delicacy? What does 'Boing,Boing' mean? I made a mental note to ask my old-Etonian friend, Cameron, about the definition of 'LoL'.

Holmes returned with a somewhat downcast mien and reached for the syringe case to administer that substance of which I so disapproved. Finally, he requested my views.

"Well Holmes my dear chap, Crow seems a rough fellow of the worst sort. He seems not to be anyone working with those with mental health issues. He has called Grant 'a nutcase', 'nuts', 'a crack pot'. 'totally tapped', 'the nut-job' and even asked if dear old Vernon had been dropped on his head at birth."

"So far, so good," Watson. Pray continue."

"Crow is no lover of the arts. He says it is all a waste of money. He derides a building called The Public - 'nobody cares....they all think it's shit,' is his view. Mind you, Holmes, he seems to have some special knowledge about that place. He asked: 'Does that mean they are knocking it down?' long before a report was produced listing that as a possible option."

"Capital, Watson!" We will make a detective of you yet! But does he have a connection, I wonder, with that august body, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council?"

I paused as our dear landlady, Mrs Hudson, brought in a tray of afternoon tea although the delight of her arrival was somewhat tempered when she announced a 3.8% rent increase for our small but comfortable rooms.

"No," Holmes, "I don't think so. On 6th November last he contacted the Council to report a pot-hole near somewhere called Ikea and they said they would send him a form to complete. Surely he wouldn't waste their time? Mind you, he seems to have become close to this man Cooper - they had quite a chat on this twitter-thing on 11th December."

"Indeed Watson," said my old friend, "something of a masterpiece of its type!"

"He may be of the lower ranks, Holmes, but he reads the local gossip sheets assiduously. Long before the matter came before the Council he followed up a story from this Cooper chap in the local rag - 'Hello is there an ice rink coming somewhere round here' he, er, crowed."

My friend stretched his gaunt limbs and became suddenly animated. "But what, my medical friend, of all this and our friend Grant?"

"Well he has, perhaps, been somewhat mocking in his tone with Crow. That fellow said he was taking his dear lady out and ended his tweet #prat with no brains - directed at Grant - who rather injudiciously replied 'that's no way to talk about your missus'. But surely to talk of danger is going too far?"

Holmes leant forward and began to tell me the outcome of his own enquiries thus far. "There are a number of oddities and discrepancies with our Mr Crow. Let us start with his address. He claims to live in the town of Wednesbury but he does not. I have checked sundry public records including the roll of voters,Watson, and our friend is being untruthful".

"I also deduce, Watson, that Crow must have attended the same - rather poor - school as Mr Cooper. How else can one explain some curious spelling tics common to them both?"

"Oh come now Holmes, where is the evidence for that?"

"Look again Watson at Crow's tweet of 12th November last when he claims to be the victim of what he calls 'personnel attacks' and then three tweets from Cooper of 12th and 13th November -'this is about a personnel attack',' this is a personnel attack' and '...instead of personnel attacks'."

"Illiteracy is unfortunate but common enough, Holmes. It is hardly a crime and certainly not one worthy of your phenomenal forensic skills?"

 Holmes pressed on regardless, "and then there is the word "vile" to be considered. This is a word used by Cooper as both an adjective and a noun."

I laughed incredulously. "A noun?"

"Indeed, Watson, Cooper uses 'the vile' to describe supporters of an association football team called Aston Villa as well as in its normal usage. Crow has used the word in a most aggressive manner towards friend Grant - objecting to his  'vile tone', accusing him of telling 'vile lies' and, of most concern, calling him a 'vile bag of shit'. Foul isn't it?"

Holmes fixed me with a direct stare, "I don't suppose that you believe in coincidences do you Watson?" Before I could reply, he continued. "There is a very often contemporaneity between the tweets of Cooper and Crow."

Here I felt obliged to interject. "I an beginning to understand this twitter business and must agree with you that Crow is not a real person. His account is an obvious blind. But, equally, Cooper cannot be a real person either. No-one in his position could pour forth such a stream of moronic drivel. I mean, look at all this stuff about canine faeces!"

"He is not only real Watson but, incredibly, he IS also the so-called leader of Sandwell MBC," cried my now ashen-faced friend.

