tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38675475515128874542024-03-16T01:11:13.764+00:00Mr ReasonableStanding up for common sense in New BarnetMr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.comBlogger637125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-1780467429327993552023-07-18T12:41:00.002+01:002023-07-18T13:50:53.712+01:00How covid victims' families are being ignored by Baroness Hallett and how people with disabilities were failed during the pandemic<p>I haven't blogged for a while as I have been a bit unwell but I received an email yesterday from someone in Barnet who I admire immensely and I feel compelled to pass on his story. </p><p>John & Ida Sullivan had a daughter, Susan, who I met on a number of occasions at various campaigns and marches about the Barnet Council under the previous Conservative regime. Susan, who had Downs syndrome, was a very lively and cheerful person. I didn't know until I listened to the podcasts, just what a talent Susan had as a swimmer, winning numerous medals at the Special Olympics. Sadly she caught covid at the very start of lockdown in March 2020 and died shortly after. What is shocking are the details John reveals in two podcasts:</p><p><span face=""Calibri",sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span color="windowtext" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><a href="https://goingviralthepod.libsyn.com/the-dancing-queen">https://goingviralthepod.libsyn.com/the-dancing-queen</a></span></span></p><p><a href="https://sites.libsyn.com/123829/who-do-we-not-save">https://goingviralthepod.libsyn.com/who-do-we-not-save</a></p><p>What I learned from these podcasts is how people with disabilities were treated differently and inhumanely during covid, how hospitals ignored the knowledge, experience and wishes of carers. According to <a href="https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/6-out-of-10-people-who-have-died-from-covid-19-are-disabled" target="_blank">research</a> 6 out of 10 people who died from covid were disabled. John and his family discovered that because Susan had Downs syndrome and a pacemaker she was denied access to the ITU at Barnet General and deemed "not for resuscitation" even though her family had asked for her to be resuscitated and until covid she had been in excellent health.</p><p>John wants to give his evidence of how Susan was unjustly treated to the Covid Inquiry chaired by Baroness Hallett but sadly he will not be able to do so but instead a large amount of personal evidence will be 'amalgamated' by a research company into <a href="https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/every-story-matters/" target="_blank">'Every Story Matters'</a> where <i>"stories will be collated, analysed and turned into themed reports, which will be submitted into each relevant investigation as evidence. The reports will be anonymised"</i>. John doesn't want Susan's story amalgamated and anonymised. All Baroness Hallett was asked to do by the legal team for the
bereaved families, was to hear the witness statement of just 20 families, and she
refused. Making time for those 20 families seems entirely reasonable and fair in an inquiry where public hearings are scheduled to concluded Summer 2026. Surely there must be room to hear those 20 families in such a lengthy timetable.</p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></p><p>At one point in the podcast John says "The only voice my daughter has got is me. I will, to my dying breath, fight to give Susan that voice, and all the other Susans, at the Inquiry."</p><p>I hope that Baroness Hallett thinks again and allows the victims' families to give their experience to the Covid Inquiry in person so that the real story of how so many disable people died during covid can be heard and lessons learned.</p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-8857763324821770722023-04-05T16:52:00.000+01:002023-04-05T16:52:00.425+01:00Latest spending figures from Barnet and a 'blast from the past'<p> Latest supplier payments are out and as the Capita Re contract draws to an end we see how much we are still paying Capita. In February we paid them £2.77 million on the CSG contracts and £503k on the Re contract. That brings the total to date to £641 million and we still have some payments to go. The Re contract has just ended so hopefully we will see the final payments at the end of the month when they are published. Barnet have extended the contract for a number of elements for the CSG contract so we will have a further three years of payments on that contract.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiShsZQWmt905D_XOyjPkt6UnGNs5MJcH_OdogI22OwtqLmceYgWojHH8f1eWr0_P6QTkUGO7tIfYc3VIgMVFr8e0g-S7cvZwD0K1kjVvXx4D7NnguR5vkyHQZ-dBZJ2rU1XNNbfOa6f2WQOW17DSfCIvWy7VEKx0lbqlYcOXuNi45fqKWnbPB_Z4bn" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="1362" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiShsZQWmt905D_XOyjPkt6UnGNs5MJcH_OdogI22OwtqLmceYgWojHH8f1eWr0_P6QTkUGO7tIfYc3VIgMVFr8e0g-S7cvZwD0K1kjVvXx4D7NnguR5vkyHQZ-dBZJ2rU1XNNbfOa6f2WQOW17DSfCIvWy7VEKx0lbqlYcOXuNi45fqKWnbPB_Z4bn=w667-h219" width="667" /></a></div><br />The spend on agency staff remains high and with one more month to go before year end it looks like we have already exceeded last year's spend at more than £17.3 million and are on course to hit the highest level since the peak in 2016/17. I hope someone is keeping a very close eye on this spend.<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjcyP3cOZTKIzmIObjqNT84a1JUT46LWFb8Yda7UZvhtN5EKO0bWfjGGJM9F2qvYQHppP6oknQhfOovTXrhlwXMNpdIayzwD_vI-YsPSypJqMtjWi6VR_V3c9NJv0yVbyhypIKWKCt_Tfx-Rl9sKvzsqhPG9W_dWYeK1h8w37FmgjE0JskpuJEt1AUY" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="841" data-original-width="930" height="504" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjcyP3cOZTKIzmIObjqNT84a1JUT46LWFb8Yda7UZvhtN5EKO0bWfjGGJM9F2qvYQHppP6oknQhfOovTXrhlwXMNpdIayzwD_vI-YsPSypJqMtjWi6VR_V3c9NJv0yVbyhypIKWKCt_Tfx-Rl9sKvzsqhPG9W_dWYeK1h8w37FmgjE0JskpuJEt1AUY=w556-h504" width="556" /></a></div><br />I was also interested to see a name I recognised from some while ago. Impower Consulting are, I believe, the same company that, alongside Agilisys, previously provided advice to Barnet on the mass outsourcing of services back in 2012 for the Capita contracts. They are definitely the same company who, in 2015, helped outsource the education services including school meals. Sadly the school meals ended up being sub-contracted out to another company so that the Council had no direct contractual relationship with the school meals provider and the education services contract was handed back to Barnet as soon as Covid hit in 2020, three years ahead of the planned contract expiry date. You can read about it <a href="https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/18541599.barnet-schools-contract-end-early-due-covid-19/">here</a>. This year to date we have paid Impower £133,692.96, a not inconsiderable sum. I hope it represents genuine value for money.<p></p><p>We have also spent £110,528 with a company called Peoplescout, a 'talent solutions' company which I think means recruitment. With all of the Re contract being brought back in house I suspect the cost of recruitment companies will be higher than normal but is something I will keep an eye on.</p><p>Finally is Brent Cross, where so far this financial year Barnet have spent £50.6 million. This follows on from £77.1 million spent in 2021/22, £70.8 million in 2020/21 and £45.5 million in 2019/20. I hope that all this expenditure is going to be worth it in the end.</p><p>I continue to keep an eye on Barnet's spending.<br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p></p><p><br /></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-70039028762324522772023-03-02T09:09:00.006+00:002023-03-02T09:09:44.878+00:00Latest Capita Spending<p> Latest spending figures are out and the Capita contract continues to cost us a fortune. In January Capita billed an additional £3.2m on the CSG contract and £620k on the Re contract. The latest running total is £638 million.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjbDAHSd9Dq1HxO1fvGQ9dUjb56Q8QHqlE7axkGWYvIX9k7-8jodnMbINsGxG7Sq3OAdXjEyd2Xsgpb1dwazYxRJ7UdpsiRCC5kQyVnkX8Zl65qvb-M2KdlTB0cHypvHu2fBzSQotym2udLynoburRg_58NLrH84oo9AAO8rx6oAtvStiG2Hw6fw_sf" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="1362" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjbDAHSd9Dq1HxO1fvGQ9dUjb56Q8QHqlE7axkGWYvIX9k7-8jodnMbINsGxG7Sq3OAdXjEyd2Xsgpb1dwazYxRJ7UdpsiRCC5kQyVnkX8Zl65qvb-M2KdlTB0cHypvHu2fBzSQotym2udLynoburRg_58NLrH84oo9AAO8rx6oAtvStiG2Hw6fw_sf=w664-h218" width="664" /></a></div><br />The spend on agency staff continues at a worryingly high level and looks like it will hit £18.7 million by the financial year end (31 March).<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFABv7rLm1YFbM4JHTLsef0UlAgq12IJpKYoVBG1B27DDifykuR2LGysijXWKNc3taOxQxsXsTZpjRrGFUvyL3fSo0mHxrHhtDk8jd0IOA78iu8dO2e5nMCsh52pelUQOK5RT2cZMe12GWG-smIfGNquZ6NbTtE4v10xN3x0U9u1YDRf4S7dV43Ad_" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="841" data-original-width="929" height="466" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhFABv7rLm1YFbM4JHTLsef0UlAgq12IJpKYoVBG1B27DDifykuR2LGysijXWKNc3taOxQxsXsTZpjRrGFUvyL3fSo0mHxrHhtDk8jd0IOA78iu8dO2e5nMCsh52pelUQOK5RT2cZMe12GWG-smIfGNquZ6NbTtE4v10xN3x0U9u1YDRf4S7dV43Ad_=w547-h466" width="547" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-90147054418824961942023-02-13T13:13:00.002+00:002023-02-13T13:13:27.734+00:00Capita continuing to disappoint in the death throes of the Re Contract<p> Apologies for not having posted a blog for a couple of months but I am still monitoring Barnet and the Capita contracts.</p><p>The latest spending figures show that Barnet have now paid Capita £634 million which is £273 million more than the contracted value even though some services included in the contract value have already been brought back in house such as Finance.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCDIxXsaan6LuZWUGffQvFp3cCoGyqtP5iNjoo0KL82QIJxv-nBEHsCvt-uoLLhsipkk6nKhYjB2TyFi0pq1-kuUkw7NziF_4nsvWfibGDx4YVtfHWNu5-b9w_f1-dhmIbHqHaoAxO_JkGE29IWFA4b2mS9mg-ZjEoGi7jJ7q9wceFiL1v6bdAjZjm" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="1362" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCDIxXsaan6LuZWUGffQvFp3cCoGyqtP5iNjoo0KL82QIJxv-nBEHsCvt-uoLLhsipkk6nKhYjB2TyFi0pq1-kuUkw7NziF_4nsvWfibGDx4YVtfHWNu5-b9w_f1-dhmIbHqHaoAxO_JkGE29IWFA4b2mS9mg-ZjEoGi7jJ7q9wceFiL1v6bdAjZjm=w637-h209" width="637" /></a></div><br />I watched the Audit committee in January where Capita were requested to attend to talk about their performance. You can watch the Audit Committee meeting <a href="https://aisapps.sonicfoundry.com/AuditelScheduler/Player/Index/?id=2329a97b-5ee9-40b6-ad39-aef3cce9a3b6&presID=b142792e21954335a5579e2a62fb46ef1d" target="_blank">here</a> and the part where the director from Capita participates starts at 27 minutes 20 seconds into the meeting. What is most disturbing is that now the contract for Re is coming back in house at the end of March Capita seemed to have given up on rectifying problems that already existed. Performance failure and the inability to meet deadlines was repeatedly raised. At 41mins 14secs, one of the independent members of the Audit Committee does some plain speaking about Capita's performance which has been poor and is definitely worth watching.<p></p><p>While the Capita Re contract will come back in house on 1st April there are still significant elements of the Capita CSG contract will continue to be operated by Capita for another three years and that fills me with serious concerns. Barnet is a case study in how not to outsource services, with overly complex contracts and weak monitoring. I will keep watching Capita's performance.</p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-81439689103695289142022-11-28T11:07:00.005+00:002022-11-30T14:46:18.703+00:00Looking back almost twelve years - the pledge I made that was never accepted<p> I was going through Barnet's supplier payments for October 2022 (£71.7 million) and I cast my mind back to January 2011. At that time the council implemented something called Pledgebank where residents could pledge to carry out some activity on behalf of the council/community. My pledge was as follows:</p><p><b style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;">“I will pledge to give up 4 hours of my time every month to scrutinise and challenge all invoices over £10,000 to help the Council reduce unnecessary spending so long as five other people will make a similar time commitment to sit on the panel and that Barnet Council will genuinely participate in the process and listen to the advice and opinions given.”</b></p><p>Strangely, the council never took me up on my pledge although, rather than decline it, they left it hanging, "undecided" as they put it. You can read about it <a href="https://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/12/barnet-council-indecisive-or.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>Why I raise it now is that when costs are so tight and we potentially face serious cuts to services due to the impact of the crazy mini budget of 23 September, every penny spent must be carefully watched and if necessary challenged.</p><p>This month, excluding redacted payment, we paid 1,021 suppliers £69.27 million. The top 20 suppliers were paid £48.83 million or 70.5% of the total spent. Looking at individual payments there were a total of 14,811 of which 521 were for £10,000 or more, around 3.5% of the total invoices. Excluding payments to statutory authorities, that number falls further. Maybe now is the time to revisit that pledge?</p><p>Barnet also spent just over £2 million on agency staff in October which brings the year end forecast to £18.2 million, up on last year and set to be close to the peak year of 2016/17.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibwFfNnjLceA7_AMveLXvYfDxKgmwAa42x2Zi9fnozem1h__4_ArDwNf3jb1gGo5XElJJe-Cs6fCKsRjipP-ceaNybmyYxd-0JcFx1NPDpCaTyrui8vFOzeb_EdpInzu9dJKoQsrn0pijn7ofrkI4Jjh-uNTohRqnjQbzqn7tsKFuyq2UYSpedQi5-" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="841" data-original-width="930" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibwFfNnjLceA7_AMveLXvYfDxKgmwAa42x2Zi9fnozem1h__4_ArDwNf3jb1gGo5XElJJe-Cs6fCKsRjipP-ceaNybmyYxd-0JcFx1NPDpCaTyrui8vFOzeb_EdpInzu9dJKoQsrn0pijn7ofrkI4Jjh-uNTohRqnjQbzqn7tsKFuyq2UYSpedQi5-=w532-h428" width="532" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>And just to update you on Capita, the running total is now £622.74 million. Scrutiny is more important than ever.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjRyVEZ7PeTGRaZwIhJqwXHvpEhl4L57CIiZ69__GqUQuFpL0m191k-Zpah0APtXOEyJdX9g6tH6Is-inJ8Bbbh3QC_O21Ttt42Z0qlEVPZwFE6auFxlURCMMq3pVXdytsHdyr_gTvUJLq9E2FBkaMs6rmIjyQEIZ1yFzcr1vO70POb51GuLuS3TEQW" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="1362" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjRyVEZ7PeTGRaZwIhJqwXHvpEhl4L57CIiZ69__GqUQuFpL0m191k-Zpah0APtXOEyJdX9g6tH6Is-inJ8Bbbh3QC_O21Ttt42Z0qlEVPZwFE6auFxlURCMMq3pVXdytsHdyr_gTvUJLq9E2FBkaMs6rmIjyQEIZ1yFzcr1vO70POb51GuLuS3TEQW=w625-h204" width="625" /></a></div><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-85922568479899289182022-11-09T10:00:00.000+00:002022-11-09T10:00:03.855+00:00Capita still costing us a fortune<p> I was a bit worried that the supplier payments still had not been published for September 2022 so I dropped a quick email to Barnet yesterday. Almost by return, they came back saying thanks for pointing it out but they had been published the figures somewhere else on the website by error and that had now been corrected. Since the finance function has come back in house they have always been helpful and very responsive.</p><p>What the figures do reveal is the bill for Capita continues to mount even though the end of the contract is in sight. In September we were billed £5.13 million on the Capita Re contract and £3.39 million on the Capita CSG contract, both chunky numbers.</p><p>The running total since the start of the contract is now £618.61 million, £257.73 million more than the contracted value.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgpK9VvWbOV7L84Wl3ieCaGtcbP68gr0JdfvcOgOhAnqqGXWU2RBKqEV2Fgjr-wbtGTZHHxdV1uxOAVywbs_Rf0roegtYVTBrqEbtfCtnGcnQvprctc0abEw9qTfg-emGmqJDJoYTRLKV5vZlFwcETmHOLI7cLEL78nZl8WfKEo6JFg17UhZ97DWmg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="1362" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjgpK9VvWbOV7L84Wl3ieCaGtcbP68gr0JdfvcOgOhAnqqGXWU2RBKqEV2Fgjr-wbtGTZHHxdV1uxOAVywbs_Rf0roegtYVTBrqEbtfCtnGcnQvprctc0abEw9qTfg-emGmqJDJoYTRLKV5vZlFwcETmHOLI7cLEL78nZl8WfKEo6JFg17UhZ97DWmg=w660-h216" width="660" /></a></div><br />It is also important to remember that the contracted value includes the cost for services that have already been brought back in house such as finance so the true cost is even higher.<p></p><p>Other noticeable costs include the running total for agency staff at £8.5 million with a forecast year end cost of £17.1 million.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiB-5sfNm4x8x1MLOuuy2643EVUBKFSNPEpCTWFRVNXyc6VnEVJRZ4Xye2jO8fZdSogiO3D2i_YABaHi08hA-d25K8uPcWAMCziDbKxgvKrcD0TiEnzVipgXo24jeGxXYkN5mzlk7gyfXQmO9SCHmNNcox_YktQ_YGxOBp1U476Bo5YL-FIqnsspPsy" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="841" data-original-width="929" height="457" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiB-5sfNm4x8x1MLOuuy2643EVUBKFSNPEpCTWFRVNXyc6VnEVJRZ4Xye2jO8fZdSogiO3D2i_YABaHi08hA-d25K8uPcWAMCziDbKxgvKrcD0TiEnzVipgXo24jeGxXYkN5mzlk7gyfXQmO9SCHmNNcox_YktQ_YGxOBp1U476Bo5YL-FIqnsspPsy=w504-h457" width="504" /></a></div><p>It is also worth noting that, in the first six months of this year, Barnet have paid out £28.57 million on the Brent Cross project. I remain concerned at the level of risk Barnet is exposed to on this massive redevelopment project.</p><p>Listening to what is happening at other local authorities, I think we are in for a serious financial squeeze with the impact of inflation on pay rises, increased energy and construction costs, and contracts which include indexation clauses (such as the Capita contract). Now more than ever it is essential that there is a high level of scrutiny on every pound spent within Barnet. </p>As always, I will keep monitoring the spending at Barnet.<br /><p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-46312258589014558502022-09-22T12:49:00.004+01:002022-09-22T12:50:30.526+01:00What we are paying Capita<p> Even though large parts of the Capita contract will finish next year, they continue to bill Barnet for their charges. The running total is now £607.7 million, £246.8 million more than the contracted sum.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiXfWC7g8XM98vS8FB4TZ00GTNmcDLUYK9qofUuC7VijpPRi16V0zEtlT7a5gKihQzvnXy19JS8b3ThCqjHcCIajtOj1MrhEYclHdiRqEryj2FuffbVkvvtcXelKLhsK3H-Q1zogg-h34bC8Irvy-eKubtIdiQhjdu1wlYTkpoaUfCQxAWUMZQ2ksge" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="1362" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiXfWC7g8XM98vS8FB4TZ00GTNmcDLUYK9qofUuC7VijpPRi16V0zEtlT7a5gKihQzvnXy19JS8b3ThCqjHcCIajtOj1MrhEYclHdiRqEryj2FuffbVkvvtcXelKLhsK3H-Q1zogg-h34bC8Irvy-eKubtIdiQhjdu1wlYTkpoaUfCQxAWUMZQ2ksge=w662-h217" width="662" /></a></div><p>As readers will know, I also review every single invoice Capita have submitted during the Inspection of Accounts period which give residents the right to inspect bills, invoices and payments. This year it was 381 invoices for a total sum of just under £50 million.</p><p>Within that figure there are some interesting numbers. £4.49 million was for 'indexation' of their fees. I have raised this with the council on numerous occasions saying that no other council service is guaranteed to get RPI increases every year so why do Capita? This will be a major issue over this financial year when RPI in August was <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/doge/mm23" target="_blank">14.2%</a> (significantly higher than the more accepted CPI rate).</p><p>£805,261 was paid to Capita for 'E Test & Trace' work. I just hope we are able to recover that from central government. We were billed £979,727 for the 'Network Recovery Programme' for which read road repairs. Now my understanding is that this figure is not for things like tarmac and pneumatic drills but simply staff to manage the programme.</p><p>Brent Cross is a major project to which Barnet has already made a massive investment including £77 million last year alone. The project management of the new Brent Cross Thameslink station was taken away from Capita and given to Mace but Capita still managed to bill £815,880 in fees.</p><p>There remains the infamous gainshare clause whereby Capita get to keep a proportion of any savings they make. It was phased out on procurement after many years of me complaining that it was a flawed system (you can read some of the old examples <a href="https://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-capitas-gainshare-is-such-rip-off.html" target="_blank">here</a>) but it is still in operation of some other areas. This year we paid £300,015 gainshare on Council Tax and Housing benefit overpayment recovery. Given that Capita administer both these services one would have hoped they got it right first time. A further £221,160 gainshare was paid for reducing council tax single person discounts.