Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
9 September 2024
I’ve often said that things at Hughenden Parish Council mirror national politics.
This morning the findings of an anti-corruption charity called Transparency International UK were reported by the BBC and the press. The charity uncovered corruption “red flags” in Government Covid contracts worth more than £15 billion. It warned that systemic bias, opaque accounting and uncontrolled pricing resulted in a vast waste of public funds.
Almost two thirds of high-value contracts, adding up to a total of £30.7bn, were awarded without any competition.
And I thought – yes, that’s Hughenden Parish Council.
Because Hughenden Parish Council is being asked at its meeting tomorrow to approve 6 contracts worth a total of more £54k without competition and with “systemic bias, opaque accounting and uncontrolled pricing”. I leave it to you to decide whether there are any corruption “red flags” i.e. warning signs of a risk of corruption.
The law and HPC’s Financial Regulations require councillors and officers to obtain value for money at all times. It is, after all, taxpayers' money i.e. your money which the Council is spending.
So, for large contracts (generally over £25- 30k), Council has to go out to public tender. For medium contracts (in the order of £3-£25k), the Clerk has to seek at least three fixed price contracts. For smaller contracts, (in the order of £1-£3k), the Clerk has to try to obtain three estimates (which might include evidence of online prices or recent prices from regular suppliers).
These requirements can be waived but the reason has to be set out in a recommendation to Council. Avoidance of competition is not a valid reason.
Council meeting on 10 September
Tomorrow, Council is to be asked to approve 5 separate contracts totalling £54k. In each case, only one quote or estimate is provided without any explanation, in breach of HPC's Financial Regulations.
In each case, Council will be unable to ensure value for money from these contracts.
And in each case, I predict Council will approve the contract.
Tomorrow, Council will also be asked to approve the provision of a Responsible Financial Officer for an indefinite period from LGRC, the company that employs the locum Clerk. No alternative quotes are provided and no explanation for this given.
Council will be unable to ensure value for money from this contract.
Previously, the locum Clerk has not recognised the direct conflict of interest he has in being involved with contracts with LGRC.
I predict that Council will approve this contract.
Tomorrow, there is no item about the procurement of the playgrounds – contracts for about £130k. Council is simply allowing others to take decisions, without any authority to do so, and abjugating any responsibility for the tender and the tender process.
My previous blog of 18 August sets out what happened on the procurement of a playground for Templewood up to the Extraordinary meeting of Council on 6 August. When I wrote my blog, I did not know the outcome of that meeting. This procurement is for about £50k.
At the meeting on 6 August, Council approved the preferred bidder, a company called Proludic. It delegated agreement on the final details of the contract to the Playground Working Group (which is unlawful as Council cannot delegate to a Working Group). The final “details” turned out to be substantial changes to the design of the playground and the cost.
The minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting also say:-
“It was noted that the council commended the Templewood Playground process and the Great Kingshill should follow a similar process”
I don’t know what this means.
However, in the absence of any item on tomorrow’s agenda and in the absence of any information to Council, I assume Council is again allowing others to take decisions without any authority to do so, this time on the tender for the Great Kingshill playground. It is abjugating any responsibility for the tender specification and the tender process for a contract for about £80k.
Again, Council cannot be fulfilling its statutory duty to ensure value for money.
I predict nothing will be said about playgrounds at the meeting tomorrow. If I raise it, I will be told there is no agenda item.
As I say, this is your money (and mine).
The 6 proposed contracts in more detail.
1. Work at the Garden of Rest
A company called Spruced- Up Ltd, which already has a contract with HPC for general maintenance of HPC’s land, provided a quote for work at the Garden of Rest - work that was outside their existing contract.
The quote went to the Extraordinary Council meeting on 6 August. Council had concerns about the value of the quote and resolved “to obtain two additional quotes for the work to be carried out and to explore the possibility of any discounts on the quote issued by Spruced Up.”
But tomorrow, over a month later, Council still has only the one quote with no explanation for the lack of alternative quotes. That quote is the original quote from Spruced Up that went to Council in August.
The work is not complicated. It involves removing shrubs in some of the beds and replanting some of them, preparing a rose bed, removing a number of conifers and chipping them, stump grinding, and re-instating areas.
As the papers are not confidential, I can tell you that the quote from Spruced - Up is for a total of £11,400 plus VAT.
Out of curiosity, I looked up contractors online and found half a dozen who could have been approached to give a quote.
The agenda says “to consider the recommendations from the E&S Committee on 3 September” but there is no recommendation.
There is no way Council can ensure value for money with only one quote.
2. Winter Plan for Little Burnham and Spinney, and for Vincent Meadow and Pond.
These are proposals for a contract with Chiltern Rangers for £23,415, with some items still to be costed and presumably plus VAT.
There are no alternative quotes and no explanation as to why there is only one quote.
I have to say I am totally baffled about this proposed contract.
In July last year, Council approved a contract with a consultant to develop three site management plans for Burnham Meadow and Spinney, Vincent Meadow and Pond, and Cockshoot Wood.
Council paid over £8k for these draft plans.
However only one site management plan has been presented to Council. This was for Vincent Meadow and Pond. Council approved the plan but said that no further action should be done until the recommendations were fully costed. That was in January.