Holmes reached for the syringe case again and having indulged himself with a particularly large dosage settled down to tell me more of this fantastic business.

"Crow is what is now popularly known as a troll, Watson. He claims to be an only occasional driver of vehicles and yet my enquiries this morn confirm that the overwhelming number of his tweets were sent via i-pad and i-phone devices. It is my working hypothesis that this fellow could not afford such items."

A light began to shine in the darkness. "I don't suppose," I whispered hoarsely," that this Cooper also sends his tweets by these i-thingies does he?" Another thought dawned, "Ah yes, and I begin to see the danger for Grant......."

Holmes took up his violin. "I am afraid, Watson, that this mysterious business is beyond even my considerable powers. It must remain unsolved and I regret that it will not feature in your famous annals. Let me see if I can put you to sleep."

I stretched myself out on the sofa and Holmes began to bow a strident Germanic air. Several hours later, I awoke as he played, from memory, the final notes of this epic piece.

 "What was that, Holmes, my dear fellow?"

"Gotterdammerung, Watson. Gotterdammerung!"


BLOG POSTSCRIPT 17/04/14

Since posting the above "friend" Crow's twitter account has been closed - e's passed on, e's off the twig! This crow is no more. He has ceased to be!


ALL INFO ABOUT SANDWELL COUNCIL & SANDWELL COLLEGE TO:

E-mail - thesandwellskidder@gmail.com     Twitter - bcrover

Tel: 07599 983737

WEBSITE re Ice Rink nonsense under construction - icestink.gb.net


* Sundry screenshots have been retained in the event that items suddenly "disappear".

Terry Duffy House - A Big Thank You to Labour from Sandwell College?

Sandwell College has taken space in Terry Duffy House which is owned by Labour Party Properties Limited. I am assuming they are paying rent and so what better way of rewarding a party that has put two fingers up to the people and presented them with a second £70M building just a few months after they moved into their own £77M ski-slope?

These greedy sods were aggrieved at the lack of space at the ski-slope and hitched up with Sandwell Council (SMBC), who themselves were upset that the Tory government had cancelled their ruinously expensive Building for Schools scheme with Interserve and Barclays Bank and who were also determined to kill off The Public.

SMBC Labour group were able to use their political power to rush through closure of the Public and then for the so-called "Cabinet" to specifically resolve to suspend the Council's normal contract and procurement procedures so that they could give the contract to Interserve without any tender of competition. (How can they show that this in any way constitutes good value for money? There is NO comparator because they have rigged it that way).

I keep saying that giving multi-million contracts to a single party without anyone else getting a look-in MUST perforce be bent - as simple as that- but the burning question is why is this being done and by whom? (watch this space re the ice rink scandal). If not bent then this must constitute GROSS incompetence.

And so neither the College nor SMBC have made the details of their pathetically-named "Concordat" public even though the Council's Wolverhampton press office, aka The Express and Star, have reported it as such a good deal! The agreement was rushed through just before the Christmas holiday. Mr Darryl Magher has send a detailed Freedom of Information request to both the College and SMBC but at the time of writing, these remain unanswered. Such is the contempt with which SMBC are treating it that they have dropped it on some underling in the Museums Department to answer and he has requested "more time" to reply - fortunately refused by Mr Magher.

The College have failed to put the last TWO sets of Board minutes on their website. They are a public body but are also keeping everything secret.

Although The Public was paid for with taxpayers money and designed by an internationally-known architect, no plans for the new "Central Shit", with its "modular classrooms etc", have been made available to the people. Interserve are currently smashing-up the interior behind blanked-out windows. So-much for open democracy.

And so this tawdry affair continues with the College lining the pockets of the Labour Party that is looking after them so well! HOWZAT!

Oh, and by the way - those great socialists at Labour Party Properties Limited have paid no corporation tax on their property empire for the last EIGHT years.........

As usual, the SMBC Labour-friendly media have ignored these issues apart from vomiting out the odd press release. Compare and contrast this with the acres of space given to SMBC "leader" Pooper S-Cooper's moronic dog sh*t gimmick.