</p><p>Capita also set thresholds for the number of council tax and benefits enquires they deal with. If the number is exceeded, we get billed an additional charge known as a volumetric charge. This year that amounted to £122,075, less than in previous years but still a lot of money.</p><p>In special projects, £2,749,758.83 was paid to Capita on various elements of the Hendon Hub project, one which has drawn very significant opposition and legal challenges. They also billed £1.66m for various IT projects.</p><p>In today's Barnet Times (22 September 2022) we see <a href="https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/22311920.gambling-premises-audit-reveals-extraordinary-weaknesses/" target="_blank">yet another example of poor performance</a> in the Capita contract and that the representative from Capita refused to attend the Audit Committee to answer any questions. While a decision has been made to end the Capita contract, some elements will be continuing for another 42 months. The need to monitor and challenge the performance and cost of the Capita contract continues until the very last day. </p><p></p><br /><p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-63878081737155727292022-08-02T09:17:00.009+01:002022-08-02T09:18:40.417+01:00Capita - they may be going but costs continue to grow<p> I have been tied up for the last couple of months with the planning inquiry on the proposed redevelopment of the former gasworks in New Barnet. I will be producing a detailed blog once we have a decision from the planning inspector but in the meantime I though I had better refocus back on to Capita.</p><p>I was delighted that Barnet's new councillors have decided the Capita contract will end before the next election. The Re contract will end when the contract expires this time next year with a few of the remaining services such as IT and customer services being delayed while alternative arrangements can be put in place. However, that doesn't mean that I will stop monitoring the costs and in June there were some large bills, especially on the Re contract. set out below is the latest update </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjLtnkBuowejuxgTfvzhz74zGOPBa19czr9P31ybIFD73iPa0eBbP7IyosMedu__R_XhT4Hfd4hhs2Iy0LWDmIIVtobhxAeMJ7A-MnWesX3he-gq8VNt8Q_oP2j_iiuKAcHXMmJXJXq0vQ5rEZcmwnae7DZaM-vzDfPtthRq36Au6F3w2xeJFRaAo20" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="1088" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjLtnkBuowejuxgTfvzhz74zGOPBa19czr9P31ybIFD73iPa0eBbP7IyosMedu__R_XhT4Hfd4hhs2Iy0LWDmIIVtobhxAeMJ7A-MnWesX3he-gq8VNt8Q_oP2j_iiuKAcHXMmJXJXq0vQ5rEZcmwnae7DZaM-vzDfPtthRq36Au6F3w2xeJFRaAo20=w649-h214" width="649" /></a></div><br />Later on this month I will be inspecting all the Capita contract invoices as part of the Inspection of Accounts process for the year 2021/22. I want to check what the £49.95 million was actually spent on, especially the £13.95 million that was in excess of the contracted value. So far we have paid Capita £604 million and that deserves scrutiny.<p></p><p>One other area where spending seems to be running high is the agency cost budget. Agency costs peaked in 2016/17 at £19.87 million. After many challenges from me, especially to the Comensura contract who managed all of the agency spend, we saw the agency bill decline significantly until Covid struck when, not surprisingly, the agency spend increased. I was expecting the agency spend to drop back down to where it was in 2019/20 but the first three months of this financial year suggests that on the current burn rate, it may hit the 2016/17 peak of £20 million.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhfbvwCz0CQA2wccfklH-ITRETqK1Ff9OqFFzD33Lb-zMfZky1ETc9Utn1cBzc6hzTdCtkj3O26dFR5EXW8vUYM5rg1cBtDLEzHWb77AxUsc3Gkue1CI05VU93e9unb-fSPADkR4Qsh2DG7fYXroWsJMcBntC2fp6EX1HYZDI5fIqhGnl4Zxx5E67c8" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="841" data-original-width="929" height="514" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhfbvwCz0CQA2wccfklH-ITRETqK1Ff9OqFFzD33Lb-zMfZky1ETc9Utn1cBzc6hzTdCtkj3O26dFR5EXW8vUYM5rg1cBtDLEzHWb77AxUsc3Gkue1CI05VU93e9unb-fSPADkR4Qsh2DG7fYXroWsJMcBntC2fp6EX1HYZDI5fIqhGnl4Zxx5E67c8=w568-h514" width="568" /></a></div><br />A couple of other large bills this month include the on-going cost of Brent Cross Thameslink station where this month we paid £3.6 million to Network Rail Infrastructure and £2.15m to Volker Fitzpatrick which were part of the total £6.4 million spent on Brent Cross.<p></p><p>We also paid £515,383 to PA Consulting in June with the cost allocated to the Adults & Health department. I suspect this relates to the on-going issue of the Mosaic casework system which was originally planned to be implemented by Capita but was taken away from them when the project failed to deliver. If I am wrong I am always happy for someone at Barnet Council to tell me what it was spent on.</p><p>As always, I will keep monitoring the spending.</p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-50753221970705733222022-06-17T16:58:00.002+01:002022-06-17T16:58:43.029+01:00Capita and Fly Tipping - a short update<p> As I have been tied up preparing for the Victoria Quarter Planning Inquiry this will be a short blog.</p><p>The first point to mention is Capita. Labour may have won control of the Council but we are still stuck with Capita until September 2023 at the earliest. The latest figures show the bill continues to climb at just a whisker shy of <b>£590 million</b>.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiQ_sTuolAb8zzNtGh1OleSbq90wd4uAa9rUgqNjb5pGAXRxm1HtMAVptErIlfkJMkXMKdfGeJFchGgkbM0pOQJREM_WUgSIAr_eNNtmHRdMCpgVS6eUti20nkPhNTEeqtbd4FSo-6NuerziHnzpSNh7KeKE-NkIRwQY5SQwkfbNUDzm2I3KgnFqvhm" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="1088" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiQ_sTuolAb8zzNtGh1OleSbq90wd4uAa9rUgqNjb5pGAXRxm1HtMAVptErIlfkJMkXMKdfGeJFchGgkbM0pOQJREM_WUgSIAr_eNNtmHRdMCpgVS6eUti20nkPhNTEeqtbd4FSo-6NuerziHnzpSNh7KeKE-NkIRwQY5SQwkfbNUDzm2I3KgnFqvhm=w666-h218" width="666" /></a></div><br />Let's hope that between now and next year, the contract is brought to a close and we can regain control over these costly services.<p></p><p>The other thing I picked this week was the success or otherwise of penalising people who litter. This is a service that was also outsourced to Kingdom Services Group Limited. In the period February 2019 to November 2021, the contractor issued 8,760 fines for various forms of littering. The two largest categories are for dropping cigarette butts and fly tipping which together amount to 80% of all the fines issued. However, this is where things start to differ. Of the fines issued for cigarette littering, 65% are paid whereas for fly tipping only 16% of the fines are paid.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj74x3QGvPS-cW_YHWloZ86-tvIt5KogX3MLxhSrnfkkxi9Zia9g4lnxiIQM7m3dnFws-4R-7ApRynGfUpgW3-9O16B6AY5h7qF657L4GyD0tL1nYcIHUI4HGWNZAt7Hq0D3BEuspDKl2myAgfW5CGaMYKEQKQenL2LJr51S3CEQYlX4AYCwfnWfQJl" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="607" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj74x3QGvPS-cW_YHWloZ86-tvIt5KogX3MLxhSrnfkkxi9Zia9g4lnxiIQM7m3dnFws-4R-7ApRynGfUpgW3-9O16B6AY5h7qF657L4GyD0tL1nYcIHUI4HGWNZAt7Hq0D3BEuspDKl2myAgfW5CGaMYKEQKQenL2LJr51S3CEQYlX4AYCwfnWfQJl=w390-h313" width="390" /></a></div><br />If people know they don't have to pay a fine, it stops acting as a deterrent. I asked about this problem three years ago and I was told then, "it takes longer to recover the fines for fly tipping". Sorry but that doesn't wash. For fines between January 2017 and December 2018, 25% of general littering fines remain unpaid but 57% of fly tipping fines in the same period are unpaid. I suspect it falls into the "too hard" category but if fly tippers know they have a better then 50% chance on not paying their fine, even if they are caught, then it is no surprise they keep fly tipping. <p></p><p><br /></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-66669146321347728842022-05-14T10:30:00.000+01:002022-05-14T10:30:24.967+01:00Ending the Capita contracts - time is running out<p>Labour won control of Barnet last week with a large majority. They will be under serious pressure to make lots of changes to the way the council is run but I would plead that the two Capita contracts should be a top priority.</p><p>As I have said for the last 9 years, the two Capita contracts do no favours for Barnet residents. The catalogue of failure has been well documented on this blog, and as part of the review that has been dragged out over the last two years, it is evident that bringing services back in house can either directly save money or provide a better, more competent, service. </p><p>The looming problem Barnet Labour Cllrs face is that, because the previous regime delayed the decision on whether or not to extend the contracts until after the election, it has left just 3 months to take that decision or face having to extend the contracts for at least another year simply because the transition arrangements haven't been put in place.</p><p>Both contracts expire on 5th August 2023 but there are specific clauses which relate to what has to take place to meet that expiry date. </p><p>In the CSG contract it states at 47.3.7 that: </p><p><i>On or before a date falling no later than <b>twelve (12) months</b> prior to the Expiry Date (where this Agreement expires by effluxion of time) or during the period from service of any Termination Notice until the Termination Date of this Agreement, the Authority shall notify the Service Provider in writing whether it wishes to retender the provision of the Services.</i></p><p>It then goes on to clarify at 47.3.9 that:</p><p><i>If the Authority does not wish to retender the Services then the Authority will indicate which Service Provider Exclusive Assets and Service Provider Traded Service Assets (or part of the Assets) shall transfer to the Authority on the Expiry Date or Termination Date in accordance with clause 5 (Assets and Equipment) and the Service Provider shall promptly undertake all necessary actions by the Expiry Date or Termination Date (as the case may be) including any further actions required pursuant to clause 5 (Assets and Equipment).</i></p><p>Probably the most critical element is the transfer of data and the transitioning of the IT system. When Southampton Council took the Capita contract back in house it took them 12 months to set up their own systems and transfer all of the data.</p><p>In the CSG contract it notes at 47.3.2 that </p><p><i>The Service Provider shall (subject to any condition imposed on the Service Provider or any Sub-Contractor by Legislation):</i></p><p><i>(d) no later than six (6) months and no earlier than <b>twelve (12) months</b> before the Expiry Date, supply to the Authority within twenty (20) Business Days of the relevant date or request all information reasonably required by the Authority to carry out the Services (including but not limited to information (subject to the DPA) referred to in Schedule 33 (TUPE Information for Retendering) in relation to employment of all employees of the Service Provider or any sub-contractor (including the Sub- Contractors) employed in the provision of the Services and information relating to the Assets and Authority Assets) and the Service Provider warrants that at the point when given and, to the best of its knowledge and belief, such information is accurate in all material respects.</i></p><p>At 47.4.7 Surveys on Expiry or Termination - Final Survey, it states:</p><p><i><b>twelve (12) months</b> prior to the Expiry Date or during any period leading up to the Termination Date, the Authority shall be entitled to procure the carrying out by a suitably qualified independent surveyor (not being an employee of the Authority) of a final survey of the Assets and Authority Assets to assess whether they have been and are being maintained by the Service Provider in accordance with its obligations under clause 6.1 (Maintenance).</i></p><p>At 47.4.5 Retention Fund it states that:</p><p><i>If the Service Provider has been notified under clause 47.4.3 (Results of Survey) that rectification and/or maintenance work is required, <b>twelve (12) months </b>prior to the Expiry Date or in the period prior to the Termination Date the Authority shall (to the extent that the Outstanding Work has not been carried out in the interim) deduct the costs of that work as quantified by that survey referred to in clause 47.4.1 (Final Survey) from the next following instalment (or, if the amount of such instalment is insufficient, the next instalments as necessary) of the Periodic Service Payment and pay such amount into an interest bearing account (the Retention Fund Account) until this Agreement has expired or terminated (subject to clause 47.4.6 (Costs).</i></p><p>At 7.3.2 it notes that: </p><p><i><b>Six (6) months</b> (or such other period agreed to by the parties acting reasonably) prior to the Termination Date or Expiry Date (as applicable) the parties shall agree:</i></p><p><i>(a) which of the contracts used in the provision of the Services shall transfer (either by novation or other mechanism) to the Authority or Future Service Provider (the Transferring Contracts);</i></p><p><i>(b) the costs and a reconciliation of any payments made in advance or arrears in respect of the Transferring Contracts on the basis that the Service Provider shall be responsible for all costs and charges which arise prior to the Termination Date and/or Expiry Date (as applicable) and the Authority shall be responsible for all costs and charges which arise after the Termination Date and/or Expiry Date (as applicable).</i></p><p><i>(c) the process and timetable for transfer and handover of management responsibilities in respect of the Transferring Contracts together with the provision of relevant documentation and information in respect of issues such as performance and payments to date.</i></p><p>This will require a lot of pre-planning and that needs to start very soon so that by 6 months before expiry you know exactly which contracts you want to retain.</p><p>The Re Contract is a joint venture and as such the unwinding process is more complex. In that contract it states at clause 2.3 that if Barnet wish to extend the contract by 5 years then that notice has to be provide 18 months before the expiry of the contract. This is repeated at clause 55.3.6. I just hope that the previous regime did not provided that notice. </p><p>At <span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -49.8pt;">27.1.1<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> it states that:</span></span></p><p><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -49.8pt;"><i>Subject to clause 29.2.4 and 29.2.5
in the event of termination or expiry of this Agreement the Authority shall
have the option exercisable within <b>six (6) months </b>of the Termination Date or
Expiry Date<span style="letter-spacing: .85pt;"> </span>to:</i></span></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top: .55pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -28.95pt;">a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -28.95pt;">purchase from the Service Provider
at their Net Book Value any or all of the Exclusive Asset(s),<span style="letter-spacing: .85pt;"> </span>unless:</span></i></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top: .55pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 113%; text-indent: -23pt;">i.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 113%; text-indent: -23pt;">the cost of any such Exclusive
Asset(s) has been fully paid for through the Periodic Service Payment or
otherwise amortised at the time of expiry or termination of this Agreement;<span style="letter-spacing: .9pt;"> </span>or</span></i></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top: .3pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 113%; text-indent: -25.6pt;">ii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 113%; text-indent: -25.6pt;">any such Exclusive Asset(s) were
transferred and delivered to the Service · Provider as Initial Transferring
Assets in accordance with clause 29.2,
and in which case such Exclusive Asset(s) shall be transferred to the Authority
at nil cost;<span style="letter-spacing: 1.3pt;"> </span>and</span></i></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top: .3pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -27.55pt;">iii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -27.55pt;">the cost of any such Exclusive
Asset(s) has been partly paid for through the Periodic Service Payment or
otherwise partly amortised at the Expiry Date or Termination Date then a
proportional part payment shall be deducted from the Net Book<span style="letter-spacing: .05pt;"> </span>Value;</span></i></p><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top: .55pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -29.2pt;">(b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -29.2pt;">receive (or a nominated party
receives) a non-exclusive licence on reasonable commercial terms and at a
reasonable commercial rental for the non-exclusive use of the Shared Assets (or
a part thereof as nominated by the<span style="letter-spacing: -0.8pt;"> </span>Authority);</span></i></p><p>At clause 30.8.1 the final survey (similar to the CSG contract) can be carried out <b>18 months </b>prior to the expiry date and at 30.8.5, the Retention Fund, as with the CSG contract should be identified <b>12 months </b>prior to the expiry date. </p><p>In each contract there is an entire schedule (Schedule 17 in the Re Contract and Schedule 18 in the CSG Contract) specifically relating to the exit arrangement and includes, for example, the requirement for Barnet to appoint an 'Exit Manager'. Capita have to have an exit plan already prepared which they have to update annually. It will be critical to see if that plan is up to date and the extent to which they have assumed the contract will be extended.</p><p>My biggest fear at the minute is that the new Labour regime will be told by officers that this fall into the "too difficult" category and that the proposals identified by the previous regime should be enacted. That would be a disaster, would limit what changes could be made to the way the council is structured and critically, would signal that Officers make the key policy decision, not the elected members. Time is short to take decisions, because the last scheduled full council meeting before 5 August is on 26 July, just 10 weeks from now. Please don't waste that time otherwise we will be stuck with Capita for years to come.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsJymG1Cgr2gx_B_nbHw4Y_2yCGuqIOEtDgKjAmHCaFA_ZmPHByy_-RXUwq6aCEvlwPpi9PIQI29-OpUpzHK7H5QUwnBGRYDRpu_vKBzmmsa8Akpvzf8f1oYAlKI9SMysq79A9T-uANDLos1Z_RH2fgvJvVhV37G24J7LiGpyB-17w0BbSTT-Ckeg9" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="887" data-original-width="822" height="521" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsJymG1Cgr2gx_B_nbHw4Y_2yCGuqIOEtDgKjAmHCaFA_ZmPHByy_-RXUwq6aCEvlwPpi9PIQI29-OpUpzHK7H5QUwnBGRYDRpu_vKBzmmsa8Akpvzf8f1oYAlKI9SMysq79A9T-uANDLos1Z_RH2fgvJvVhV37G24J7LiGpyB-17w0BbSTT-Ckeg9=w482-h521" width="482" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-3165071081830632382022-05-01T20:09:00.002+01:002022-05-02T18:46:24.392+01:00Please read this before you vote<p> It is the local election on Thursday, the one and only time in the four year cycle when the council actually have to pay attention to the views of residents through the ballot box. </p><p>There is a lot of spin at this time but I just want to look back over the last four years since the last election and see what has changed for the better or worse. </p><p><b>Council Tax</b> has risen significantly over the last 5 years and no matter what Conservative councillors may say, the council tax has risen every year, including this year - so no, not a freeze. Set out below is a chart showing the increase year on year. (This excludes the amount paid to the GLA)</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgKefxuXM8ZnwxXma57aEDIXtzMXBbCDBXce0TUN3w0ZeKTc4mV15OF6O9nPYzGczFzGDatYiYmeuVvAr07VChFyHEwBGtn1nBrSx0NyosZiJuuJm3ERj1elONrR87HwLLaGIpBTf5Uf0yYhB3vnhkJk6PT1Hv4kT72W467kH3roFpTmiDyirmr6BiV" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="768" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgKefxuXM8ZnwxXma57aEDIXtzMXBbCDBXce0TUN3w0ZeKTc4mV15OF6O9nPYzGczFzGDatYiYmeuVvAr07VChFyHEwBGtn1nBrSx0NyosZiJuuJm3ERj1elONrR87HwLLaGIpBTf5Uf0yYhB3vnhkJk6PT1Hv4kT72W467kH3roFpTmiDyirmr6BiV=w457-h320" width="457" /></a></div><br />In addition, if you have a green bin, you now have to pay an extra £70 a year to have that collected, a clever way to avoid showing the real increase in council tax. Now don't get me wrong, Barnet had no option but to increase council tax because previously they had frozen council tax and in 2014 actually cut council tax by 1% just before the 2014 election. What irks me is the way council taxes went up by 3.99% and 4.99% in the last two years so that, in an election year, the increase can be limited to 1% while saying it is frozen.