Today, Maria Nash's barrister has been informed of the provisional (although highly likely) dates of 7/8 October for the Judicial Review appeal. That seems like a bit of a way off especially as Maria's barrister and legal team are ready and waiting to go to court. Apparently Barnet's team cannot make an earlier date and rather than switch legal teams they are happy to sit it out till October.
I just hope Richard Cornelius doesn't start blamestorming again - the delay is down to you and your team and no one else. I also hope that Capita are in the loop on this latest information as their temporary contract to assist Barnet Council while awaiting the appeal, expires on 21 June, so what happens after that?
And let us not forget we are in this situation because Barnet FAILED to consult.
Standing up for common sense in New Barnet
Showing posts with label Judicial Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Review. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Judicial Review - Maria Nash is granted legal aid for her appeal
Great news today is that Maria Nash has been granted legal aid to fund her appeal of the Judicial Review. If this were a frivolous case it would never have got out of the starting blocks but clearly legal aid have seen the merits of this case and the judgement as a good enough reason not only to fund the case itself but now to fund the appeal.
On Monday Richard Cornelius asked Maria Nash not to appeal the decision. Maybe that's because there is a good chance the ruling will be overturned. Time will tell.
On Monday Richard Cornelius asked Maria Nash not to appeal the decision. Maybe that's because there is a good chance the ruling will be overturned. Time will tell.
Friday, 22 March 2013
"Nothing About Us Without Us" - Why Barnet ended up at Judicial Review
On Tuesday and Thursday this week I have been at the Royal Courts of Justice listening in to the Judicial Review Hearing. There has been much written about the case and I would urge readers to visit Mrs Angry's blog for one of the most comprehensive and entertaining reads around. (For what it's worth I believe that Mrs Angry is one of the most talented writers in the UK and deserves much greater recognition of her talents).
The quote "Nothing about us without us" came from Maria Nash and it runs to the very heart of the problems in Barnet. The court hearing has revealed that the Council have assumed that they know best and that residents are incapable of understanding the issues involved. The Council have made oblique references to what 'One Barnet Transformation Programme' was about and left it to residents to join up the dots. Barnet seem terrified of consultation in case residents say something the Council don't like. In summary it appears that the Council will do what they want irrespective of what residents think or want and worry about the consequences afterwards.
Over the three days of the hearing not one single Conservative councillor has shown up to see how the case is going or to understand some of the reasons why this dispute has made it all the way to Judicial Review. Perhaps they were worried about the public opprobrium, perhaps they didn't understand the issues, or perhaps they simply didn't give a s**t. Whatever the answer, their absence speaks volumes about their disengagement from residents on such important matters. Maria's words clearly show that Barnet's stance is simply untenable.
Irrespective of what the judge rules, it is clear to me that the Council will struggle to recover from this case. They have demonstrated a contempt and disrespect for residents which at times was breathtaking. They have shown that there is a complete (and justified) lack of trust for the Council and that will continue with the current regime in place. Without a regime change and a complete revolution on openness and true consultation, I suspect that that the Council will face many more Judicial Review requests and that risks bringing the Council into a state of complete paralysis.
The quote "Nothing about us without us" came from Maria Nash and it runs to the very heart of the problems in Barnet. The court hearing has revealed that the Council have assumed that they know best and that residents are incapable of understanding the issues involved. The Council have made oblique references to what 'One Barnet Transformation Programme' was about and left it to residents to join up the dots. Barnet seem terrified of consultation in case residents say something the Council don't like. In summary it appears that the Council will do what they want irrespective of what residents think or want and worry about the consequences afterwards.
Over the three days of the hearing not one single Conservative councillor has shown up to see how the case is going or to understand some of the reasons why this dispute has made it all the way to Judicial Review. Perhaps they were worried about the public opprobrium, perhaps they didn't understand the issues, or perhaps they simply didn't give a s**t. Whatever the answer, their absence speaks volumes about their disengagement from residents on such important matters. Maria's words clearly show that Barnet's stance is simply untenable.
Irrespective of what the judge rules, it is clear to me that the Council will struggle to recover from this case. They have demonstrated a contempt and disrespect for residents which at times was breathtaking. They have shown that there is a complete (and justified) lack of trust for the Council and that will continue with the current regime in place. Without a regime change and a complete revolution on openness and true consultation, I suspect that that the Council will face many more Judicial Review requests and that risks bringing the Council into a state of complete paralysis.
Friday, 7 December 2012
Like Buses - No legal action for ages then two Judicial Reviews come along together
In the last 24 hours we have seen two Judicial Reviews launched against the deeply undemocratic One Barnet Outsourcing project. Yesterday saw a Pre Action Protocol letter served on Barnet Council on behalf of local resident Maria Nash. Today a second Pre Action Protocol was served on Barnet Council on behalf of Susan Sullivan who many people will know from her role in the film, The Billion Pound Gamble. Press releases for both actions are set out below.