INFO WELCOME ON SMBC AND SANDWELL COLLEGE TO:

E-MAIL - thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

TWITTER @bcrover

NOTE

There was some confusion yesterday about the ownership of Terry Duffy House. The Land Registry showed only one "exact match" for the address and postcode of  TD House but this turned out to be a property owned by SMBC and which I think has been leased for 10 years to the African Caribbean Resource Centre. I have now established that Labour Party Properties Limited bought TD House from Unite on 23rd December, 2009 and it is registered at the Land Registry under title number WM742064.

FOI Request - Terry Duffy House - Councillor Mick Davies

NOTE - THIS POST CONTAINS SOME INACCURATE INFORMATION IN THAT IT HAS NOW BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT TERRY DUFFY HOUSE IS, IN FACT, OWNED BY LABOUR PARTY PROPERTIES LIMITED - PLEASE NOW SEE MY POST OF 8TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

Sandwell Councillor Mick Davies has struck a blow against the secret state of Sandwell with the following Freedom of Information Act request which he made by e-mail yesterday, 05/02/14:

To Whom it May Concern..

Re: Terry Duffy House,1 Thomas Street, West Bromwich.

I would ask that the following be treated as an FOI request.

1. Can you confirm that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council are the owners of the said property?
2. Can you confirm the name of the lessees granted a 10 year lease on 17.6.2013.?
3. Can you confirm the annual rental of this property?
4. Can you confirm that this amount is in line with the current market value?
5. Can you furnish me with a copy of the terms within the lease relating to sub-letting?
6. Can you confirm that a sub lease has been granted with the sub-lessees being Sandwell College?
7. Can you confirm when this sub-lease was dated?
8. Can you confirm the annual rent associated with this sub-lease?
9. Can you confirm to whom the sub-lease rent us paid to?.

Thanking you in anticipation of a positive response. (End)

I too have raised some questions via Twitter. There is a document in the public domain which states that in June 2011 the property was under the control of Labour Party Properties Limited but that the basement, ground and first floors were unoccupied. I am not sure whether the Labour Party had to pay business rates for these empty parts (?)

What happened between June, 2011 and the grant of a new lease in 2013 (I cannot find anything on the Sandwell Council website about the grant of a new lease)? IF Labour took the new lease why would they do that if the building was half-empty unless either they were getting it so cheaply or they had already done a secret deal to sub-let to Sandwell College? Or perhaps a secret deal has been done for a lease to Sandwell College and THEY are sub-letting to Labour and the unions?

One of the principal reasons given by SMBC for the current destruction of The Public (even though SMBC are NOT responsible for funding the College) is that the College needed extra space and so the voter/taxpayer is entitled to know what space the College has taken in Terry Duffy House and the terms.

I expect that Cllr Davies will be subjected to the usual bully-boy tactics from some quarters but I congratulate him on his brave action.

ALL INFO PLEASE ABOUT SANDWELL COUNCIL & SANDWELL COLLEGE TO:

E-MAIL - thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

TWITTER - @bcrover

More PFI Nonsense from Sandwell's "Socialists".

In an earlier post I blogged about the grotesque amount of money being spent by  Labour Sandwell Council (SMBC) with Interserve, Barclays Bank and related companies and this post deals with an earlier scheme for five schools. Whilst not (apparently) on the same scale as the Sandwell Futures/Interserve scandal it must be noted that these payments MUST be made by SMBC as a matter of law for the next 20 to 30 YEARS. They come straight out of the annual budget regardless of anything else and leave less in the pot for vital frontline services. The only difference is that Sandwell's alleged "socialists" CAN cut frontline services but they can't cut these massive PFI payments.

In 2003 SMBC entered into a PFI deal to "design, build,finance and operate five replacement schools". All this was long before SMBC were forced to show payments made each month over £500 and so I cannot tell you the multi-million pound cost of the construction etc. It also seems that this earlier scheme was different from the Interserve nonsense in that I have not been able to trace any direct involvement in the scheme by SMBC (whereas they have a shareholding in the crap Interserve PFI via Sandwell Futures Limited).