<p></p><p><b>Bin Collection</b> is also a matter the local Conservatives are keen to focus on. They promised they would keep weekly bin collections in 2018 only to withdraw the brown bin food waste collection weeks after the election and two years later introduced the £70 green bin charge. Barnet is the only London borough not to have a dedicated food waste collection. Instead of sending the waste for anaerobic digestion which is environmentally friendly, generates electricity from the gas produced and provides a valuable fertiliser as a by-product, we send it to the Edmonton to be burned in the incinerator. Interestingly, there was a business case developed in 2018 by council officers to move to fortnightly general waste collections which, with a retained weekly food waste and recycling collection, could not only have saved more than £900,000 a year, but would have helped to push up recycling rates by forcing people to separate out their waste more effectively. Political ideology won the day at the cost to Barnet residents and the environment.</p><p><b>Transparency </b>is another thing which has deteriorated over the last four years. In 2019 Barnet Conservatives introduced new rules which stopped Barnet residents from addressing committees in person and dramatically limited the number of questions that could be asked. It was claimed that this would save <a href="https://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2019/07/its-official-ive-been-gagged-why.html" target="_blank">£42,000 a year of officer time</a> answering questions posed by residents at committee meetings. In reality it was simply to stop residents asking serious questions about the way the council was being run. There was always a time limit of 30 minutes in any committee meeting for residents' questions and speeches, speeches were limited to 3 minutes and questions were taken turn and turn about so no one person could take up all of the time with their questions. Occasionally, not all of the questions were addressed in the 30 minute slot, but at least there was a written record of the council's response. Now, you are not allowed to address the committee in person or be questioned by committee members, you get one question per agenda item and no more than two people can ask a question about each agenda item. When you are dealing with the annual budget, one question simply isn't enough. For example, at the Policy & Resources Committee in February this year, the papers for the budget agenda item comprised 386 pages including, changes to charges levied on residents, debt management policy, capital strategy, risk register, housing revenue account, medium term financial strategy, to name but a few, yet residents are allowed to ask just one question. I suspect that the real reason for gagging residents was not to save an alleged £42,000 from a council budget of £344 million, but to stop a well informed and curious resident base from asking difficult and inconvenient questions.</p><p>We have also seen other changes on transparency such as the removal of senior officer salary data. We used to get a detailed breakdown of how much all officer paid over £55,000 a year were paid. Below is a graph I used to produce showing how much each officer was paid - I limited the range to those officers paid more than an MP and I never published the officers' names even though the data was available.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgkEM02JRuoaoCSCUU7lA1Y0uY1m4HLJ_1Q8JtuNg3tvne_HxR6CsNY2mKgkId3Ast9u4MV2QA56_WxOPd3AUJuIo2xpR97PrC-kpEVPEip5IN0aVx2NrrVyc5lHsgq8iUUTuMM6PpsUorI2_mieGljERx8JCIRI95daZhne5oJWLcpDD5ogRIpiZ0k" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1213" data-original-width="1176" height="563" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgkEM02JRuoaoCSCUU7lA1Y0uY1m4HLJ_1Q8JtuNg3tvne_HxR6CsNY2mKgkId3Ast9u4MV2QA56_WxOPd3AUJuIo2xpR97PrC-kpEVPEip5IN0aVx2NrrVyc5lHsgq8iUUTuMM6PpsUorI2_mieGljERx8JCIRI95daZhne5oJWLcpDD5ogRIpiZ0k=w548-h563" width="548" /></a></div><br />The data available then changed so this is all that was published.<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiUPLZBJQRwlZ4z5AjTq-cAKwEW_FnUBovxsX-pr7I18pNLXSSd146Uth68UAcpXRBrq-Gz5McOJSLogMML09Q4Gx0fXZkALXul74C0TuvAt88qwtqDuFqYNlNMQUYMbKxYwndHSnrwqPoVYjcDvFSGMxxvhLE4FO2BfJNGtMNH0M6dWXp3FCvbfvkr" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="1319" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiUPLZBJQRwlZ4z5AjTq-cAKwEW_FnUBovxsX-pr7I18pNLXSSd146Uth68UAcpXRBrq-Gz5McOJSLogMML09Q4Gx0fXZkALXul74C0TuvAt88qwtqDuFqYNlNMQUYMbKxYwndHSnrwqPoVYjcDvFSGMxxvhLE4FO2BfJNGtMNH0M6dWXp3FCvbfvkr=w599-h176" width="599" /></a></div><p>Not only was the number of posts listed dramatically reduced but all the historical data was <b>removed</b> from the council's website. I suspect this was because there was a level of transparency which allowed residents to see the increases received by some council officers when their posts were regraded or when they received above inflation increases. No data has been published on the Council's website since September 2019.</p>Performance of the Capita contract has also suffered from a lack of transparency. Historically, a table known as "Benefits Realisation" was provided for the Capita CSG contract which showed how much (or little) the Capita contract had actually saved. When it became clear it wasn't saving anywhere near what we had been originally been told, they stopped publishing it. Data on Capita's performance at answering the phone to Barnet residents also stopped being published until just recently, and after much pestering from me, as it showed how poor the performance actually was. Having changed the targets twice to make them easier to meet, the latest data shows Capita still aren't answering the phone within the target time of 2 minutes and the data set remains incomplete.<p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhqSIdhrl3eFbUHI4gxkPFEbfD9cjc8DyxPl6KQuPkQg0fJGQIdEh9KpcsdTtykEtHBG5-CcpgbiqM_kYGbbVvn6vAwopWt_Q6PRlBb-GhW3LMDgDiNCTPvyTR3wT_4zEY0HX5O_0xCPpEKtmRUAD11jXdl5-m17nnT9s2m_zkEXvIHmTTQpRz0vdlx" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="616" data-original-width="1060" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhqSIdhrl3eFbUHI4gxkPFEbfD9cjc8DyxPl6KQuPkQg0fJGQIdEh9KpcsdTtykEtHBG5-CcpgbiqM_kYGbbVvn6vAwopWt_Q6PRlBb-GhW3LMDgDiNCTPvyTR3wT_4zEY0HX5O_0xCPpEKtmRUAD11jXdl5-m17nnT9s2m_zkEXvIHmTTQpRz0vdlx=w543-h315" width="543" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Minutes of the Strategic Commission Board (Council Management Team) used to be published. They were not normally that informative although from time to time they included real insight into the way the council operates. In one set one minutes from <a href="https://open.barnet.gov.uk/download/2oj5v/bxp/180213%20Minutes%20SCB%20-%20Strategy%20.pdf" target="_blank">February 2018</a> but published after the election, it highlights a practice known as '<i><b>telephony service degradation'</b></i>. I suspect it was l<a href="https://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-capitas-contract-is-rip-off-for.html" target="_blank">inked to an issue I raised as part of the inspection of accounts</a> which highlighted that if calls to Barnet exceeded a certain threshold, Capita were able to charge extra and in the financial year 2017/18 that amounted to an extra charge of £247,000. As a way to generate savings, the proposal was to introduce '<b style="font-style: italic;">telephony service degradation' </b>i.e. make the service worse so as to reduce the number of calls being answered and thereby cut the extra charges being made by Capita. Barnet stopped publishing these meeting minutes before the start of the pandemic and have yet to restart their publication.</div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Development </b>is another contentious issue in Barnet. Conservatives are saying that they are opposed to over development but if you look at the huge amount of development along the A5 that clearly does not apply there. I know some of the people impacted by the Sainsburys development at the Hyde where Barnet pushed through a development of 1,309 flats in blocks up to 28 storeys even though it sits outside the agreed development area and is not in a town centre. All of their views were ignored including the home owners which will be very badly hit by loss of light. We now have a series of developments which will create 2,500 new flats on a 400 metre stretch of the A5 but without the infrastructure to support anywhere between 5,000 and 7,000 new residents. The massive development at Homebase in Cricklewood was another example where Conservative councillors were saying what an awful scheme it was yet voted for its approval. Yes, we need new homes especially for families, but what we are getting is a mass of small 1 and 2 bed flats which remain out of reach for most of the people who actually need them.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Barnet became addicted to a central government grant, New Homes Bonus, and in 2019 were forecasting an average of £10.8 million per annum. The more homes you built above a threshold, the more New Homes Bonus you received. It was a crude measure to boost housing builds but Barnet saw it as a useful revenue stream and so were incentivised to build more and more homes, typically 1 and 2 bed flats even though the top priority is for three bed homes for families. However, each year since 2019, that has been adjusted down so that next year we are now forecasting only £4.8million compared to an original estimate of £10.9 million. I raised this issue in 2019 of how reliable New Homes Bonus payments would be, but that was dismissed as pessimistic. It is exactly for these reason that residents need to be questioning the council and why gagging residents is so short-sighted.</div></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg_VulHu_pjQcM5upMUR_EYNcrVfpdOtjoTBSeeXQNITZPXHnn4aBuoLZ0ES48TdAm8mx11OMtoV51jSV5zf6QJBBIIMzMgSBzwvInqCMmjOOmwI_FW-p-VmLCoW15qQrm7js4pz2rnRKENo1EIUvQwPHk-rLoZW4-i8SCXc5EnZaXzQ_amVK5NCKMe" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="1399" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg_VulHu_pjQcM5upMUR_EYNcrVfpdOtjoTBSeeXQNITZPXHnn4aBuoLZ0ES48TdAm8mx11OMtoV51jSV5zf6QJBBIIMzMgSBzwvInqCMmjOOmwI_FW-p-VmLCoW15qQrm7js4pz2rnRKENo1EIUvQwPHk-rLoZW4-i8SCXc5EnZaXzQ_amVK5NCKMe=w599-h198" width="599" /></a></div><br />The most recent example of Barnet's planning committee not listening to local residents is the Hendon Hub, a massive development at The Burroughs in Hendon which will destroy the beautiful, albeit downsized, Hendon library and a scheme which Historic England did not support. Local residents have launched a Judicial Review. You can read more about the Hendon Hub <a href="https://www.savehendon.org/?fbclid=IwAR0jConpx4KXLBKuyWPTSKMFZ-6882NfZNCw-DhzrBDjam9SO3Og4Ym2G1Y" target="_blank">here</a>.<div><br /></div><div>This leads into our <b>Library service</b> and the way it has been decimated over the last five years. We were told that this was all about saving money and that people didn't really need libraries in an age of kindles, but now more than ever, when people are choosing whether to eat or heat, monthly broadband charges look like a nicety, not a necessity. Libraries were great places for people who didn't have internet access to work, study, apply for jobs, search out information and carry out other day to day functions, not just about somewhere to read and borrow books. In New Barnet, when the writing was on the wall for the old East Barnet Library (2017) I asked if it could be relocated in the proposed new leisure centre which would allow it to stay open all the hours the leisure centre was open. It was still too small but at least if it was open 90 hours a week it would allow people to access books, study space and the library computers. The reality is that we have a library located within a leisure centre open 90 hours a week, with a manned reception right next to the library area, yet the library is only open for just 17 hours per week. With the prospect of thousand of people moving into New Barnet in the assortment of new developments, a tiny room open just 17 hours a week does not seem like a library we should expect. If you live in New Barnet you will get a chance to visit it on polling day as it is the local polling station - however you will not be able to use the Library - voting only.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Care Homes </b>is another area which Barnet outsourced and which has proved to be a disaster. Apthorp Care Home was outsourced to Catalyst and run by another company Fremantle. You can read all the details <a href="https://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2019/07/who-cares.html" target="_blank">here </a>but the net result is the care home was run into the ground, the care offered was appalling and rated inadequate by the CQC. There was a massive backlog of repairs which meant living conditions were unacceptable. Fremantle handed back the running of the home to Barnet in 2019 and in 2021 Barnet decided that the backlog of maintenance was so bad that they would close the home. Now this isn't an old home, it was only opened in the early 2000's. I asked about monitoring in the period before the damning CQC report and it was clear that Barnet did not keep a log of all the monitoring visits nor was there a sanctions or penalty regime in place to make the provider improve. They outsourced the care of our elderly family and friends and did not do enough to ensure their care was safe and secure, something which is unforgivable.</div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>Capita </b>contract is the other issue that remains a running sore in Barnet. In 2018, after the election we told about a <a href="https://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2018/09/is-this-end-of-capita-in-barnet-grant.html" target="_blank">massive fraud</a> carried out by a member of Capita's staff, stealing over £2 million in 62 separate transactions over a period of 17 months in 2016 and 2017. The fraud went undiscovered and only came to light after the fraudster's bank alerted Barnet Council to the potential problem. Grant Thornton were brought in to see how on earth such a massive fraud could take place and their findings showed fundamental weakness in the Capita systems and, that <i style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="color: red;">" there has also been insufficiently close scrutiny and client side management on the part of the Council and the Chief Officers coupled with an over reliance on the limited scope and frequency of work carried out by the Internal Audit service, to highlight issues. This is likely to have contributed to the lack of focus on effective controls".</span></i><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"> </span></div><div><br /></div><div>This was followed in 2019 by another <a href="https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/18190772.barnet-council-suffers-70-000-pension-fraud/" target="_blank">fraud in the Capita run Pensions admin department</a>, this time seven different payments for a total of just over £70,000. Yet again Capita systems were found to be wanting. <br /><br /></div><div>Set out below is the current cost of the Capita contract and shows that so far we have paid Capita £586 million, £225 million more than the contracted sum. It is also important to understand that Barnet have already taken back a number of services including Finance and HR which were in the original contracted sum so, in reality, we are paying even more than is shown.</div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh5QhVZashM7RsGzLWF5HQl8XhdQmjL-HcdAvI9AvQWkxy6q9cB9dXQBupPeoflUd2fKNtwoWn3f8Mvvwy7zBrpK9KLcR2GN04gHObB__IF-GpkreB4aKYKR3-hbPmShE3NYkoObfeGYqvBeqHiPO27iWZ4r1dL2OAIto-oN-29byBTMMMXwo8cBnSC" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="1008" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh5QhVZashM7RsGzLWF5HQl8XhdQmjL-HcdAvI9AvQWkxy6q9cB9dXQBupPeoflUd2fKNtwoWn3f8Mvvwy7zBrpK9KLcR2GN04gHObB__IF-GpkreB4aKYKR3-hbPmShE3NYkoObfeGYqvBeqHiPO27iWZ4r1dL2OAIto-oN-29byBTMMMXwo8cBnSC=w644-h227" width="644" /></a></div><div><br /></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Following the major fraud, the finance function along with HR was brought back in house and Barnet has been discussing what elements will be returned to the council ever since. We still do not have a definitive list of which council services that will be retained by Capita and we won't get a decision until after the election even though this should have been decided more than two years ago. In 2021 the review of Capita services was accompanied by a “<a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s65147/Appendix%20A%20-%20Report%20Market%20Insights.pdf" style="color: #449911; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Market Insights” report</a> prepared by Grant Thornton in which the Executive Summary opens with the statement:</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; line-height: 21.4667px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">“Historically procurement has been ideologically driven and highly political”</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> It also goes on to say:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px; text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 21.4667px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">“The gap between cost and efficiency for delivery between the public and private sector has been significantly squeezed over the last decade as a result of market pressures. This means that outsourcing is not always the most cost effective option by default”</span></span></i></b></p>I think this first statement sums up so much about the way Barnet Council has been run, ideologically driven and highly political. </div><div><br /></div><div>So when you are thinking about which way to vote on Thursday, ask yourself if you want another four years of the same or whether you think there is a better way to run Barnet. Whatever way you vote just please make sure you use your vote, as it will be the only way to show your views and to get politicians to listen for the next four years.</div></div>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-83004525203894597132022-04-06T10:20:00.000+01:002022-04-06T10:20:25.009+01:00Latest Costs of the Capita Contract<p> The latest supplier payment figures are out and the Capita figures tell a familiar story with the total paid to date running at around £225 million more than the contracted value.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhJRsPmqgLXhl0YgpwU51BNOF1pmAoehNxzYufwpFKZxd980WBQC8y9ateBYKPj1zvkUMwvFYGm--oDb7o3EMf8pAQlPzXRqTfhBbJmG5icAvwiSsbVnyAqm1ZaCl30F8TE1-D8tDHMpx6Ys8PKNOy9-MgYpz6lzAzq2hHkwTWEstyRLBBPdz8fCV13" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="1008" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhJRsPmqgLXhl0YgpwU51BNOF1pmAoehNxzYufwpFKZxd980WBQC8y9ateBYKPj1zvkUMwvFYGm--oDb7o3EMf8pAQlPzXRqTfhBbJmG5icAvwiSsbVnyAqm1ZaCl30F8TE1-D8tDHMpx6Ys8PKNOy9-MgYpz6lzAzq2hHkwTWEstyRLBBPdz8fCV13=w642-h226" width="642" /></a></div><br />The contract comes up for renewal in 16 months but Barnet still have not "finalised" their decision on what services will be retained by Capita and what will be brought back in house or given to another provider as in the case of Pensions Admin. When asked for a date when they would clarify which services will go where, we were told a decision would be available "after the election".<p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-3744647123852944672022-03-03T14:20:00.003+00:002022-03-03T14:24:08.889+00:00Has Brighton Marina Cost Barnet Residents a Fortune?<p> As part of the justification for renewing the contract with Capita, a <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s68825/App%20B4%20Planning%20Development%20Control%20Performance%20Evidence%20Pack.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> setting out the achievements of our outsourced planners included a very curious statement. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgS2e3aUc_nSetgV_xRqGIs3jT1evYpiuQBdJUwYdHhnk2_U0BekHgIxi7zzzCN0uOOIDpyI1vmGaaQngO5dDNdctQ1UE46QAQ-9L7Nwg0J9_V_lmHuVPyDWZtzV4EAGnR_EalBBCKLsXmN1P4mFrI9oSm-zOrrfPirFMX5F52Cgj514FiIrvVUCMSt=s1240" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="1240" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgS2e3aUc_nSetgV_xRqGIs3jT1evYpiuQBdJUwYdHhnk2_U0BekHgIxi7zzzCN0uOOIDpyI1vmGaaQngO5dDNdctQ1UE46QAQ-9L7Nwg0J9_V_lmHuVPyDWZtzV4EAGnR_EalBBCKLsXmN1P4mFrI9oSm-zOrrfPirFMX5F52Cgj514FiIrvVUCMSt=w620-h169" width="620" /></a></div>I was somewhat surprised that Capita should be boasting about working for Brighton Marina for 2 years when maybe their attention should be focused on Barnet, so I asked a specific question about it.<br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">"The report
suggests that a principal officer spending two
years on the Brighton Marina is a good thing;
many would say it is the opposite. Major
developers seem to have their own VIP lane.