Barnet Outsourcing is in deep trouble because at every step Barnet have stifled debate and refused to engage with the residents. They have also ignored the concerns of some of the most vulnerable in our community. And it will get worse. I will be interested to see if BT or one of the other failed bidders (Serco and HCL Axon) launches a challenge against the contract award once the standstill "Alcatel" period starts in one weeks time. That really would put final nail in the coffin for this Frankenstein of a contract.
Press Release – 7 DECEMBER 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUDICIAL REVIEW CHALLENGE TO PRIVATISATION OF BARNET COUNCIL SERVICES LAUNCHED
________________________________________________________________
Public Interest Lawyers, acting on behalf of Susan Sullivan, a concerned Barnet resident, has today notified Barnet Council (at 9.39am) of her intention to seek judicial review of the “One Barnet programme”. The pre-action protocol letter sets out her claim against the Council. She alleges that the Council is acting unlawfully, both as to the process it has adopted and the substance of its proposals. The One Barnet programme is unprecedented in its ambition and scale nationally, yet it has never been the subject of a consultation of Barnet residents nor an effective equalities impact assessment.
The letter seeks the immediate suspension of any further contracting decisions by the Council and the carrying out of a full and effective consultation and equalities assessment. She contends that the results of any such assessment/consultation would cause the Council to re-evaluate the ill-advised programme.
The Claimant argues that the Council has breached the following legal duties:
a) The Public Sector Equality Duty – this requires the Council to have “due regard” to equalities considerations and the impact of its decisions on protected equalities groups throughout its decision making process. The Council has failed to have regard to this duty both in relation to the timing of its equality impact assessments –postponed until too late in the contracting process; and in relation to the form of the few assessments that have been carried out. They have failed to evaluate the most important question: what is the impact of a wholesale and irreversible contracting out of the Council’s functions? High-flown contractual promises of bidders lack essential rigour and detail and are no answer to this question. There has been inadequate consideration of mitigating actions.
b) The ‘Best Value Duty’ in s3 Local Government Act 1999 – this duty requires the Council to obtain ‘best value’. This includes community as well as financial value. Statutory Guidance requires consultation to take place. This has not happened. An evaluation of value requires the consideration of maintaining in-house services. This has not happened.
c) Public law duties of consultation and information. In failing to consult, and to consider viable in-house alternatives, the Council has unlawfully closed its mind to valuable democratic considerations.
Speaking today, John Sullivan, the father of Susan Sullivan stated as follows:
“The Council has robbed Susan and her family of their democratic voice in failing to consult on what is a wholesale privatisation of local government. If this happened nationally, there would be outrage. Why should it be any different for our beloved Barnet? The national contract failure rate is 25%. When these contracts collapse, who will be left to pick up the pieces? No-one but the poor, the disabled and short-changed Barnet service users, residents and taxpayers.”
Speaking today, Daniel Carey of Public Interest Lawyers stated as follows:
“The law requires the Council to consult residents and carefully evaluate the impact of its decisions on equalities groups. Yet, in the biggest decision the Council could possibly take – to effectively cease to be a Council as we know it – it has failed to do so. I hope the Council will now listen to the legal arguments and give proper and lawful regard to residents and their concerns.”
For further information, contact:
Public Interest Lawyers
Daniel Carey, Solicitor
Telephone: 0121 515 5069
Mobile: 07815 089526
E-mail: info@publicinterestlawyers.co.uk
Barnet Outsourcing is in deep trouble because at every step Barnet have stifled debate and refused to engage with the residents. They have also ignored the concerns of some of the most vulnerable in our community. And it will get worse. I will be interested to see if BT or one of the other failed bidders (Serco and HCL Axon) launches a challenge against the contract award once the standstill "Alcatel" period starts in one weeks time. That really would put final nail in the coffin for this Frankenstein of a contract.
Barnet Alliance for Public Services Press Release:
6 December 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, STOP PRESS:
Pre-Action Letter - Proposed
Claim for Judicial Review was served on Barnet council.
A Barnet resident,
Maria Nash, has instructed lawyers to seek Judicial Review of the One Barnet
Programme. A pre-action protocol letter
was sent to the Council today, prior to the Cabinet meeting tonight which plans
to approve the appointment of Capita plc as preferred bidder for the first of
the One Barnet contracts, worth £320 million.
The letter details the grounds on which a Judicial Review will be
sought:
1. Breach of the Council's
duty to consult Barnet residents, businesses and community organisations about
its plans, the result of which is that it has spent millions of pounds – the
Agilisys contract alone has cost over £4m and is likely to rise to £6m – on
professional consultants helping it to run the procurement process, but has not
once asked local people for their views.
2. Breach of councillors'
duty to the residents in their area, to make sure that their decisions
represent the best available value for public money. In order to be sure that
they are getting best value out of this or any other contract the Council must
compare the costs, benefits and risks of outsourcing with the costs, benefits
and risks of retaining services in house but reforming the way they are
provided to optimise value. Despite having been urged to do this, and despite
the fact that it has been done by other local authorities, like Edinburgh,
Barnet has refused to do it.