It seems that ALL the payments going out from this scheme are to just one company - Total School Solutions (Sandwell) Limited. It is possible that there are some payments under £500 too but from the publicly-available figures SMBC paid them:

12 months Apr 2012 - Mar 2013 - just £2,086,573.97p (over £400,000 per school per annum);

9 months Apr 2013 - Dec 2013 - just £1,389,149.32.

There is a curious thing here in that the payments follow odd patterns - some months there are payments and none in others. There were no payments at all from the beginning of December 2012 until May, 2013. I have no idea why that should be and don't expect SMBC to tell the taxpayer but it seems a very odd arrangement. Further, the accounting year for Total Schools also now ends - like the Council's - on 31st March. The last available accounts to 31st March, 2013 show "sales" ie turnover of only £1,285,00 whereas you will see from the above that SMBC definitely paid them over £2 million. (I have the exact dates and they are on the website for all to see).

As with all this PFI nonsense there is a whole web of companies moving money about - presumably to avoid paying any tax. These are just some of the companies involved in this rubbish:

1.  The original Total School Solutions (Sandwell) Limited was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Total School Solutions (Sandwell) Holdings Limited (see below) which was a joint venture between Vinci (Holdings) Limited (a subsidiary of Vinci Plc) and PF Schools (Sandwell) Limited (a subsidiary of Pell Frischmann Group Limited.

2.  It does appear that even the companies involved occasionally get confused since the accounts of TSS (Sandwell) Ltd say that Vinci (Holdings) Limited sold out its shareholding in 2007 whereas SMBC refer to the seller as Vinci Investments Limited. The sale was said to be to SMIF UK Limited (acting as the General Partner of Secondary Market Infrastructure Fund UK LP).

3.  But what is this? Despite what is said in 1 above the 2013 TSS Holdings accounts say the original parties were the aforementioned PF Schools (Sandwell) Limited but not Vinci - a new company pops up - Norwich Infrastructure 4 Limited. This may be an error since it seems that Vinci were the original construction company and Norwich came in later.

4.  There is an hilarious document from 2007 when Vinci Investments Limited wanted to sell out. They thought they needed SMBC's consent but SMBC thought they didn't but gave it anyway! Needless to say that in the secret state of Sandwell the document is heavily redacted so that the voter cannot see what is happening! As above, it appears that the sale was to SMIF UK Limited but another company Semperian PPP Investment Partners No 2 Limited also comes into the reckoning but they sold out in 2013 to the aforementioned Norwich Infrastructure which itself is owned jointly by Foresight VCT Plc and Foresight2 VCT Plc.

I am not an accountant and when I first saw the accounts of TSS (Sandwell) Limited my heart leapt! All that money SMBC was paying them gave rise to taxation of £88,000 but oh dear, the Notes to the accounts refer to this as "deferred taxation" and by happy chance this was reduced for the last year to,er, ZERO by utilisation of losses,"other tax adjustments" etc.

A Short Quiz

In this smoke and mirrors world, TSS (Sandwell) Holdings Limited is purely a vehicle for collecting interest payments and income from fixed assets. In the last two financial years the interest receivable was £306,000 and £231,000. Now guess how much disappeared in "Interest payable and similar charges"? Go on, have a go? No prizes, I am afraid if you guessed, er, £306,000 and £231,000! Nevertheless, due to the other income there was a potential corporation tax charge of £30,000 but, of course, this is offset by the "effects of group income". Now guess the actual tax payable? Yes, you got it - ZERO!

Incidentally, I believe that Semperian referred to above are registered in Jersey.

As I write, the joke "leader" of SMBC, Cooper, has been on TV talking about dog shit. Apparently SMBC issued 80 x £75 dog shit fines last year (although he didn't say how many were actually PAID). He can go on tele to boast about potential income of £6,000 when pouring multi-million pound sums into these horrendous PFI deals!

I don't know what it is but to quote "Mr Leigh Gull", "socialism it ain't".

And finally, if you still do not feel that SMBC have thoroughly shafted you, the original name of Total School Solutions (Sandwell) Holdings Limited was, I kid you not, PEOPLEUPPER LIMITED!



ALL INFO ABOUT SANDWELL COUNCIL AND SANDWELL COLLEGE PLEASE TO:

E-MAIL - thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

TWITTER - @bcrover