Has this decision on planning been made
purely on a financial basis and have you lost
sight of the service quality imperative?"</span></p></blockquote><p>The response I got from Barnet was brief to say the least:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #45818e;">"The Brighton Marina project was cited as one example of
a project that enables planning officers to broaden their
range of experience and knowledge and it was carried out
at no cost to the council." </span></p></blockquote><p>That was on 23 November last year. Skip forward to last week and Barnet was hit with not one, but two appeals on major planning projects for "non determination". This is where the planning authority fails to decide on a planning application within a defined timescale, which for major projects is 13 weeks. One project was Barnet House at Whetstone and the other was the Victoria Quarter in New Barnet. The council will have to defend these appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, which could cost serious money, and if the Inspector finds that Barnet were at fault, we could be liable for the developer's appeal and legal costs as well. </p><p>Maybe if the Capita planning officers spent a bit more time dealing with Barnet's applications and less time trying to earn money in Brighton, we might avoid incurring significant costs having to defend these planning appeals. I also raised some very serious concerns about the way the planning department is run and its failure to comply with Local Government Association guidelines on pre application advice. Barnet's response was suitably robust </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #45818e;">"We strongly believe that the planning service is in
compliance with all legal, transparency and probity
requirements. However, if you have specific evidence to
the contrary, we will of course arrange for it to be
examined".</span></p></blockquote><p>Last week I submitted that evidence to Barnet's Internal Audit department and will await how they investigate this further. </p><p>Barnet's insistence that Capita are doing a great job in planning and that is why they should retain the contract for another 5 years looks to me somewhat misguided and the sooner it is brought back in house the better.</p><p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-18737881782725142812022-01-31T19:43:00.002+00:002022-02-01T09:21:59.709+00:00Capita Savings - The Myths Exposed<p>It's 2022 and this year there are local elections in Barnet. I have eased back on blogs since Covid but now is the time to start communicating again, so let's start with the latest state of play on the Capita contract. I listened to the council meeting last week where Cllr Dan Thomas reiterated the myth that the Capita contract has saved £125 million. To be clear, there is not a single piece of evidence to support that figure and a great deal of evidence to suggest that the contract has not saved anything at all other than the face of those councillors who voted for this overly complex, badly structured contract. The latest figures for the month ending 31st December 2021 indicate that we have now paid Capita £577 million, £225 million more than the contract value. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiVEAxtrGfKsKNYAlzTBqcWN20WAzpjeur8xHhTSxtg_mgCPu3mW4m7dsUagIGn8Azs6KyI9pPKKk8cHsysNZvryklluSg5eGQpLRclUw3kF4MRc9X5zP1T9_RHl3cfbFcaYx2DrkPXIj6kdKSBOEKkZ9qKFz5-tq0SGnjwp2S5gX_CN-zRVpn3-k4U" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="1008" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiVEAxtrGfKsKNYAlzTBqcWN20WAzpjeur8xHhTSxtg_mgCPu3mW4m7dsUagIGn8Azs6KyI9pPKKk8cHsysNZvryklluSg5eGQpLRclUw3kF4MRc9X5zP1T9_RHl3cfbFcaYx2DrkPXIj6kdKSBOEKkZ9qKFz5-tq0SGnjwp2S5gX_CN-zRVpn3-k4U=w635-h224" width="635" /></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhQik_M-mZbyelQJV708nZ56FbiuqflUghfIlo15erGKalilDYePJg8K0KW7W0V_XEQEaV0ulz6u5a-4PQuUPtMx_AiMK1Qa-k2-uwWApKI6bfolCZSnKfgR0TV2Q6D74iXhXPv2qEM75Y20nPR-E3CwKaW8J2ZX6DgLblyn-wKk3PMWAPT5qlFMv0h" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="762" data-original-width="662" height="357" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhQik_M-mZbyelQJV708nZ56FbiuqflUghfIlo15erGKalilDYePJg8K0KW7W0V_XEQEaV0ulz6u5a-4PQuUPtMx_AiMK1Qa-k2-uwWApKI6bfolCZSnKfgR0TV2Q6D74iXhXPv2qEM75Y20nPR-E3CwKaW8J2ZX6DgLblyn-wKk3PMWAPT5qlFMv0h=w311-h357" width="311" /></a></div></div><br />Tomorrow the Financial Performance and Contracts Committee meet to discuss the the latest details on which Capita services will be brought back in house and which will stay with Capita, either for a couple of years while Barnet decide what to do or for a 5 year extension until 2028. It was agreed last week at Full Council that the following services will all be brought back in-house: Procurement; Trading Standards; Environmental Health; Licensing; Regeneration and Highways. This comes as no great surprise as none of these services generate an income for Capita. Procurement used to be a money spinner for Capita, with its gainshare clause, but this was negotiated out of the contract following the £2m fraud and the monumental mess Capita made on the failed Mosaic casework system implementation, which has cost millions to sort out. I had hoped that there would have been more progress on providing certainty on whether the other services would be retained by Capita since the last meeting in November but it is apparent that this is a very politically sensitive matter so any further decisions have been kicked into the long grass until after the elections in May. I have asked for the financial details of the services being brought back in house to be disclosed but yet again I have been told the public cannot see these figures even though councillors have seen them in the secret "Blue Papers" and formed the basis of the decision they took last week. We will not see them before the election, as I suspect they will show that bringing this group of services back in house will actually save money on what we are being charged by Capita and that would be far too embarrassing in the run up to the elections. So much for Cllr Dan Thomas' statements that Capita are saving money when we could have been running them cheaper in house for years.<p></p><p>The entire Capita contract has a stench about it. As I <a href="http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.com/2021/05/highly-political-and-ideologically.html" target="_blank">blogged about in May</a> last year, Grant Thornton wrote in a summary of the outsourcing process in their <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s65147/Appendix%20A%20-%20Report%20Market%20Insights.pdf" target="_blank">Market Insights Report</a> "<b>procurement has been ideologically driven and highly political</b>". Not me saying that, but external advisors, Grant Thornton - extract from their report below:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbNjZhranpO2sj6PUa0NdEVQez-tmQkXTZ9G5Bv2EJH1dKT81Z1X2uHKApvXmvVdFVmeWJWiuBIUqOwHAj3-FIenbxSJUg6rrS947mcnOYzFq3jbMPRu-G58KVAaC1J12CuDWC9aJ22NDoJZ3mFVdb04jmKm1iYhhI8CqpK_v6A9X7yDbMIKNcvHRs" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="207" data-original-width="405" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhbNjZhranpO2sj6PUa0NdEVQez-tmQkXTZ9G5Bv2EJH1dKT81Z1X2uHKApvXmvVdFVmeWJWiuBIUqOwHAj3-FIenbxSJUg6rrS947mcnOYzFq3jbMPRu-G58KVAaC1J12CuDWC9aJ22NDoJZ3mFVdb04jmKm1iYhhI8CqpK_v6A9X7yDbMIKNcvHRs=w400-h206" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>The level of secrecy surrounding this contract remains high. I have had discussions with the chair of the Committee and the senior officer carrying out the report and managed to get the concerns I raised <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s68829/FPC%20report%2023-11%20engagement.pdf" target="_blank">included in the engagement report</a>, albeit they were then largely dismissed. Critically, we are not allowed to know the real operating costs of this contract and what revenue Barnet is missing out on by having Capita in place.<br /></p><p>The lucrative elements of the contract remain for Capita. Revs & Bens, where they can charge extra for exceeding volume targets and where gainshare still exists on council tax collection, housing benefit recovery, withdrawing single person discounts etc. Planning, which generates significant fees, stays with Capita where they get to keep a chunk of the profit. Capita are hanging on to IT, even though their IT system, Integra, has been criticised on numerous occasions for failing to provide the information and flexibility we need. I raised the point that Capita provide both the IT system and the advice on which IT system to use. Surprise, surprise, they recommend using their own bespoke system, Integra. Pre-Capita, Barnet spent over £20 million implementing and integrating SAP, a world class ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) System. Indeed the S151 Officer has asked for a new ERP but the advice provided comes from Capita so we will be stuck with Integra. I flagged this as a massive conflict of interest and suggested that for the council to respond to the rapidly changing demands for technology and systems, they should consider employing their own chief information/technology officer but yet again this was dismissed.</p><p>Capita are having the contract extended for Accounts Payable, yet this service has received more critical reports from internal audit over the last 8 years than any other service with 4 Limited Assurance reports</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjIbVTTlxvZZaJ5hblaguSRlgmgz3fbViYVSa1_FCHdgBcQg_VTQiuI83sMvu68p7k7BWt3JDUi85eJRk6aYR-f1-qaknuhN2sWiA48RuPb9GalcgFiwHjy5emSbJqH-u-Z8B7ml1JnZWQWx8QFFZX6TsojKU8IWc3r4h0tTmuYZE5TeLETuTeMqF7X" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1385" data-original-width="780" height="797" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjIbVTTlxvZZaJ5hblaguSRlgmgz3fbViYVSa1_FCHdgBcQg_VTQiuI83sMvu68p7k7BWt3JDUi85eJRk6aYR-f1-qaknuhN2sWiA48RuPb9GalcgFiwHjy5emSbJqH-u-Z8B7ml1JnZWQWx8QFFZX6TsojKU8IWc3r4h0tTmuYZE5TeLETuTeMqF7X=w449-h797" width="449" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Customer Services, mainly the telephone answering system, stays with Capita and we are told they are doing a fabulous job. I wonder how many people have tried to get through the automated answering system at Barnet? Until 2018 Barnet used to publish data on call answering and it demonstrated that calls to Council Tax and Revs & Bens were consistently failing to meet the minimum response time targets, with thousands of calls being abandoned as people gave up trying to get through to Barnet. Unfortunately, Barnet's response was simply to stop publishing the figures. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Capita was a massive, complex contract, implemented without the resources to adequately manage and monitor it. Even worse, the people who devised the complex systems all cleared off once the contract was signed. Councillors were warned about the consequences of this ill conceived contract back in 2013 yet Barnet pressed on, as Grant Thornton says, for ideological and highly political reasons, a situation that continues to persist. Unless there is full transparency on this process there will be no confidence that this is anything other than a stitch up.</div></div></div><p></p><p>So when candidate comes knocking at your door telling you that the Capita contract is saving a fortune, ask to see the evidence because there isn't any!</p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-31076081553988987702021-09-09T16:09:00.002+01:002021-09-09T16:26:22.375+01:00Just what we pay Capita - How they billed £555 million to one council<p> As readers will know, I have followed the two Capita contracts in Barnet since the very outset when the outsourcing of so many council services was first mooted. To date, Capita have been paid £555 million and there are still just over two years of the contract to run. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOMc25RDJojjfNmCUF9RAwf8sB8hNHgo2APaxEx3BZTrEXLkylITMnKdYa8_rXDh8x_2kH8LH9YwPZJksadau6pijg8H_rIPzzApVxrofv11G16j4g9yW-CDwh8xqaoLn_c5lGmgY644s/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="286" data-original-width="808" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOMc25RDJojjfNmCUF9RAwf8sB8hNHgo2APaxEx3BZTrEXLkylITMnKdYa8_rXDh8x_2kH8LH9YwPZJksadau6pijg8H_rIPzzApVxrofv11G16j4g9yW-CDwh8xqaoLn_c5lGmgY644s/w643-h226/image.png" width="643" /></a></div><br />The difference between the contracted sum and the total paid currently stands at £218 million, a large amount around which there is very little transparency for these additional or 'extra' charges. It was a Conservative Councillor, Hugh Rayner who asked the obvious question before the Capita contracts were let. He said that he likes extras, changes or variations to a contract because that is where he made his money and challenged officers to tell him how we would avoid this situation with Capita. Sadly he was right and the over optimism of politicians, consultants and officers at the time has proved very expensive. (Credit to the late Barnet Bugle who filmed so many of those council meetings providing a permanent record of the mistakes and blunders made by councillors).<div><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AmCkYK_nQLg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </div><div><br /></div><div> Each year there is a period of 4 weeks when any resident can inspect the accounts and this is my annual opportunity to see precisely what 'extras' we are paying for and question whether it is valid or appropriate. This year I requested copies of 439 invoices reconciling the total £54.28 million paid to Capita and in particular what the £21.6 million of extra payments included. It takes a bit of time to not only go through all of those invoices but to understand the specific breakdown of what they include.<p></p><p>At this point I have to give some praise to Barnet Council. Yes you read that right, praise, specifically to the council staff in the finance department. Barnet brought the finance function back in house from Capita a couple of years ago after a range of problems. I think the staff know me reasonably well so this year when I asked for copies of all the invoices and breakdown of what they related to I was surprised that even though I had put in my request early, assuming it might take them up to three weeks to compile, I was sent a fully detailed set of invoices and back up within 24 hours. So well done to all the Council finance staff - excellent service!</p><p>Reading the details of what was in the invoices is both worrying and puzzling in that I keep asking myself why on earth this contract wasn't brought back in-house years ago. Set out below is a summary of the main categories of spending on the 'extras'.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTYcZY9XdRRkOqokomupKHxdx8TvwmBGJCfp7pb_oYCwm_8c_vV0L9pKlVGebq2s9tzBHUahtAGMCPnVhKR0jr35WW8oFCW8QQh82J4nQIIDWbIrei-_Wl498w87mH27C1MxSXLJIsxxc/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="579" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTYcZY9XdRRkOqokomupKHxdx8TvwmBGJCfp7pb_oYCwm_8c_vV0L9pKlVGebq2s9tzBHUahtAGMCPnVhKR0jr35WW8oFCW8QQh82J4nQIIDWbIrei-_Wl498w87mH27C1MxSXLJIsxxc/w654-h390/image.png" width="654" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><br />The first three are items which there is limited room for manoeuvre:</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pensions </b>is what Barnet have to pay for additional pension costs for staff who transferred over with the contract including payouts and changes to the scheme. We don't have any choice over these payments.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Indexation</b> is the uprating of the contract value in line with the inflation rate. I am sure many people who have seen their pay frozen or cut over the last 8 years would welcome a clause where their pay automatically rises by inflation each year. Most other council departments have no guarantee that their budgets will be increased by inflation but it is a contractual clause so we are stuck with it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Procurement</b> is where Barnet request additional item, I understand this is mainly IT equipment. As it is stuff that Barnet have specifically requested then, again, there is little we can do about that. </div><div><p>We then come on to the other three headings which are more interesting and where I have real concerns.</p><p><b>Gainshare</b> is a term whereby Capita share in any savings that they make on behalf of the council. In the past this figure was much larger as it included savings made on procurement. I have fought these from the outset of the contract and exposed what a sham they were. Eventually after much hassle from me and from the my challenge to the accounts being overdue for two years, a settlement was reached with Capita whereby gainshare was removed from procurement items. I was told by someone who should know (I will not mention their name to save them the embarrassment) that my persistence had "saved the council million of pounds" by getting the clause removed. They also urged me to keep looking and keep questioning. This year the majority of gainshare was generated on three areas, council tax collection rates, removal of single person discounts, savings on court costs. This year <b>Capita received £480,197.59 </b>for achieving council tax collection rates above the target set out in the contract. It related to this year and if they managed to recover unpaid council tax in previous years. </p><p>The next is the removal of single person discount. Capita are paid a fixed fee of £127,200 to pay for staff to chase up people claiming the single person discount and then on top of that they get a share of the additional council tax generated by removing the single person discount. Last year that share was a further <span style="font-family: inherit;">£139,735.53 giving a <b>total payment to Capita of £266,935.53</b>. If you are living alone in a property and you have been hassled about whether you are entitled to a single person's discount then this is the reason why - because Capita make money if they remove that discount.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5p5vL4TzyJu5pgUywcKNdVkN8vqJbqToOrHqELUeuiULza1l_FqxkmB_bJ83tX-9G2nVufSfRkCFOH30rZg-w8Zfqh9JpR9ThliveRqk9wki2kVBVUJOSUcU9xtqsVIRXM3wfy_nObM8/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="316" data-original-width="514" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5p5vL4TzyJu5pgUywcKNdVkN8vqJbqToOrHqELUeuiULza1l_FqxkmB_bJ83tX-9G2nVufSfRkCFOH30rZg-w8Zfqh9JpR9ThliveRqk9wki2kVBVUJOSUcU9xtqsVIRXM3wfy_nObM8/w203-h125/image.png" width="203" /></a></div></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">For both Council Tax Collection rates and single person discount removal, I have always felt that we should not just be handing over so much money when there are skilled people within Barnet's own team of staff who could pick up on this. We have a Corporate Anti Fraud Team (CAFT) run by an experienced senior officer who already investigates, tenancy and right to buy fraud, blue badge, freedom pass and parking permit misuse as well as larger corporate frauds, such as the £2 million fraud undertaken by a Capita staff member back in 2018. They also "use </span>internal data matching in order to develop more data led pros-active investigations and allow CAFT to have a greater ability to