All three draft plans were put on HPC’s website for comment. But there has been no feedback on the consultation and none of the plans have been presented or re-presented to Council for approval.
In addition, Council paid £3,500 to Chiltern Rangers, without seeking alternative bids, for a management plan for Cockpit Hole and for carrying out work there. It approved another £1800, without seeking alternative bids, for Chiltern Rangers for further work at Cockpit Hole and at the Old Allotments in Great Kingshill, including for supervising planting bulbs.
So, I have no idea how the “winter plans” for the two sites relate to the draft management plans or what is happening to these plans.
Moreover, I am totally baffled by the items in the winter plans which look like a list made on the back of a fag packet.
One item for Little Burnham is “squirrel feeder and bait” for £250. I assume “bait” means poison but how is one feeder with poison going to tackle a squirrel problem at Little Burnham?
And what does “deer management” for £800 mean?
The biggest item for Little Burnham is for £8000 for 10 days of 2 staff from Chiltern Rangers with 10-12 volunteers. But is does not say what they would be doing. There is a separate charge for £1800 for “project management”.
I am similarly baffled about items for Vincent Meadow with an uncosted item for fencing, and £850 for a digger and operative. The quote does not say what for.
Again, the agenda says “to consider the recommendations from the E&S Committee on 3 September” but there is no recommendation.
And once again, there is no way Council can ensure value for money.
3. Contract with LGRC to provide services of an RFO
This is a proposal from the LGRC for it to provide the services of a Responsible Financial Officer on a temporary basis until HPC can appoint a permanent Clerk to carry out this role.
Council is asked to approve this proposal on the recommendation of the Finance Committee. The last meeting of the Finance Committee was on 27 August.
(I think this meeting was inquorate and any recommendations was invalid. But let’s put this to one side for the moment.)
The provision of the services of an RFO wasn’t on the agenda of the Finance Committee on 27 August. Nor is any such proposal in the supporting papers for the Committee.
So how can the Finance Committee have recommended these proposals?
Where did this proposal come from and who put it on the agenda?
As the supporting paper is not confidential, I can tell you that LGRC are offering the services of two people working together on a part-time basis. Their hourly rate is £50.67 for one person and £60 for the other. There is an additional 10% charge for Employer’s National Insurance plus expenses of travel at 45p/mile and any accommodation required.
HPC’s locum Clerk, Mr Truppin, is employed by the LGRC. The person LGRC propose to offer as the RFO is Louise Steele, a director of LGRC, and presumably Mr Truppin’s employer.
Again, there is no alternative quote and no explanation as to why not.
Again, out of curiosity, I checked online. There is at least one other organization offering locums for parish councils. Its website says:-
“Your council is invoiced for the number of hours worked at the agreed hourly rate, enabling the council and locum to comply with HMRC off-payroll rules. The rate charged is inclusive of Employers National Insurance, our payroll and handling costs and a payment for annual leave, making the locum process easy for you to manage.
…………….costs range from £25 per hour upwards (an all-inclusive charge). …”
Without an alternative quote, it is impossible for Council to fulfill its statutory duty to ensure value for money.
4. Request from Cllr Jones to purchase an “additional Solar NVAS”
There is no explanation as to why an additional Solar NVAS is needed (or even what an NVAS is).
And once again, there is only one quote, without any explanation. As the quote is not confidential, I can tell you it is for £2808 including VAT from a company called ElanCity.
Again, I checked online. I don’t pretend to understand the technical specifications but there are a lot of companies out there selling solar powered radar speed signs.
Again Council has no way to ensure value for money.
5. Replacement streetlight columns
Again, I am totally baffled as this is one contract that does not need to go to Council.
In July, Council decided which columns should be replaced and delegated the decision to approve a quote to the locum Clerk in consultation with Cllrs Jones, Thomas and myself.
I asked Mr Truppin over the past 2 months what progress was being made with obtaining quotes. He asked if I could suggest some companies he could try and I suggested half a dozen including Sparkx, the company which carried out a survey of the lights in 2021 and has done work for HPC since.
So I was surprised to see this item on the agenda at all and surprised to see that, yet again, there was only one quote, with no explanation.
I have asked for the item to be taken off the agenda and for it to be taken forward in the way that Council decided. I have also asked why there is only one quote and if Sparkx was asked to quote.
No response.
The quote is confidential so I cannot give you the details. I can only say it is very considerably more than the unit prices Sparkx provided 18 months ago. The budget for replacing the columns of £10,000 would not cover the replacement of 3 columns
Again, Council cannot ensure value for money without alternative quotes.
6. Replacement of Office Printer
The details on this are in confidential papers. But again there is only one quote from a company, without any explanation. We are talking here of about £4000 over 5 years.
And the Council has no way of ensuring value for money.
So, there you have it. Two procurements for playgrounds worth £130k and nothing on tomorrow’s agenda – Council just abjugating responsibility to others who have no authority to take decisions.
And six proposed contracts totalling over £54,000 and none with an alternative quote or estimate and none with an explanation.
And no way of ensuring value for money for any of them.
It’s a flagrant disregard by Hughenden Parish Council of the law and its Financial Regulations in its procurements – and a waste of your money.
Not to mention a lack of professionalism and competence.
Comments