3. Breach of the public
sector equality duty: the Council must take issues of equality into account
when making important decisions which affect people’s lives, like making
radical changes in the way Council services are run. The “equalities impact assessment” done in
the One Barnet case was a pure paper exercise, which took no account of the
views of people who would be affected by the changes.
4. Breach of public
procurement law, which requires that this contract be awarded to the company
submitting the “most economically advantageous tender from the point of view of
the public body”, i.e. the provider that gives the “best value for money” ,
taking into account the council’s responsibilities. Lack of consultation with local
people, lack of consideration of equalities and lack of an in-house services
comparator means the council cannot state that Capita gives the best value for
money. Such a breach of the public
procurement rules leads to cases like West Coast Main Line.
5. Breach of councillors’
duty to make up their own minds: Individual councillors must by law make up
their own minds how to vote after informing themselves on the issues. They are not allowed blindly to follow the
party line. Councillors have been starved
of information and have not had the opportunity to understand the highly
complex proposals for the contract, so they cannot legally vote to do anything
other than defer a decision so that they can inform themselves and come to a
proper view.
Notes for editors
1.
Capita has been chosen as the preferred bidder
for the New Support and Customer Services Organisation (NSCSO) contract with
Barnet Council, worth at least £320 million over 10 years and advertised in the
Official Journal of the European Union as worth between £600 and £750 million.
A second contract covering Development and Regulatory Services (DRS) worth £275
million over 10 years is also being bid for by Capita Symonds and EC Harris;
parking services were recently outsourced to NSL for £15 million (5-year
contract).
2.
Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) is a
coalition of residents, trade unionists and community campaigners in the London
Borough of Barnet, formed to defend and improve public services.
3.
Maria Nash is unfortunately unable to talk to
the press due to illness. She has asked BAPS representative to speak on her
behalf.
Contact:
Barnet Alliance tel: 07534 407703 - Vicki Morris tel: 07446 292994 – http://barnetalliance.org ; Barnetalliance4publicservices@gmail.com
Press Release – 7 DECEMBER 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUDICIAL REVIEW CHALLENGE TO PRIVATISATION OF BARNET COUNCIL SERVICES LAUNCHED
________________________________________________________________
Public Interest Lawyers, acting on behalf of Susan Sullivan, a concerned Barnet resident, has today notified Barnet Council (at 9.39am) of her intention to seek judicial review of the “One Barnet programme”. The pre-action protocol letter sets out her claim against the Council. She alleges that the Council is acting unlawfully, both as to the process it has adopted and the substance of its proposals. The One Barnet programme is unprecedented in its ambition and scale nationally, yet it has never been the subject of a consultation of Barnet residents nor an effective equalities impact assessment.
The letter seeks the immediate suspension of any further contracting decisions by the Council and the carrying out of a full and effective consultation and equalities assessment. She contends that the results of any such assessment/consultation would cause the Council to re-evaluate the ill-advised programme.
The Claimant argues that the Council has breached the following legal duties:
a) The Public Sector Equality Duty – this requires the Council to have “due regard” to equalities considerations and the impact of its decisions on protected equalities groups throughout its decision making process. The Council has failed to have regard to this duty both in relation to the timing of its equality impact assessments –postponed until too late in the contracting process; and in relation to the form of the few assessments that have been carried out. They have failed to evaluate the most important question: what is the impact of a wholesale and irreversible contracting out of the Council’s functions? High-flown contractual promises of bidders lack essential rigour and detail and are no answer to this question. There has been inadequate consideration of mitigating actions.
b) The ‘Best Value Duty’ in s3 Local Government Act 1999 – this duty requires the Council to obtain ‘best value’. This includes community as well as financial value. Statutory Guidance requires consultation to take place. This has not happened. An evaluation of value requires the consideration of maintaining in-house services. This has not happened.
c) Public law duties of consultation and information. In failing to consult, and to consider viable in-house alternatives, the Council has unlawfully closed its mind to valuable democratic considerations.
Speaking today, John Sullivan, the father of Susan Sullivan stated as follows:
“The Council has robbed Susan and her family of their democratic voice in failing to consult on what is a wholesale privatisation of local government. If this happened nationally, there would be outrage. Why should it be any different for our beloved Barnet? The national contract failure rate is 25%. When these contracts collapse, who will be left to pick up the pieces? No-one but the poor, the disabled and short-changed Barnet service users, residents and taxpayers.”
Speaking today, Daniel Carey of Public Interest Lawyers stated as follows:
“The law requires the Council to consult residents and carefully evaluate the impact of its decisions on equalities groups. Yet, in the biggest decision the Council could possibly take – to effectively cease to be a Council as we know it – it has failed to do so. I hope the Council will now listen to the legal arguments and give proper and lawful regard to residents and their concerns.”
For further information, contact:
Public Interest Lawyers
Daniel Carey, Solicitor
Telephone: 0121 515 5069
Mobile: 07815 089526
E-mail: info@publicinterestlawyers.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)