investigate and adopt a preventative measures approach to a number of council services". If they were given just a small percentage of that £750k paid to Capita to add to their team, we could save the rest for important services the council is currently being forced to cut.<p></p><p>The court costs gainshare is paid at 20% of court costs collected above the baseline. My argument has always been that if we have a year where court costs are high (possible due to more actions being taken) then is it likely Capita will recover above the baseline which is a fixed sum. Last year this amounted to <b>£101,719.</b> </p><p>There were a number of other gainshare sums including £76,000 on Estates gainshare which is where they exceed targets on rental from commercial properties owned by the council.</p><p>The next large area of costs is <b>Brent Cross </b>where <b>Capita billed £4.94 million</b> in fees for work on various elements of the Brent Cross redevelopment. Until August last year Capita were also responsible for project managing the new Thameslink station at Brent Cross. However, they were replaced by a company called <b>Mace who also billed £1.38 million</b> in professional fees. To be clear the Capita costs are just for their fees not for actually building anything. Last year 2020/21 <b>Barnet spent £70.8 million on the Brent Cross</b> project, up from the £45.5 million spent in 2019/20.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr6I2I5_LGNtqRXS9slSOZ9xJM7i-45Bk5pmYk6s_R2ytGluZh78-GlJtNHJ8nQyvgiDkZJ4OwLpapFdC_S3oDcjETO-3PAjVKDziOx84PbbuwoWZx0pjWhWvnzrpl10M9TA0NIzg-ArY/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="545" data-original-width="1280" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr6I2I5_LGNtqRXS9slSOZ9xJM7i-45Bk5pmYk6s_R2ytGluZh78-GlJtNHJ8nQyvgiDkZJ4OwLpapFdC_S3oDcjETO-3PAjVKDziOx84PbbuwoWZx0pjWhWvnzrpl10M9TA0NIzg-ArY/w414-h176/image.png" width="414" /></a></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: xx-small;"><div style="text-align: center;">Credit: Brentcrosstown.com</div></span>The last area is Special Projects of which there have been many over the years. These are individual projects that have been commissioned by Barnet and on which Capita have an automatic right to operate without the need for a competitive tender. In the past I have been told that the day rates are competitive with other external companies but the issue here is not just the day rate but just how many days are billed. <p></p><p>One of the largest special projects this year includes <b>£2.28 million</b> on the Hendon Hub where<br /> Capita provide professional services for the development and submission of planning applications and the Final Business Case. That is an awful lot of time for a project that isn't even built yet and there are likely to be additional charges and the work continues in this current financial year. They also billed £37,639 for "Heritage Advice" on the scheme.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh997CQWCYCPFoewTBoQyCIVAOPTGzsRmxm-SP440jhclLyTzCi2sSVcHsOJly4H8glFNd9004-LpU7g-Gl-CtOFFcXUgI78diKreLOt4ms-rOJaQbqwyugisXZrz9p2PAfKp36t_IgTGo/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1080" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh997CQWCYCPFoewTBoQyCIVAOPTGzsRmxm-SP440jhclLyTzCi2sSVcHsOJly4H8glFNd9004-LpU7g-Gl-CtOFFcXUgI78diKreLOt4ms-rOJaQbqwyugisXZrz9p2PAfKp36t_IgTGo/w420-h280/image.png" width="420" /></a></div><p></p><p>In addition we paid:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>£710,247 for "ICT Technical Resources"</li><li>£631,134 for assistance in helping to increase the SEN classroom capacity</li><li>£528,488 for "IS work packages"</li><li>£270,621 for staff to help with the "Customer Transformation Programme" </li><li>£225,610 for schools modernisation work</li><li>£207,159 for desktop computer refresh</li><li>£162,871 for the decommissioning of North London Business Park offices, the offices that should have been vacated 5 years earlier.</li><li>£100,256 for a study looking at increasing building capacity under Covid-19 regulations</li><li>£90,608 for work on the lease surrender and decommissioning IT equipment out of Barnet House </li><li>£86,544 for temporary staff to help in anticipation of an increased demand for renewal of the garden waste (Green Bin) stickers as well as £22,534 for staff help for the start up in March 2020 but billed this financial year.</li><li>£78,926 for fire risk assessments.</li></ul><div>There were lots of other project although a few that caught my eye including:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Capita were paid £12,078 to identify a new libraries system and guess whose system they chose.... Capita Libraries - who else! At the same time they were billing £106,670 for the hardware upgrade or replacement of Bibliotheca equipment across the libraries estate, to support Windows 10 operating system. Windows 7 is no longer supported by Microsoft, so an update is required, which will include other solutions, such as self-check kiosks, Open+ self-service and CCTV video. </li><li>Capita were paid a modest sum of £8,740 for a project known as the trickle transfers. This project involves the potential of transfer of around 300 council homes to Opendoor Homes (ODH), which will take over ownership/management in return for a capital receipt and income stream to the council. Instead of paying council rent at the lower level, new tenants will pay a higher social or affordable rent. The homes will only transfer when they are empty. The issue here is not that Capita were paid just under £9k but that they are working on a project to reduce the number of council homes available. I understand that the council policy long term is to transfer over as many council homes as possible as they become vacant to this higher rental level reducing affordability to the most vulnerable.</li></ul><div>To all of this you may say "So What?" My concern is the lack of transparency about so much of the goings on in Barnet, something they have been making even more difficult as the years go by. We are gagged at meetings, and the amount of information they used to produce has been reduced. For example, Barnet used to produce a quarterly, one page summary of the benefits the Capita contract had generated (Benefits Realisation). When I started asking questions about the numbers, Barnet's response was to stop publishing it. I used to analyse the senior council staff salaries from data they published. One day they just stopped publishing it. I never published staff member names even though it was available only ever their title. Now we haven't a clue other than for the top handful of staff. Even worse they removed years of historical salary data that had already been published. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>I do this because someone has to try and hold the council to account!</div></div></div>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-81636732456724412002021-06-08T18:05:00.002+01:002021-06-08T18:05:35.798+01:00The Ladder of Citizen Participation in Barnet - More Snakes Than Ladders.<p> Tomorrow there is a Community Leadership & Libraries Committee meeting where one of the agenda items is all about resident participation. The main thrust of this is about getting Barnet residents to do more for themselves but they also talk about greater engagement and participation and include a section about informing and consulting with residents.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG4lxmSjIswnFcfhAGadf-5vMbYinlbx2yCMTPur5zpvtn7hOo95WVF2nY-Azxngq5SvThp5S3UIcER77tJd_lwrVDJIeetDOit1R4iucqW0Mf9avURypVdrZVT_NrKtcjDyR6RT2avFE/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="227" data-original-width="780" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhG4lxmSjIswnFcfhAGadf-5vMbYinlbx2yCMTPur5zpvtn7hOo95WVF2nY-Azxngq5SvThp5S3UIcER77tJd_lwrVDJIeetDOit1R4iucqW0Mf9avURypVdrZVT_NrKtcjDyR6RT2avFE/w541-h157/image.png" width="541" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;">There is quite an academic tone to the paper referencing the ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ "first modelled by Sherry Arnstein in a US
planning journal in 1969" as the report says.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAfcgULu6EEH5ALmPLeopQJQ7l0rVz3ev3tcDH1U-cMxasX1wW8lXnmUG-Q-n01b3kUNwp5Pu7_ICYOurNkKfhEVbP4Zpca8TwMhhJcPOOipx29THOT1gy85QAU-VzKgQ6iC4ShefOHtQ/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="313" data-original-width="511" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAfcgULu6EEH5ALmPLeopQJQ7l0rVz3ev3tcDH1U-cMxasX1wW8lXnmUG-Q-n01b3kUNwp5Pu7_ICYOurNkKfhEVbP4Zpca8TwMhhJcPOOipx29THOT1gy85QAU-VzKgQ6iC4ShefOHtQ/w496-h304/image.png" width="496" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">From my perspective we are definitely stuck on the lower rungs of tokenism and that is where we will remain unless there is a change of administration or we encounter more snakes and slip further back down the ladder as the urge to suppress discussion gets worse.</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Over the last ten years we have seen many backward steps in resident participation.<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>No longer allowed to address (speak at) a committee. Originally you could ask to address the committee for up to 5 minutes and committee members had the opportunity to ask questions of the speaker to get more insight into the issue. This was then reduced to three minutes, then the right to speak was removed entirely.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Not allowed to ask more than one question on an agenda item, no more than 100 words, and if more than two people want to ask a question about the same agenda item only the first two questions are taken and all others are rejected. </li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;">The excuse given was that people were asking too many questions even though the time for questions and speeches was limited to no more than 30 minutes. Some agenda items especially those dealing with budget and finance may be accompanied by up to 12 additional reports running to several hundred pages. Irrespective of the length of report or topics covered, one agenda item, one question is the limit.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Restrictions on asking questions at residents forums. Pre 2010 residents forums used to be held up to 10 times a year, you could submit questions on the evening and there was a dialogue about the items. Now forums are just 4 times per year, you have to submit your question a week in advance and you can only speak for three minutes which is rigorously enforced. One councillor, <a href="https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/16247639.barnet-village-bore-crackdown/" target="_blank">John Marshall</a>, disrespectfully labelled people who wanted to speak for four, five, six or seven minutes as "village bores". </li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;">The report identifies the need to "reinvigorate" residents forums but what I find so galling is that exactly the same message was given 10 years ago in a detailed paper which you can read <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Special%20Committee%20(Constitution%20Review)/201104141900/Agenda/Document%207.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. Set out below is an extract from that research paper:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="color: #073763;">The research asked what would encourage residents to get involved, the most common themes were:</span></i></div></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Topics needed to be of specific interest and relating to their local area;</span></i></li><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">The Council should demonstrate they are taking action and feeding back what was happening as a result;</span></i></li><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Engagement should be better publicised through a variety of methods.</span></i></li></ul></div><div><i><span style="color: #073763;">As a result, their principal requirements for an attractive engagement model was that visible action resulted on the night from those with authority, which was then fed back. The system should also be more widely publicised, and there were a number of suggestions on how this be done including greater use of electronic communications. There were also suggestions that the council should make greater use of Barnet online and the web to understand the issues that were causing residents most concern within different areas.</span></i></div><div><i><span style="color: #073763;">In terms of format some participants said they did not like the top table format and would prefer the meetings to be more informal, with table discussions, mixing residents, councillors and officers on each table.</span></i></div><div><i><span style="color: #073763;">There were some requests for all local issues, including other public services, to be covered, and for meetings to allocate a small budget, but this was by no means universal.</span></i></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The research paper also identified barriers to people attending residents forums which included:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Lack of action as a result of what is raised or discussed was the main deterrent to getting involved in the future</span></i></li><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Lack of feedback and explanation of the process was also seen as a key deterrent</span></i></li><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Lack of time was also a barrier to getting involved</span></i></li><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Inconvenient time/day - some participants felt if the engagement foras were held at inconvenient times this was a particular barrier to some residents. Reference was made in particular to mothers with children who would find it difficult to attend in the evening due to childcare</span></i></li><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Inconvenient location – if the event was in held at an inconvenient location and not in participant’s local area</span></i></li><li><i><span style="color: #073763;">Confidentiality - was also mentioned as a barrier to raising issues in face to face foras. Particular reference was made to raising anti social behaviour issues about neighbours.</span></i></li></ul></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">At the time, I thought the officer responsible had done a good job in identifying the problems and therefore their recommendations would be accepted. But no. This is Barnet and of course they ignored the findings and made it even more difficult to ask questions by banning a range of issues that could be raised. No surprise when people stopped going. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Now they say they have a problem with engagement and want to 'reinvigorate' the forums. Ten years, no lessons learned, no one looking back to research carried out previously, same councillors doing their utmost to supress, ignore and discourage resident engagement. No wonder people are disengaged.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div></div><p><br /></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-61196172806190510852021-05-31T20:17:00.003+01:002021-05-31T20:17:24.068+01:00Highly Political and Ideologically Driven - The Capita Contracts in Barnet<p> It has been some time but Mr Reasonable is back! During
lockdown and the incredibly tough time that we have all experienced, I thought
I would ease back on my detailed scrutiny of Barnet Council and allow it to get
on with what was a much more important job of looking after the residents of
Barnet during this crisis. Throughout the entire lockdown period many vital
frontline services have continued to operate and my thanks goes to all those
incredibly brave and hardworking staff who have never had the option to work
from home. However, council committee meetings have resumed in person so now is
the time to resume detailed scrutiny.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yesterday I reviewed the latest position on the Capita
contracts in papers published for the Financial Performance and Contracts Committee
which you can read <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=693&MId=10799" target="_blank">here</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It sets out
plans for which of the services currently operated by Capita will be brought
back in-house, which will be reviewed after a year and which will continue to
be operated by Capita after the contract expires in 2023.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the past I would have taken my views and a long list of
in-depth questions to the committee meeting in what would, in a normal
democracy, be seen as public scrutiny. However, as we all know, in Barnet the
current regime hate any form of scrutiny so they have gagged all those people
who take a close interest in how the council is run. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am allowed just one question on the contracts
costing an average of £72 million a year. </p><p class="MsoNormal">To set the Capita contract in
context, set out below is the total Barnet have paid to Capita since the
contract started in September 2013. As you can see, so far Barnet have paid
Capita £540 million, £212 million more than was originally contracted. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiryeXmgVni3CFrwOBJp3hDEf0u0YpbfJufG7V2tayWDygb8M7FngodgwPAWVQAxC2a-6ssKYh0pXlGrAptxA3zlezmGaL7FNIkMFXmNKlgRb7tP4gXG1ePMgD-pgRftSTbnsKAxB88wc4/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="219" data-original-width="618" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiryeXmgVni3CFrwOBJp3hDEf0u0YpbfJufG7V2tayWDygb8M7FngodgwPAWVQAxC2a-6ssKYh0pXlGrAptxA3zlezmGaL7FNIkMFXmNKlgRb7tP4gXG1ePMgD-pgRftSTbnsKAxB88wc4/w645-h226/image.png" width="645" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal">When I meet people who are unfamiliar with Capita’s role in
Barnet, they often ask if I am joking when I say that one council, Barnet, has
paid over half a billion pounds to one company, Capita. The level of disbelief
is huge but that is the reality of the contract councillors entered with Capita
back in 2013.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s65146/FPC%20Contracts%20Review%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">paper being discussed next week</a> sets
out where they have got to in reviewing the two contracts and the strategy going
forward, something they are asking councillors on the committee to agree. Bear in mind that the CSG contract review should have been completed two years ago and the Re contract a year ago. It is
accompanied by a “<a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s65147/Appendix%20A%20-%20Report%20Market%20Insights.pdf" target="_blank">Market Insights” report</a> prepared by Grant Thornton in which the
Executive Summary opens with the statement:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-themecolor: text2;">“Historically
procurement has been ideologically driven and highly political”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Definitely 100% true in Barnet’s case. It also goes on to
say:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-themecolor: text2;">“The
gap between cost and efficiency for delivery between the public and private
sector has been significantly squeezed over the last decade as a result of market
pressures. This means that outsourcing is not always the most cost effective
option by default”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unpicking that statement and reading between the lines, it is
saying that the price difference between companies like Capita and in house
teams is slim, if at all, something I told Barnet back in 2012 and 2013.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The killer line is at the bottom of the executive summary
where it says:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-themecolor: text2;">Key
to pragmatic delivery and understanding is an effective and objective options
appraisal process with a clear vison at the outset of </span></i></b></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-themecolor: text2;">‘WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE’ and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i></b></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-themecolor: text2;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">'</span>WHAT PROBLEMS ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE’<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The council failed to address those two critical questions
in 2013 and reading the committee paper they still have not been addressed
nearly eight years later. Indeed the current paper seems to have been written
from a Capita centric view point with services from which Capita can continue
to make money being retained and those that do not generate profit/make a loss,
or don’t fit the model of what Capita want to provide, being returned to Barnet. </p><p class="MsoNormal">For example, the reports says it makes sense for Capita to keep IT, customer
service and revenue and benefits. All three of these services have contract
clauses that allow Capita to charge extra for exceeding volume thresholds. The
biggest money spinner of all is planning, a service which is intrinsically
linked to local knowledge but which Barnet seem happy to let Capita keep
creaming off a profit share. I am aware that there has been a high turnover of
staff in the planning department and this has led to a real loss of local
knowledge when planning applications are put forward. Knowing planning law may
be seen as the most important criteria but I would say that having some local
knowledge, is right up there when deciding planning applications. One possible reason
for the high turnover of staff is that the biggest employer of planning
officers are other local authorities who offer the benefits package, especially
pensions, that Capita fail to offer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Set out below is a summary of how the different services
will be managed; retain means retained by Capita and returned means given
back to Barnet to manage. I have dealt with the issues involved with each
service individually below the table.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJMtmoKbPP0Aq80m_PYfTLfpIj3DeVBzbrKDosEVvy7HxiuG1x9I8xsZ5rduiv5ujW_QGZ3pfXbK-sG5K_daewD1tBlbocwgqCf5y6yj04lhfi5TDGnPHei2HsnpsR9wp81LrhzHGeq6E/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="507" height="497" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJMtmoKbPP0Aq80m_PYfTLfpIj3DeVBzbrKDosEVvy7HxiuG1x9I8xsZ5rduiv5ujW_QGZ3pfXbK-sG5K_daewD1tBlbocwgqCf5y6yj04lhfi5TDGnPHei2HsnpsR9wp81LrhzHGeq6E/w485-h497/image.png" width="485" /></a></div><br /><br />
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">IT </span></i></b>– “whoever controls the data controls the world” applies
at corporate level as well. Without control of the IT systems we are forever dependent
on Capita. A couple of years ago when there was a major review of spending
being carried out, some of the shortcomings of Capita’s Integra system were
highlighted, especially budgeting for capital project over more than one year.
The then acting Finance Officer (who I rated highly) said that computer systems such as SAP had the
ability to schedule capital budget over many years and he has used that at other
Local Authorities. The irony of the situation is that Barnet had spent more
than £20 million developing and perfecting an SAP system only for it to be
thrown out and replaced by Capita’s Integra system when we signed the contract
back in 2013. In this paper they have recognised the need to improve of the
Integra systems and are saying that by extending the contract, Capita will make
investment in this area. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red; font-size: x-large;">WARNING!!! </span></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is a complete and utter myth. Back in
2013 Barnet councillors said they did not have the money to invest in IT
systems and that is why they needed a company like Capita who would invest
their own money in new systems. However, as soon as the contract was signed they
completely reversed that decision saying that it was much cheaper for the
council to borrow money than Capita and put up £16.1 million which they said
saved the council £800,000 in interest that Capita would have charged. The same will happen again this time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Customer Services</span></i></b> – The report says that this service has
performed well. Not what Barnet residents were saying pre covid when getting
through to the council on the phone system was a nightmare. I demonstrated that
on some departments Capita had never met their full quarter KPI targets on
answering the phone since the start of the contract.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfkQhLzvBI1NPboizVXNRVSdGTABa_CXduTGarBKrwSGt-IC_rNoMNZqz5Q-GhmK72CegJovKd3ynkppxeLlSL4cJPRv-L9w75_WcY1czK7q8b19DKjc3Q2isDZZeb86ynR4aXJWC0vmc/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="640" height="323" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfkQhLzvBI1NPboizVXNRVSdGTABa_CXduTGarBKrwSGt-IC_rNoMNZqz5Q-GhmK72CegJovKd3ynkppxeLlSL4cJPRv-L9w75_WcY1czK7q8b19DKjc3Q2isDZZeb86ynR4aXJWC0vmc/w545-h323/image.png" width="545" /></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfkQhLzvBI1NPboizVXNRVSdGTABa_CXduTGarBKrwSGt-IC_rNoMNZqz5Q-GhmK72CegJovKd3ynkppxeLlSL4cJPRv-L9w75_WcY1czK7q8b19DKjc3Q2isDZZeb86ynR4aXJWC0vmc/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLcTtfPk6XMBGKvuJb82KnfA8M9w5BFODpiTlqjLeDyaUmxN-lAICL4jG8cCGRLqkHgajtA98Xqwnko82PnbM_iS5pNireC593XBK_jBvEih0svsGew3tev0u6OPm1gAAaYGfNb6L-XYc/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="409" data-original-width="640" height="361" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLcTtfPk6XMBGKvuJb82KnfA8M9w5BFODpiTlqjLeDyaUmxN-lAICL4jG8cCGRLqkHgajtA98Xqwnko82PnbM_iS5pNireC593XBK_jBvEih0svsGew3tev0u6OPm1gAAaYGfNb6L-XYc/w564-h361/image.png" width="564" /></a></div><br /></div><p class="MsoNormal">Barnet’s response was clear and decisive…. they stopped
publishing the data so that I could not point out the failings any more. Capita
also charge extra when call volumes exceed target levels, even though many of
the calls are now fully automated (quarter of a million pounds in 2018). The Covid
pandemic has seen a massive change in the way calls are handled with call
centres closed and most calls dealt with by staff from their homes. Why haven’t
Barnet looked at doing this themselves? Covid has forced many people in the hospitality and retail sectors out of work In addition, there are always people looking for fairly paid part time work, especially working mothers who need to balance childcare with work. Why aren’t Barnet
looking at utilising these local staff working from home as a way to create better
paid local jobs using people with good local knowledge. Sadly this is a prime
example of ideology trumping pragmatism. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Revenues & Benefits</span></i></b> – This service is now the largest
recipient of the wonderfully titled “Gainshare” clause. With this clause, if Capita
save some money or gather more than was forecast 9 years ago when the contract
was drafted, then they get to keep a proportion of it – up to 50%. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Last year Capita claimed <b>£837,218.66</b> using this clause including <b>£180,421.92</b> gainshare for exceeding the council tax collection
target, <b>£125,057.81</b> for gainshare on recovered housing benefit
over-payments and <b>£230,702.89</b> for reducing the number of people claiming single person
discounts. Times and technology have moved on. It would be good to see
Barnet hanging on to all of that <b>£837,000</b> rather than handing it over to
Capita.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Procurement</span></i></b> – after years of campaigning and highlighting to
both Barnet Council senior officers and to the External Auditor how much we
were paying out unfairly in gainshare to Capita on procurement, gainshare on
procurement was dropped as part of a secret deal done between Jonathan Lewis, CEO of Capita, and Barnet back in November 2018. This clause had generated just
under £8 million of gainshare for Capita so was extremely lucrative. Without it
Capita simply can’t be bothered so that is why they are handing this service
back to Barnet.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Accounts Payable/Integra</span></i></b> – Barnet are proposing that this
service is given a short extension with a further review even though Accounts Payable
has been one of the <b>worst performing services</b> of those provided by Capita. Since
the start of the contract Accounts Payable has received four limited assurance reports from Barnet’s Internal
Auditors in January 2015, January 2016, April 2018 and October 2019. This
department’s failures were also highlighted by Grant Thornton in their
investigation into the £2m fraud discovered in 2018. What else is to review – they
have provided consistently lousy service and should have been sacked back in
2018. The report also talks about economies of scale but this is already a
massive operation. In 2020/21 I logged and tracked <b>162,468 payment transactions</b> and those were only the ones made public. Accounts Payable needs attention and is
large enough to warrant being brought back in house where hopefully we would get
more scrutiny on what is being paid out.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">HR/Core HR </span></i></b>- a large part of this service has already been
brought back because of serious failings. It therefore makes sense to bring the
rest back when the contract expires yet Barnet want to extend and review this
service. Why? Ideology over pragmatism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Estates</span></i></b> – another service earmarked a short extension and
further review. Reading the report it is hard to understand why when it says <b><i><span style="color: #1f497d; mso-themecolor: text2;">“Overall, the Estates function has
had a number of problems over many years, which go back to before the CSG
contract was put in place. Repeated efforts to resolve this over the years have
made some improvements, but the service is not yet consistently performing to
the required standard”</span></i></b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only conclusion I can come to is that
Capita want to hang on to it because while they provide a dismal service, they
can still claim gainshare on property income w<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">here Capita keep 30% of the additional income from </span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">rent reviews, lease renewals and letting on the property
portfolio</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> above an agreed baseline</span>. Last year that was
just over £100,000. Are you starting to see a pattern here?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Planning Control & Development</span></i></b> – Barnet is in the top
ten of busiest planning departments in England (2,694 applications in 2020), something from
which it generates a large revenue stream. The head of planning was a Barnet
council staff member before the contract was outsourced so I am not sure what
value Capita have brought to this contract but currently we have to share the planning
income with Capita. Given that there has been so much criticism of planning and
the accusation of conflicts of interest with other Capita companies such as GL
Hearn, it would seem like an obvious choice to bring back in house. In this
case the financial interests of Capita win again.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Building Control and Land Charges </span></i></b>– again both revenue
generating service where profit has to be shared with Capita so yet again the
recommendation is to leave the service with Capita.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Regulatory Services</span></i></b> - these include Environmental Health,
Trading Standards and Licensing and they are recommended to return to Barnet’s
control. Definitely, the right decision and one where right back in 2013 it
seemed unwise to hand to a contractor. Possibly of more relevance is that none of
these services make money so are therefore of no interest to Capita.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Regeneration</span></i></b> – is also a strategic service which generates
no income for Capita so surprise, surprise the recommendation is that it should
return to Barnet. It is important that the service is run and controlled by
Barnet staff but it is clear to see why Capita aren’t putting up a fight to
keep it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Highways</span></i></b> – this is another service that has performed dismally
under Capita. They have struggled to recruit and retain senior management for this service. It received a 'Limited Assurance' rating in April 2017 and a 'No Assurance' rating, the worst possible, in October 2019. Indeed at the most
recent Audit Committee meeting in April this year, the deadline for resolving
the problems identified in the 2019 report had been missed again – <b>for the 5<sup>th</sup>
time</b>. Capita do not physically carry out the highways work; that is let through
a London Councils framework contract, they just manage it. The report is also contradictory
on this service saying in the text that the service should be returned yet in the chart
saying it should be extended with a further review. Which is it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color: red;">Cemetery & Crematorium</span></i></b> – the report says
that Capita aren’t doing a bad job. Others who had a loved one’s memorial bench
chucked into a heap in the Hendon Cemetery memorial garden and who have seen the process of death “memorialised” to
use Capita’s jargon, might disagree. However the service doesn’t fit with
Capita’s strategy “<i><b>and is the only cemetery and crematorium they (Capita) run. Whilst
this does not present any immediate issues of concern, the potential for them
to add further value to the development of the service over the medium-term may
be limited”</b></i>. So yet again they are handing back a service not because of any
pragmatic or logical reasoning but because it doesn’t fit with what Capita want
to provide.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reading this report I am shocked that it is so one sided and
biased towards what is best for Capita rather than what is best for Barnet and
its residents.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Grant Thornton Market Insights report raises a number of
interesting points including information about councils that are insourcing
(bringing back in house) services that were previously outsourced.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh49WjlTqZTwQ8egTc655NFP1U7i1T8Cow_A-kSUH1x0iTmQ1erAxDba1FeKFJmJCyw2ybPQJJGCKuUnSaWwOD4ciCVHPT2K4hJAJXwqBM3HkSjrdqPTHmEwSOAVnTXYSD1E00PoqoxJbo/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="438" height="410" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh49WjlTqZTwQ8egTc655NFP1U7i1T8Cow_A-kSUH1x0iTmQ1erAxDba1FeKFJmJCyw2ybPQJJGCKuUnSaWwOD4ciCVHPT2K4hJAJXwqBM3HkSjrdqPTHmEwSOAVnTXYSD1E00PoqoxJbo/w434-h410/image.png" width="434" /></a></div><p class="MsoNormal">As I mentioned at the outset, local residents are not
allowed to ask more than one question and if more than two residents want to
ask their single question about an agenda item then they are simply ignored. We will be invited to a focus group session in early July and one later in the year in the same format as 2018. In that focus group they gave everyone tea and biscuits and £50, (I donated my fee to charity) listened to what everyone said and then completely ignored every single word. It ticks the box for consultation without listening to a word that is said.</p><p class="MsoNormal">This is a contract which has already cost £540 million yet this report seems
superficial and entirely biased in favour of Capita. Grant Thornton are right
when the say procurement has been ideologically driven and highly political. Unfortunately
that seems to still be the case in Barnet. No big picture, no wholistic viewpoint,
no recognition of the links between services that make a council function
efficiently, just more of the same old fashioned ideology where Capita’s needs
and strategy are at the forefront of any decision.<o:p></o:p></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-57085455102521650712020-10-04T16:30:00.000+01:002020-10-04T16:30:36.392+01:00Brent Cross - what are the risks of this massive schemeAs part of my recent inspection of the accounts, I identified that Barnet had paid Capita £14.1 million on the Brent Cross project. A significant sum, but what I also discovered was that last year alone Barnet paid out <b>£45.5 million</b> on Brent Cross and a further <b>£30.3 million since April</b>. Much of this money is recovered through a central government grant but what worried me was the lack of transparency about what is happening with this project and how the financial risk to local Barnet residents is being managed. <div><br /></div><div>According to the Barnet Council website:<br /><br />"One of the biggest regeneration projects in Europe, the Brent Cross Cricklewood scheme will see the comprehensive regeneration of 151 hectares to create a sustainable new town centre for Barnet and North London including substantial residential and commercial uses. <br /><br />The project comprises three components:<br /><div><ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Brent
Cross London — a modernised and extended shopping centre and improvements
to critical road infrastructure as well as cycling and pedestrian access.
Delivered by Hammerson and Standard Life Investments. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Brent
Cross South — the creation of a new high street south of the North
Circular, including 6,700 new homes, commercial development and new and
improved community facilities and public spaces. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Brent
Cross Thameslink — a new, additional Thameslink station and associated
infrastructure works to provide pedestrian, cycling and vehicle links
across the railway, and replace outdated waste and freight
facilities". <o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Each element is quite different with its own history and risks.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Brent Cross London:</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-align: justify;">Originally, the shopping centre was to be expanded and redeveloped and the additional business rates it would generate would be ring fenced to pay for the new Thameslink station. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-align: justify;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCCmBBQbYJpz1m8Ga5hlibIdgWRg9CoqeUxVHnCIvANjHtzyoIU66C0ba5FZqt_UOSTw4FzxjFXV7WeTI09RfVbQ2W1QcF4taEk3D4QXHpXbrnueYU4ax8WW_y2ocuZCDAKUMk4kmSILw/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="1204" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCCmBBQbYJpz1m8Ga5hlibIdgWRg9CoqeUxVHnCIvANjHtzyoIU66C0ba5FZqt_UOSTw4FzxjFXV7WeTI09RfVbQ2W1QcF4taEk3D4QXHpXbrnueYU4ax8WW_y2ocuZCDAKUMk4kmSILw/w640-h352/image.png" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">However, even before Covid-19, the retail sector was struggling and in 2018 the planned extension was stalled. This had a serious impact on the funding of the Thameslink station so Barnet were forced to go to Central Government to get them to underwrite the station construction costs. </span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">With the shopping centre redevelopment on hold and Government have agreeing to step in and fund the Thameslink station what is not clear is who will fund the north side infrastructure and how dependent Brent Cross South is on that infrastructure. For example, I understand that Brent Cross London are responsible for the replacement of the Templehof Bridge and the construction of the new Living Bridge. My concern is what happens if this infrastructure is not built, is it critical for the additional traffic flow to the southern development and is the energy centre on the north side linked to the southern development? Also, it is not clear what will happen to the development of plot 114, identified for housing, and the re-routing of the River Brent and how important they are to the success of the overall project.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The shopping centre site is large, with a tube station to the east and the new Thameslink station to the west. My big concern is at what point does the site become worth more for housing than for a shopping centre and if that happened what impact would it have on the Brent Cross South development.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><b>Brent Cross South:</b></span></span></p><p><span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is a massive development with around 6,700 new homes and 3,000,000+ square feet of office space along with shops and restaurants. It also involves the rebuilding of three new schools, including an expanded Claremont Pr</span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">imary School. To make this development happen required the compulsory purchase of a number of homes, including the Whitefield Estate, and these tenants will be rehoused in the new development as shown below.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTPcS2uBRC6WwDtsMl_DrqZdu7A9GlQlC92HRPcnkiH7SkvWWGIxg4fLEp4xauKjmiKWP76y-zGYTTi8EkKlym_A67LR-90us9Ngq7U-qWwnuiHhQZAxlAl0XOzxY0YQjuOWzItT8kOyo/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="388" data-original-width="994" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTPcS2uBRC6WwDtsMl_DrqZdu7A9GlQlC92HRPcnkiH7SkvWWGIxg4fLEp4xauKjmiKWP76y-zGYTTi8EkKlym_A67LR-90us9Ngq7U-qWwnuiHhQZAxlAl0XOzxY0YQjuOWzItT8kOyo/w640-h250/image.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Brent Cross South differs from the shopping centre site in that Barnet Council are joint venture partners, something they entered into in 2016. You can read the details </span><a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s30516/Brent%20Cross%20Cricklewood.pdf" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">. This JV entitles the Council to share in profits generated by the scheme. Senior council officers sit on the Joint Venture Board but there is also a Shadow Shareholders Board made up of five councillors who are suppose to "meet monthly </span>to monitor and review
project progress, and to consider and make decisions as required by the
Council in its capacity as shareholder". I have never seen any minutes of these meetings nor do I know if they still sit. They may well be doing so but the issue here is about transparency.<p></p><p>Prior to Covid-19, the level of risk may on this development may have been much lower, but working from home looks like it may have a permanent impact on demand for office space. With plans to build 3,000,000+ square feet of office space, there must be a real concern about whether there will still be demand for this amount of office space on the North Circular and who it will be targeting. The developer, Argent, was also responsible for the Kings Cross redevelopment which has attracted high profile tenants, such as Google and Universal Music. However, Brent Cross is definitely not Kings Cross and, as such, it is not clear who they will be targeting and how successful they will be in securing tenants. The other big risk is that it simply sucks out office tenants from existing Barnet town centres, moving jobs rather than creating them. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAA9DmT7CSAKlWSwH0ljFcgeeCSOhDzGlYk72JBixpjfWLKTHlM1UnQwyUuCX0IupmWasj0h6IY4UaZQLYVSeYQnX_ibARQAgtWf_8WwuF-laHfaw9-mddmXkaw7Na83oZFylIW02NpCQ/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="465" data-original-width="1009" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAA9DmT7CSAKlWSwH0ljFcgeeCSOhDzGlYk72JBixpjfWLKTHlM1UnQwyUuCX0IupmWasj0h6IY4UaZQLYVSeYQnX_ibARQAgtWf_8WwuF-laHfaw9-mddmXkaw7Na83oZFylIW02NpCQ/w640-h294/image.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />While Canary Wharf is a beacon of success today, I am old enough to remember how the original developer went bust due to the downturn in the office market in the early 1990’s, something that must at all costs be avoided on this scheme. </div><div><br /></div><div>The other concern is the demand for housing. While I am sure there will continue to be demand for housing in London, the big issue will be the style and tenancy of the homes. It is interesting to see how there seems to be a real shift to people either wanting gardens/more outdoor space or moving out of London. Below are just a few of the many recent articles on this subject:<p></p><h1 class="title" style="background-color: white; clear: both; line-height: 1.88571rem; margin: 0px;"><span style="color: #00577d; font-family: inherit; font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/escaping-the-city-post-covid" target="_blank">Half of Londoners wanting to move home want out of London</a></span></h1><p><a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/09/05/demand-for-apartments-is-flatlining-in-britain" target="_blank">Demand for apartments flat-lining in Britain</a></p><p><a href="https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-8406233/Homes-garden-new-buyers.html" target="_blank">Homes with gardens become the new must have</a></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/sep/15/renters-fleeing-inner-london-in-race-for-space-data-suggests" target="_blank">Renters fleeing London</a></span></span></p><p><b>Brent Cross Thameslink:</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>This is a massive infrastructure job with a massive price tag to match. Although the actual station itself is "only" costing c.£50 million to build, creating the space for it and relocating the other services that are in the way, such as the waste transfer station, the rail freight depot and realigning the tracks is costing at least £200 million. </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In terms of the Thameslink Station, while the Government has agreed to provide funding, my understanding is that this is capped and, based on the response I had from Barnet's Director of Finance, Barnet Council are exposed to the risk of any cost overruns. This something that concerns me greatly. Many seasoned Barnet watchers may remember the Aerodrome Bridge fiasco where <a href="https://barneteye.blogspot.com/2009/05/undynamic-duos-aerodrome-road-bridge.html" target="_blank">costs over ran by £11 million</a>. The problem is that this project is of a different magnitude where even a 10% cost overrun, which would not be unusual on a project of this scale, would have a serious impact on Barnet’s finances. In addition, the Joint Venture agreement identifies that the Council is also responsible for <b>funding any operational subsidy to the Train
Operating Company until the station becomes self-financing</b>. This becomes much more of an issue if the build out of the 6,700 flats is slower than anticipated and could mean that Barnet may be liable for station operating costs for years to come. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is interesting that Capita have been replaced as project managers for the station and instead Barnet have brought in <a href="https://www.macegroup.com" target="_blank">Mace</a> who are an experienced project manager for this type of infrastructure project. As an aside, I wonder if Capita are claiming the 14.3% "Overhead and Profit mark up" when using external
resources, that is written into their Re Contract.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Financial Reporting:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In terms of reporting
spending, it would be helpful to break this down into capital and revenue and
to understand what is covered by grants, JV partners or Barnet, either through
the revenue account or through loans in the capital account. In addition,
providing a forecast budget would help to identify which elements of the scheme
have a cost overrun liability enabling remedial steps to be taken before the
overspend is incurred. Set out below is what was provided at Policy & Resources Committee but
relates only to capital expenditure and does not appear to include any of the revenue
costs such as professional fees to Capita/Mace or loans associated with the scheme. For example,
where is the £148 million Home England loan accounted for or the £14.1 million
paid to Capita Re last year on Brent Cross?</span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXquP33q6VipLLuxef9sA3wg9F8PCYxf_ZjFIKveOiOo7-yBGQyl-5brm4pVExz56_JAZOliIxUAOYnJx3xa_plElJgTr521W54Muqu1ymz895FzgZfhBp4B2T-r4YIA-miWDwbO4xyPc/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="1081" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXquP33q6VipLLuxef9sA3wg9F8PCYxf_ZjFIKveOiOo7-yBGQyl-5brm4pVExz56_JAZOliIxUAOYnJx3xa_plElJgTr521W54Muqu1ymz895FzgZfhBp4B2T-r4YIA-miWDwbO4xyPc/w640-h318/image.png" width="640" /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b style="font-family: inherit;">Risk Management:</b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Given the scale and complexity of the project and the level of risk involved, I would have thought this would warrant a separate sub-committee at which the Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Growth and possibly a representative from Mace/Argent Related could attend. It may mean that parts of the committee are held in private session but it would allow more councillors genuine scrutiny of the project. All too often Barnet use what are known as lagging or trailing indicators - they tell what has happened, how much things have cost and how far behind schedule projects are. However, on this project it is essential that any committee monitoring the project have a decent number of leading indicators which, for example, would look at demand for flats and office space, how much has been pre-let, forecast costs, a decent project management (Gantt) chart showing where the scheme is on the critical path and understanding what elements of the project might delay delivery. In this way problems can be identified early and decisions taken to hopefully prevent them from getting to a scale that has a major financial impact. Currently Brent Cross is discussed at both</span><span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Housing & Growth and Policy & Resources but the risk is that they take </span>decisions<span style="font-family: inherit;"> without be need to be aware of the
financial consequences and risks they are taking. I am sure the developer and officers are reviewing this type of information but ultimately it is councillors who are are accountable to the public and, as such, they need to be fully aware and up to speed on the project's progress.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I raised my concerns about Brent Cross with the external auditor but due to delays between them and Barnet, I missed the chance to lodge a formal objection, specifically asking for this to be the subject of a Public Interest Report. I believe that Barnet are looking into my concerns in more detail but I just wish there was the reassurance of much greater scrutiny and transparency on what could be a massive financial risk for Barnet. I will update you with details as or when they become available.</span></p></div></div>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-15916074007444417102020-09-09T09:31:00.000+01:002020-09-09T09:31:40.646+01:00Inspection of the accounts - What we pay to Capita.<p>I don't know about you but I was keen to see the details of the <b>£83.2 million</b> Barnet Council have paid to Capita in the last year, especially as the contract value for 2019/20 was just <b>£39.7 million</b>. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi24kpTaKqMWxMULxg_N3wcfQ0yAJZ7ozGNmgQOSd4ET7CH_besEzrPzFfQ-Ik9JCuKlHmfu8TtfidH_FOEaX74xgJqoTLR4vVvyoZsu3nZx0uS8Blg29S7EhTnb0VTno5B8027IGgbLX8/s848/Capita+Payments+2019-20+Year+End.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="366" data-original-width="848" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi24kpTaKqMWxMULxg_N3wcfQ0yAJZ7ozGNmgQOSd4ET7CH_besEzrPzFfQ-Ik9JCuKlHmfu8TtfidH_FOEaX74xgJqoTLR4vVvyoZsu3nZx0uS8Blg29S7EhTnb0VTno5B8027IGgbLX8/w640-h276/Capita+Payments+2019-20+Year+End.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I have found issues in the past and feel it is my civic duty to at least provide a modicum of scrutiny to the huge amount we pay Capita. I used to be able to attend committee meetings and ask detailed questions about the contract, but Barnet hated that, so they introduced the gagging rules stopping that level of public scrutiny. Luckily, every Barnet resident has the right in law to inspect the accounts and that is what I have just completed, checking 421 Capita invoices. It presents some interesting data.</div><p><b>Contract Fee:</b></p><p>We paid <b>£24.2 million</b> on the Capita CSG contract and <b>£20.3 million </b>on the Capita Re contract for the basic fee. What isn't made clear, when some councillors talk about savings with the Capita contract, is that this figure excludes an inflation element which is billed separately under the heading of <i>indexation</i>. Last year this amounted to an <b>additional £3.44 million</b>. I would love to have a contract that gave me an automatic uplift for inflation each year and I can't think of a single council department where that inflation proof guarantee since 2013 is in place.</p><p><b>Gainshare:</b></p><p>We are still paying out on the gainshare clause whereby Capita get a share of any savings. They don't get gainshare on any procurement now, thanks to my persistent campaign showing that we were being ripped off by a poorly worded contract. However, last year Capita received <b>£109,198</b> on printing gainshare and just over <b>£100,000</b> gainshare on property income w<span>here Capita keep 30% of the additional income from </span>rent reviews, lease renewals and letting on the property portfolio<span> above an agreed baseline. They received </span><b>£180,421.92</b> gainshare for exceeding the council tax collection target on the basis that if they collect more than 98.5% of council tax revenues Capita receive <b>50% in gainshare</b>. They also received <b style="font-family: inherit;">£125,057.81</b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> for gainshare on recovered housing benefit over-payments and </span><b style="font-family: inherit;">£230,702.89 </b><span style="font-family: inherit;">for reducing the number of people claiming single person discounts. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In total, gainshare amounted to <b>£837,218.66</b> last year, which I would suggest is money that Barnet desperately needs and should have been retained by the council. Capita supporters say it is essential to incentivise a company to gather this extra revenue, but I doubt the front line staff who do the actual chasing get a share of that gainshare. Barnet used to publish a schedule of how much gainshare had been paid to Capita (Benefits Realisation Schedule) but as with so much else in Barnet, they no longer publish it, possibly because it paints a very different picture of the contract performance.</span></p><p><b>Out of Hours Service:</b></p><p>Last year we paid Capita <b>£86,031</b> to answer the phone out of hours. We pay £1,200 per month as a fixed fee, which guarantees 80% of call will be answered within 40 seconds, and then between £5.86 and £7.58 per call answered. We also pay and additonal charge if they have to escalate matters with an outbound call. According to Capita's website "<i>'<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Response out of hours’ is a nationally shared out of hours customer service partnership, delivered by </span></span><span style="background-color: white;">Ealing Boro</span></i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><i>ugh Council and Capita. Public sector bodies such as local authorities, housing associations and health service providers can join the partnership, wherever they are in the UK, to access a large pool of highly skilled and experienced customer service agents, to deliver their out of hours customer service requirements".</i> It does make me wonder if it might be a bit cheaper if we got together with some of our neighbouring London Boroughs and did this ourselves.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><b>DBS Checks:</b></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Last year we paid Capita <b>£</b></span><b>152,972.60</b> for DBS checks. Nobody is doubting the need for DBS checks, but this seems like a large number of checks and makes me wonder if this is driven by the large number and churn of agency staff.</p><p><b>Other Items:</b></p><p>The are lots of other costs such as the <b>£1 million</b> paid to Capita for Office 365 licences, <b>£463,628</b> for mailroom & photocopying, <b>£1.96 million</b> for pension deficit payments and <b>£683,500</b> for TUPE payments. This again highlights that the savings talked about in headlines are quickly eroded by so many top up charges that are never discussed. We also had to pay back to Capita £801,775 which was money recovered through the proceeds of crime act. When the massive fraud happened within Capita Re with one member of staff stealing over £2 million, Capita had to refund all the money stolen. As money has been recovered and returned to Barnet, we have to refund it to Capita, so in this case not an actual cost to Barnet. However, the other big cost area is Special Projects which I have detailed below:</p><p><b>Special Projects:</b></p><p>Capita have carried out a variety of special projects with a value of around <b>£8.39 million </b>including:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>£503,441 for the Corporate Transformation Programme (yes I wondered what that was as well);</li><li>£286,458 for Customer Transformation Programme to deliver "improved and additional digital online transaction function to deliver a better service"</li><li>£256,985 to "provide an impact assessment of all relevant and appropriate IT infrastructure for the introduction of the new office and subsequent closing of NLBP B4"</li><li>£270,457 to provide support to the LBB;</li><li>£357,787 to prepare a business case for development opportunities under the One Public Estate (OPE) programme.</li></ul><p></p><p>The Capita Re contract it is structured differently so they simply bill for work requested. So in addition to the <b>£8.39 million</b> they have also billed <b>£659,523</b> on the new Council Offices in Colindale, <b>£1.065 million</b> on the Local Implementation Plan (LIP), <b>£132,000</b> for Enhanced Advice and Adaption Services <b>£436,930 </b>for work on the Upper & Lower Fosters regeneration project, to name but a few. </p><p>However, the biggest source of billing for Capita is for work on the different elements of Brent Cross project including the new waste transfer station, the new Thameslink station and the Brent Cross South regeneration. In total these Brent Cross projects clocked up <b>£14.1 million </b>of charges from Capita.</p><p>Brent Cross is a massive regeneration project and it has become a major source of income for Capita. I will be writing a follow up blog on Brent Cross in the next few days which I would urge you to read as the consequences of this project could be exceptionally serious.</p><p>In summary, when councillors tell you about all the money that the Capita contract is saving ask them about all the extra charges, and whether they have factored these into their claims. It is a bit like the £350 million pounds a week sign on the big red bus. It makes great headlines but dig a bit deeper and you know it simply isn't true.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv0JpRrLGf3m9QbxpWGGDgSpmoCezAeLV3z_gH041Si0BLQrIrRgdhMuPuvxl3ECsUopYzQ-EMp5Lf41kV7ikE2VPHhV9FlRLbtD8KRvD9cON5AV4KBb_8aycO5c7FG2or393z3iP6sqg/s1025/big+red+bus+claim.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="1025" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv0JpRrLGf3m9QbxpWGGDgSpmoCezAeLV3z_gH041Si0BLQrIrRgdhMuPuvxl3ECsUopYzQ-EMp5Lf41kV7ikE2VPHhV9FlRLbtD8KRvD9cON5AV4KBb_8aycO5c7FG2or393z3iP6sqg/s320/big+red+bus+claim.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-51905662297989519472020-07-30T10:00:00.000+01:002020-07-30T10:00:08.831+01:00It's been a while - but I'm still hereI have been continuing to keep an eye on Barnet's finances during this very difficult time but as lockdown eases I thought to was a good time to start digging a bit deeper into Barnet's finances again, especially as the annual inspection of the accounts is coming up in August.<br />
<br />
In terms of the monthly supplier payments it looks like Capita continue to benefit from their contract with Barnet. In June they were paid £12.5 million and this brings the total paid to Capita on the Barnet contract to a whisker under £500 million. When I mention this figure to some people they laugh as they simply don't believe that one council could pay so much money to one company but that is the reality of Capita in Barnet. The table below gives you the detail.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqoActJ-wLyHLbI2xPcCw0QIcqBfVJc-FZkKJdqchI8ztBCiiAOG04EdTYZPy7GMmhyphenhyphen6IyxyyDKk73jyYOt7XYWhArNB-aBaop-rkFAct4qGUcPZ4MOYUwWiu4q4_F1R_6TSuIWsPLoaE/s1600/Capita+Jun+2020+YTD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="366" data-original-width="928" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqoActJ-wLyHLbI2xPcCw0QIcqBfVJc-FZkKJdqchI8ztBCiiAOG04EdTYZPy7GMmhyphenhyphen6IyxyyDKk73jyYOt7XYWhArNB-aBaop-rkFAct4qGUcPZ4MOYUwWiu4q4_F1R_6TSuIWsPLoaE/s640/Capita+Jun+2020+YTD.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The long overdue review of the two Capita contracts has been postponed because of the Covid crisis but from my perspective it now looks inevitable that the contracts will be extended for a further 5 years taking us up to 2028. Capita may lose certain components of the contracts along the way but that may well suit Capita especially those elements which make them little or no money for them.<br />
<br />
Interim and agency staff are still in great demand with another £1.26m spent in June. In some ways there is a plausible reason for having so many agency staff when many staff may have been absent due to Covid but it still seems like a lot of people employed on a temporary basis.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJV450SSf4j5EBGd4yaZhOFxXOzvj18G3BYYUDPh65eRMsRuUZxrDhsYgJbr4O_q6OsM7LO-OLp45LgIZve3T0-oVTso1Lpi07CA89H_3sTNPEzdmlHvM9nps0tBkjLMXuRMUs7WZ9b4Y/s1600/Interim+%2526+agency+spend+2010-2020+YTD+June+2020.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="842" data-original-width="848" height="634" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJV450SSf4j5EBGd4yaZhOFxXOzvj18G3BYYUDPh65eRMsRuUZxrDhsYgJbr4O_q6OsM7LO-OLp45LgIZve3T0-oVTso1Lpi07CA89H_3sTNPEzdmlHvM9nps0tBkjLMXuRMUs7WZ9b4Y/s640/Interim+%2526+agency+spend+2010-2020+YTD+June+2020.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
A couple of other things have jumped out of the latest supplier payments. The first is a payment of £375,823 to PA Consulting. Now I may be wrong but I believe they have been commissioned to sort out the mess of the Mosaic casework IT system which Capita tried and failed to implement. Barnet did receive a settlement from Capita on this project but increasingly this looks like is was way too small.<br />
<br />
The other payment is to a company called Wirecard. Since the start of the financial year in April, Barnet have paid £239,340 onto these cards which is used for pre-payments. The problem is that Wirecard ran into financial difficulties in June with a <span style="font-family: inherit;">€1.9 billion blackhole in their accounts. The background can be read</span> in the Financial Times <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/284fb1ad-ddc0-45df-a075-0709b36868db" target="_blank">here</a> and then in the Barnet Times <a href="https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/18572723.barnet-council-says-impact-wirecard-ban-minimal/" target="_blank">here</a> where Barnet Council played down the seriousness of the matter. However, a number of people had their payment cards suspended until the insolvency administrators took over. It demonstrates quite well why we have to be vigilant at all times and that just because a company is large and well known it does not mean it cannot go bust.<br />
<br />
I will keep watching Barnet's spending.Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-87238620832813418422020-05-14T21:11:00.001+01:002020-05-14T21:12:19.304+01:00I'm Still Keeping an Eye on Barnet's FinancesHello to readers out there at this difficult time. I know that some people have been very badly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and to you I extend my deepest sympathy. Two members of my extended family have been affected one of whom died and one who is still in hospital. Others have been financially affected by lockdown and again that is something with which I can empathise having had first hand experience. I have chosen not to blog about Barnet for the last couple of months as people have had more important priorities, but as the situation seems to be changing I thought it would be appropriate to start up my scrutiny again.<br />
<br />
Barnet's supplier payments for the year end came through so it is good to take stock of where we are.<br />
<br />
The money paid to Capita this year seems almost beyond belief especially at a time when they have performed so poorly to the point that the pensions administration has been taken away from them. This financial year they were paid more than double the contracted sum, £83.2 million versus the contracted sum of £39.7 million and in total for the duration of the contract we have paid them £189.5 million more than the contracted value.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsdAz26f7lJZDAJHNr-Fh60Ls7j7wgTYFaeDNwO6du10PoIRIp_Fm4CPrVs0brhj8GY7yil5xhY4W30I_5o5N9A3AT85MlLFYEutBFd7CvH4p-wsjjyMio_qjjNUuEGVqiqcYKLA1PnJw/s1600/Capita+Payments+2019-20+Year+End.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="366" data-original-width="848" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsdAz26f7lJZDAJHNr-Fh60Ls7j7wgTYFaeDNwO6du10PoIRIp_Fm4CPrVs0brhj8GY7yil5xhY4W30I_5o5N9A3AT85MlLFYEutBFd7CvH4p-wsjjyMio_qjjNUuEGVqiqcYKLA1PnJw/s640/Capita+Payments+2019-20+Year+End.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In terms of payments for agency staff, that has finished the year at £15.11 million, down on last year but a much smaller reduction than was originally anticipated at the start of the financial year.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEtdrX-0f77K29fQ95mGviYCDqC2UjBlj_8JSppBPjHtkNkYQ9-C9LFfTuMJSTZZoDWea_OqRSmCQLEfJ2frAwE40w7YFz3lA5PfOKhBuj0Z_k3qGQ1UFODZzPaFjVE9vMN-T6mZPwzmA/s1600/Interim+%2526+agency+spend+2010-2020+Year+end+Mar+2020.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="811" data-original-width="848" height="612" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEtdrX-0f77K29fQ95mGviYCDqC2UjBlj_8JSppBPjHtkNkYQ9-C9LFfTuMJSTZZoDWea_OqRSmCQLEfJ2frAwE40w7YFz3lA5PfOKhBuj0Z_k3qGQ1UFODZzPaFjVE9vMN-T6mZPwzmA/s640/Interim+%2526+agency+spend+2010-2020+Year+end+Mar+2020.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This is a brief analysis but I will be doing further articles in the next few days.Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-65934339116611420592020-02-27T22:50:00.001+00:002020-02-28T10:16:25.736+00:00Capita wins yet again - Barnet Supplier Payments for JanuaryBarnet's supplier payments for January have just been published and yet again Capita have done well receiving a total of £6.6 million in spite of having to pay credits of £1.44 million. It brings the running total paid to Capita for this financial year to <b>£65 million</b> and <b>£178 million more than the contracted value since the contract started.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUW2GHzjojRFahoXbm1X5soSEXJ35qtO845i8XbMUcRcIT-fGMGWlGFg0C-yPhta838DU-Rft38sl_G7OOzs0Lqgxsq_X6ZuGFXs1qeBgYfDEUIOCf9RWnsP2Xy0ItyfJTQNRhXY95Cu8/s1600/Capita+Jan+2020+YTD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="848" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUW2GHzjojRFahoXbm1X5soSEXJ35qtO845i8XbMUcRcIT-fGMGWlGFg0C-yPhta838DU-Rft38sl_G7OOzs0Lqgxsq_X6ZuGFXs1qeBgYfDEUIOCf9RWnsP2Xy0ItyfJTQNRhXY95Cu8/s640/Capita+Jan+2020+YTD.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The other big payment this month was £2.25 million to Matrix SCM who are responsible for the interim and agency staff payments for Barnet. This is a big jumps from previous months and is a worrying trend with the year end figure looking like it will hit £15 million.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaJGbSIJo2nv6J7TtfXDczQwqhjqcgKmuX-r7GmzUsjh1TWU1iemay21BoJA1eGw14Z6LD5D6Mq15_XVx96-XZmnuTMUM5A9SorQrG0sgpSR1prjA71piY4qtuVUPC42JPLCpQyAwxN3Q/s1600/Interim+%2526+agency+spend+2010-2019+YTD+Jan+2020.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="811" data-original-width="848" height="612" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaJGbSIJo2nv6J7TtfXDczQwqhjqcgKmuX-r7GmzUsjh1TWU1iemay21BoJA1eGw14Z6LD5D6Mq15_XVx96-XZmnuTMUM5A9SorQrG0sgpSR1prjA71piY4qtuVUPC42JPLCpQyAwxN3Q/s640/Interim+%2526+agency+spend+2010-2019+YTD+Jan+2020.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
A few other payments which caught my attention include: £27,580 paid to Baltimore Consulting who help recruit senior public sector staff; £62,954.18 paid to PA Consulting; £10,976.48 paid to Saracens; and £151,997.11 paid to Blue 9 Security who also provide security at our "unstaffed" libraries.<br />
<br />
Barnet are facing a massive financial black hole over the next five years with a £92.7 budget shortfall looming. This year Barnet have to make £17.3 million of savings this year, a target which Barnet have failed to meet year on year. Until they can get the Capita contract under control it will be exceptionally difficult to reduce this financial black hole.<br />
<br />
As always, and even though gagged, I will keep a watching eye on Barnet's spending.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIloAsUAoea3Etemg8KD_lUIraDxUuBaRPkfz5UqXL8LcZanu8z1xVPrFU3PmxN0pBn0b2XeRMSO8u7NTLVb9D2_ayb-jAhcdJLYGTii8chqWnWEGxDWjT41XOLs6y-UrV5cAdZ3QlYUA/s1600/MTFS+Jan2020.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="369" data-original-width="877" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIloAsUAoea3Etemg8KD_lUIraDxUuBaRPkfz5UqXL8LcZanu8z1xVPrFU3PmxN0pBn0b2XeRMSO8u7NTLVb9D2_ayb-jAhcdJLYGTii8chqWnWEGxDWjT41XOLs6y-UrV5cAdZ3QlYUA/s640/MTFS+Jan2020.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-57649900967528383782020-01-29T15:16:00.000+00:002020-01-29T15:16:34.450+00:00A Capita Stitch Up - Expect Capita to be in place till 2028The latest supplier payments are out for December, a month when the council paid out a very substantial <b>£86.67 million in just one month</b>. There were some unusual large payments including £6.46 million to the GLA identified as "Levies", £8 million to Network Rail Infrastructure towards the Brent Cross Thameslink station and £5.83 million to John Graham Construction who are the Council's construction partner building the two new leisure centres.<br />
<br />
However, there were two other payment which stood out, both of which were to Capita. £7.75 million was paid on the CSG contract and Capita employee benefits and £3.97 million to Capita Re. This brings the running total paid to Capita since the start of the contract to <b>£457 million, £175 million more than the contracted value.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvJYJNpweKvPcunAvWZvGnLLzAa3Uamsg9QxSa6gRGU_lvKIA6mUsZx4KDI4EQgY0R6hNI_IYGGM5UGrJXzq-WEnX6N500VfRwKOGgiIfrVxs5Sxvlss-E5kuqcC36BpcDI2MxCfV7Cv4/s1600/Capita+Dec+2019+YTD.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="429" data-original-width="848" height="322" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvJYJNpweKvPcunAvWZvGnLLzAa3Uamsg9QxSa6gRGU_lvKIA6mUsZx4KDI4EQgY0R6hNI_IYGGM5UGrJXzq-WEnX6N500VfRwKOGgiIfrVxs5Sxvlss-E5kuqcC36BpcDI2MxCfV7Cv4/s640/Capita+Dec+2019+YTD.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
.<br />
The reason why this is particularly significant today is that tonight, Barnet councillors will be discussing the basis of the review process for both of these contracts. The CSG contract was supposed to have a review in Year 6, something which has been delayed to merge it with the Year 7 review of the Re Contract. However, the two contracts are quite different, and the contract review processes, as set out in both contracts (<i>see at the bottom of the page</i>), are quite different.<br />
<br />
In the CSG contract, Barnet are supposed to identify improvements or savings they want Capita to make and then there is a defined process for Capita to come back with their proposals and once agreed and implemented a mechanism for measuring how well those changes have been delivered.<br />
<br />
For the Re contract, the basis of the Year 7 review is focused entirely on whether or not Barnet wish to extend the contract for a further five years. If both parties agree to extend the contract till 2028, Barnet can then instigate a review which will form the basis of the partnership going forward.<br />
<br />
Now as is often the way, Barnet don't follow the contract and the review being discussed tonight appears to have gone straight to the discussion about the contract extension and which services will continue to be provided by Barnet. The report says that: <i><span style="color: red;">"In
conducting the Review, the council will work collaboratively with Capita, with a view to
presenting jointly agreed recommendations to this Committee, insofar as that is possible"</span></i>. The problem is that Barnet have shown over the last six and a half years that when they say '<b><i>collaboratively'</i></b> it means they end up doing exactly what Capita want them to do. Capita has a catalogue of performance failures as detailed by Barnet's own internal audit team (Capita delivered services marked in <span style="color: red;">RED</span>)<span style="color: red;"> </span>yet Capita still continue to provide most of these services.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbsOmpxVwe3CObxApAUFiMGUXNvFZSXCBgQAd3RtTyG1I7tTHNtq8lAB4_8Cvr5992ERVXKWrNmNths_vHk7to1l5mTGQ6NQSiq3JTktFR2TNWbKiiwxPMILfWp8sfxylIX_WoT2_oPbM/s1600/Audit+failures.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1009" data-original-width="686" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbsOmpxVwe3CObxApAUFiMGUXNvFZSXCBgQAd3RtTyG1I7tTHNtq8lAB4_8Cvr5992ERVXKWrNmNths_vHk7to1l5mTGQ6NQSiq3JTktFR2TNWbKiiwxPMILfWp8sfxylIX_WoT2_oPbM/s640/Audit+failures.jpg" width="435" /></a></div>
<br />
Barnet are planning to spend the next 12 months jointly reviewing the services provided by Capita, with Capita. Officers were supposed to carried out a review of the service when <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s47263/Capita%20Realignment.pdf" target="_blank">instructed to do so 18 months ago in July 2018</a>. However, after 5 months of silence they came back saying that the review had been cancelled and that a secret deal had been struck with Capita following the visit of Capita's Chief Executive to Barnet. Barnet got a <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s49973/21.11.2018%20Capita%20Commercial%20settlement%20-%20Urgency%20Committee%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">cheque for £4.12 million</a> which included compensation for the colossal cock up on the implementation of the Mosaic casework system, the settlement of disputed gainshare claims and KPI failures on the Re contract and in return the whole issue of contract realignment disappeared.<br />
<br />
My key worry about this '<i>collaborative</i>' approach is that Barnet will be showing all their cards to Capita as part of this new review and that will give a massive advantage to Capita in negotiating the five year contract extension. Indeed, I wrote to every Financial Performance and Contract Committee member last week setting out my concerns, the only way a resident can raise such complex matters now that residents have been gagged. I sent the email last Thursday 23rd January and as at 3pm today 29th January not a single councillor had replied or even had the courtesy to acknowledge my email.<br />
This is what I wrote to them:<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><i>I write to you as members of the Financial Performance and
Contracts Committee as I am not allowed to address the committee in person and
a single question of no more than 100 words cannot address the issues which
cause me concern. You have published the proposed terms of reference for the
year 6 CSG and year 7 Re contracts reviews. This differs significantly from the
original definition of the Year 6 CSG review, and seems more in line with the
contract definition of the Re Year 7 Contract review which is to “meet to
discuss whether each party may wish to proceed with a 5 year extension to the
service period”. I have attached copies of both the contract clauses. The
clauses are quite different for a good reason. The CSG contract is exactly
that, a contract between the two parties. As such both parties, Barnet and
Capita, will be seeking to ensure that their best interests are secured in any
negotiation. By contrast the Re contract is a Joint Venture and is already by
its very nature, collaborative where both parties share the benefits of any
financial outcome.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><i>I am pleased that at last the service is being reviewed
although this should have happened last year. The extended nature of this
process means that any final decision on the CSG contract will not be completed
until the contract is well into year 7, a year later than required with the
consequent risk that a year’s worth of potential savings will have been lost.
It also risks missing the interdependencies between service lines and the
synergies that could be achieved if some were considered together. <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: red; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><i>More fundamentally this process exposes the Council’s
negotiating strategy and will make it exceptionally difficult if the council
wishes to retender the contract in 2023 by placing Capita at a major advantage
to any other potential bidders. <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: red; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><i>This review process appears to ‘bake in’ Capita’s
on-going relationship with Barnet and will automatically prejudice any other
bidders or an in-house team from providing a comparator to Capita. As such I
would ask you to think again and create a clear separation between the service
review and the negotiation of the contract extension to protect Barnet’s
negotiating position going forward and to look at consolidating the review into
a more compact timeframe.</i></span><br />
<br />
In addition, unlike previous contract reviews at year 3 on the CSG contract and year 4 on the Re contract, the general public appear to have been excluded from the process even though there was a great deal of participation in previous reviews, especially the Re contract review when many people expressed their dissatisfaction with Capita's performance.<br />
<br />
When the two Capita contracts were let in 2013 we were promised better services for less money. All the evidence so far suggests we haven't made any savings and the service is significantly worse.<br />
<br />
I have reached the point where I have no confidence whatsoever in Barnet Council to deliver a satisfactory service for residents and with no suitable scrutiny process to hold senior councillors to account, the ruling conservative group can do whatever they want with impunity. Today it was announce that "<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51281722" target="_blank">dissatisfaction with democracy is at an all time high</a>" having risen from 33% in 2005 to 61% in 2019 something I suspect is closely reflected in Barnet. Barnet used to be a borough where people loved to live. Increasingly, that opinion is changing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">For your reference the contract review clauses</span></i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPifYgIoQsS6Qr3z_TCSQPz7-4UFYalTcBKWuyTRVqkDyf6jcgu8NeWwSz88Ar1a8MvBhbH8AhZPiyEn7tAGYukEe9f4FObMY4LVRd8vGtrkZx4n04NnDmq78TAjFsgB0fzwhMwuAN5I4/s1600/Year+6+Review+CSG+Contract.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1335" data-original-width="637" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPifYgIoQsS6Qr3z_TCSQPz7-4UFYalTcBKWuyTRVqkDyf6jcgu8NeWwSz88Ar1a8MvBhbH8AhZPiyEn7tAGYukEe9f4FObMY4LVRd8vGtrkZx4n04NnDmq78TAjFsgB0fzwhMwuAN5I4/s1600/Year+6+Review+CSG+Contract.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
By contrast the Re contract review is somewhat different:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUnyLhx75K-jqrzwCLjG-cb1TLcGushi8baOsaZohM_kiOp_fsiEXsJDHzxUCjLexDEI6plURJrI9CyOq9p7kRx4v6xW3Krwu6ZBOo8HTTUerfwjHrujPlYPh7WUtVb1DILetmikpy9OU/s1600/Year+7+Review+Re+Contract.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1244" data-original-width="550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUnyLhx75K-jqrzwCLjG-cb1TLcGushi8baOsaZohM_kiOp_fsiEXsJDHzxUCjLexDEI6plURJrI9CyOq9p7kRx4v6xW3Krwu6ZBOo8HTTUerfwjHrujPlYPh7WUtVb1DILetmikpy9OU/s1600/Year+7+Review+Re+Contract.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-86369734777974517432020-01-12T13:36:00.000+00:002020-01-12T14:09:21.811+00:00Barnet - a High Rise HellIf you live in Totteridge or Hampstead Garden Suburb don't bother reading any further. Your homes and environment are secure. For everyone else be afraid, very afraid. Next Tuesday (14th January) a planning application will be heard for a monstrous development at the Hyde on the A5. You can read the 122 page officer's report <a href="https://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s57075/19.4661.FUL%20-%20Unit%204%20Hyde%20Estate%20Road%20NW9%206JX.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> but for those that don't have the time it can be summarised as follows:<br />
A replacement
Sainsburys store of <b>8,998 sqm</b> Gross Internal Area (GIA), <b>1,309 </b>residential
units and 951 sqm GIA flexible commercial space in buildings ranging from 4 to <b>28
storeys</b>. The numbers on the image below indicate the number of storey in each block and how it towers over the surrounding properties.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrZ7r_YgeJUkZrT6Fu-9mI2fngNIWrz6bt84DQ1CDx9Lj0MSsz0yDKHXkiIN6EAlXIikJRaMc1iK4-J78hCGLBlgps2VU9LWOK_o0mEJHcr7tyjsWoIhILQUV_qsyKMSuHPdaVj2eRs1A/s1600/the+hyde+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="545" data-original-width="1095" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrZ7r_YgeJUkZrT6Fu-9mI2fngNIWrz6bt84DQ1CDx9Lj0MSsz0yDKHXkiIN6EAlXIikJRaMc1iK4-J78hCGLBlgps2VU9LWOK_o0mEJHcr7tyjsWoIhILQUV_qsyKMSuHPdaVj2eRs1A/s640/the+hyde+1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV1VvgWbGsEi1JyRDbfNo0VdjKIguxeXUOx6v5Gg78-peYevYU9qNFQnawZmKSxostJe7EDIrjbxrfAu2NFvOzmW6nB9KH2T4y5kkuWrp_0XgUsFPs_ct2df0Y3jj3B2uvgW5xXrFlJ2E/s1600/the+hyde+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="719" data-original-width="1013" height="454" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV1VvgWbGsEi1JyRDbfNo0VdjKIguxeXUOx6v5Gg78-peYevYU9qNFQnawZmKSxostJe7EDIrjbxrfAu2NFvOzmW6nB9KH2T4y5kkuWrp_0XgUsFPs_ct2df0Y3jj3B2uvgW5xXrFlJ2E/s640/the+hyde+2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
With 1,309 units that means there will be at as many as 3,848 residents (they are building 2,278 residential cycle spaces) right on the A5 and a good 20 minutes walk to the nearest Underground Station at Hendon. There are buses that run along the A5 are already busy and with all the other developments being built near by mean that it will be difficult to get on the buses at peak times. They have only included one car parking space for every three flats (0.33 spaces per flat) but the risk is that instead of deterring people from driving it will just mean they park on surrounding streets. If it was right on top of a tube station or in a town centre there might be a supporting case for fewer but this scheme meets neither of those requirements.<br />
<br />
The poor people who live in 11-13 Gadsbury Close will be dramatically overshadowed with only 3 out of their 8 windows meeting the target known as Vertical Sky Component (VSC) but that is dismissed in the report as "relatively minor".<br />
<br />
What really worries me is that this development seems to have ignored key elements of the council's own planning rules. The site is not in an Opportunity Area and it is not in an area designated for tall buildings but because they are building huge blocks nearby that seems to set a precedent which can allow other schemes to break the rules.<br />
<br />
Interestingly the Council's own Environmental Health assessment says:<br />
<i><span style="color: red;"><b>"I disagree with results of the air quality modelling that claim that the Air Quality (AQ) will be okay when the development is operational. The A5 is currently very congested at times, add to this the cumulative impacts of other developments there will undoubtedly be extra traffic on the roads, resulting in AQ objectives being exceeded. At some receptors there will be 6-12% more traffic due to the development."</b></span></i><br />
Don't worry we can put in some mitigation. Well actually I do worry. To the north of this site are two other developments, the Colindale Telephone Exchange Building which has planning for 505 flats and the former Homebase site which has planning for 386 flats. The Council recognises that 78% of all roads in Barnet are above the European legal limit for air pollution. In addition, all those people will need to use the buses, need doctors and dentists, school places for their children yet there is no condition that these facilities have to be in place.<br />
<br />
All over Barnet new developments are being proposed that seem to be developer driven rather than community driven. We have massive developments proposed at Finchley Central and High Barnet Tube station car parks with many more schemes in the pipeline. On this scheme the number of flats means that the total scheme cost will be in the region of £500-600 million pounds. Due to what they call the "viability test" it builds in a developers return (profit) of 20%+ so on this scheme the developer stands to make between £100 and £120 million. As such you can see why they are so keen to push through these huge developments.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8V_YeRrotqHSOl_1tPyqdN_Lpy-hmD7JoUIRudPkP06IpRdvR_FgsIjBK-K0Szx_-HSz2nPhnPBmsFa1wD11maVERP1O2z4qfTbdw0E6tLC2yZIQ7c8uaCxKI1kLEF2iIBGIadLDuORI/s1600/the+hyde+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="555" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8V_YeRrotqHSOl_1tPyqdN_Lpy-hmD7JoUIRudPkP06IpRdvR_FgsIjBK-K0Szx_-HSz2nPhnPBmsFa1wD11maVERP1O2z4qfTbdw0E6tLC2yZIQ7c8uaCxKI1kLEF2iIBGIadLDuORI/s320/the+hyde+3.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
No areas in Barnet are safe other than those designated as conservation areas. The Council's Growth Strategy identifies a lovely regional park in the centre of the borough but everywhere else is up for grabs. Even worse, the London Plan Panel report recommended 35,460 new homes over the next 15 years, yet in the latest draft of the Local Plan, Barnet's planners are recommending Barnet set a much higher target of <b>46,000 new homes</b>. This is all about generating more council tax revenue. This number of new dwellings would generate at least £50 million a year in council tax, helping to meet the forecast budget shortfall but it fails to recognise that 46,000 new homes means a massive increase in population all requiring services such as doctors, dentists, schools, libraries, hospitals, bin collections, social workers, care workers - which always seems to get ignored.<br />
<br />
It is reaching the point where people have to decide if they want to live in a borough of high rise blocks of high density housing with poor facilities and heavily polluted streets or abandon Barnet for a better quality of life. I know it is something I am considering very seriously at the moment.<br />
<br />
If you can, please do try and get to the planning meeting at Hendon Town Hall 7pm on Tuesday and show your concern about Barnet's planning policy.Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867547551512887454.post-80015485645022842032020-01-11T13:00:00.000+00:002020-01-11T13:04:08.119+00:00My responses to the Barnet Budget ConsultationBarnet Council are currently consulting on the budget for next year which you can find <a href="https://engage.barnet.gov.uk/budget2020-21" target="_blank">here</a>. It is both complex and time consuming but it really matters as, based on this budget proposal, Barnet are facing a massive budget shortfall over the next five years.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHP2E0x5HFNg5rQQBdCJErOhH655Brx6MDuGS42O9fLgQIp1ljdSXjhyypqUvPUAu-TW2oV2RvjbPvRCK2_qTOfd9HNMVP-Sc4IqZ9MK75f26QPvHfbcw8Cx-Tg3Mmpz9nEA7sI2sSWno/s1600/MTFS+2020-25+summary.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="882" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHP2E0x5HFNg5rQQBdCJErOhH655Brx6MDuGS42O9fLgQIp1ljdSXjhyypqUvPUAu-TW2oV2RvjbPvRCK2_qTOfd9HNMVP-Sc4IqZ9MK75f26QPvHfbcw8Cx-Tg3Mmpz9nEA7sI2sSWno/s640/MTFS+2020-25+summary.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Originally Barnet had planned a 2.99% council tax increase plus a 2% social care precept to get closer to closing the gap but the government reduce the threshold at which point a council has to hold a referendum from 2.99% to 1.99% so Barnet have opted for the lower figure. They are proposing many cuts but the issue is whether they are achievable or acceptable and even with these cuts, we will still have a massive on-going shortfall. I would urge everyone to at least speak with their local councillor about the budget proposals even if they don't have the time to go through the consultation.<br />
<br />
For what it's worth I have set out below my comments that I submitted as part of the consultation. Commenting on each budget cuts in each area:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Adults - you
are using capital budget for community equipment which will not have an asset
value, which cannot be transferred and which is a one off purchase. As such you
will be constantly drawing from the capital budget which is not what the
capital budget is for. Has this change been approved by the external auditor
and if not is there a risk it will have to be reallocated to the revenue
budget? The review of care packages to step down the accommodation setting to a
less intensive option sometimes goes against the wishes of families and the
individual which is unacceptable. The same issue is true for mental health
packages. Purchasing nursing care packages from other boroughs means that
friends and relatives will have to travel further to see their friends and
loved ones and may mean they become isolated. Does the over-delivery against
projected income from the GLL leisure services contract take into account the
£700k of lost revenue to date caused by the closure of Finchley Lido?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Childrens:
How can you be confident of delivering the savings of remodelled placements
while at the same time delivering the same or better care. This seems a very
large saving which, if it could have been made, would have happened before now.
The service is demand led and due to the on-going austerity means that demand
may continue to increase. The 4 day week for back office staff appears entirely
implausible. If staff are not needed, then make the post redundant. The risk is
that staff will end up doing 5 days work in 4 days, either causing burn out of
staff, staff turnover to rise, or work not being done properly which could
place children or staff at risk.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Environment:
There is no supporting evidence to justify the £5 million of savings for
"Smart Cities" whatever that means or for parking charges. The other
issue for parking charges is that there are restricted services on which the
special parking account funds can be spent so how confident are you that even
if the money can be generated (for which there is no evidence) that it can be
spent on services that are under cost pressure. Does the £700k of
savings/increased revenue from advertising mean that the borough will become
plastered in ugly advertising signage and with the continue shift of
advertising revenues to online/social media what confidence is there that this
is a robust and continuing revenue stream.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Housing:
While all the new accommodation will generate more council tax there seems to
be no recognition that more people means more demand for services. So with one
hand you are making cuts to services yet with the other you are actively
creating more demand by encouraging more development. It seems ludicrous to say
you will generate £203k a year from subletting Barnet House when it is costing
£65k a month for the next 12 years because the council moved offices to
Colindale without exiting the lease at Barnet House. Exiting the lease at NLBP
was always planned and part of the business case for moving to Colindale. This
entry in effect shows the saving twice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">P&R: You
are planning to reconfigure commercial, performance and executive support at a
time when more rigorous control and enforcement of contracts is vital and when
contractual failings have been repeatedly identified. This seems like a massive
false economy. Are the cuts to the CSG contract real or on paper only?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">On the proposed Council Tax Increase:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Barnet itself identified that you needed to
increase council tax by at least 2.99% and that this has only been reduced
because the government limit for a referendum has been reduced to 1.99%. To
accept this cut in your planned budget is financially irresponsible. It is clear you
need to increase council tax by more than 1.99% and if you refuse to make
further increases it simply makes the problem worse as every year goes by. You
have to act responsibly and if that means people have to pay more then so be it
- you engineered this problem by 7 years of council tax freezes. To get to a
balanced budget you need to take an 8% increase in CT in year 1 (+social care
precept of 2%) and then 2.99% CT + 2% social care precept thereafter to get
even close to a balanced budget by year 5. If you fail to act now you risk
bankrupting the council in the next 3-5 years as your reserves chart clearly
shows.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The problem is the public haven't been able to comment on any of these savings at committee stage because so many meetings were cancelled in the election purdah period and the public are now gagged from making comments or asking more than one question at committees. Consultation only has value if it is meaningful. Even opposition Councillors at the Policy & Resources Committee on Monday made the point that the details are so sketchy and that if a Councillor doesn't understand the detail, how can the general public be expected to understand them.</span></span>Mr Reasonablehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13496421592535949071noreply@blogger.com0