Wednesday 11 September 2024

Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease - Brent’s response to complaint. Have you had experience of trying to complain to Brent Council?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Extract from Brent Council’s website on Complaints and Feedback.

 

On 2 September, Martin published an open letter of complaint that I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, Kim Wright, on 30 August, objecting to the undisclosed conflict of interests and bias in the Report and recommendation for the award of the new advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge. I received the Council’s response on 9 September from Brent’s Corporate Director Finance and Resources, ‘(Covering for the Chief Executive)’, and in the interests of transparency and fair play I have asked Martin to publish that response in full below.

 

The response tells me that everything was done ‘in accordance with the council’s standard practices’, so that the process ‘was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.’

 

Have you ever made a complaint to Brent Council? If so, have they ever admitted that they made a mistake or did something wrong? I’d be interested to receive your feedback on this in the comments section.

 

My own feeling on the response below is that has been composed in a way that the Council can claim that they’ve answered all the points I raised, without directly answering any of them! If you feel inclined to read on, you can judge for yourself.

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

In response to your letter dated 30 August 2024, I can confirm that the report was drafted and agreed in accordance with the council’s standard practices.

 

The information regarding the tiles was supplied by the council’s Heritage Officer. He noted that the tiled murals under the Bobby Moore Bridge and on the adjoining retaining walls, which depict various scenes of sports and entertainment events, have historic and artistic merit. They are considered a non-designated heritage asset within the meaning in the National Planning Policy Framework. The tiles are not statutory listed, but none-the-less the council will continue to ensure they are protected regardless of this fact during the contract period. The tile mural with plaque will remain on permanent display during the contract period. The tiled flank walls outside the underpass are also on display.

 

As you are aware, council officers did not make the final decision for this contract as their role was to make a recommendation. The final award decision was made solely by Cabinet and, despite your concerns, I am satisfied that the report was a fair representation of the facts, including the details of your petition.

 

Financial information is always provided in council reports to ensure Cabinet has the full information available to make rounded decisions. In the current national and local context, where council budgets are stretched like never before it is perfectly rational for the council to seek to generate external income where it can. There were also other, non-financial, benefits which the report outlined regarding the option which was agreed by the Cabinet.

 

Officers routinely and properly make recommendations about matters which are the responsibility of services they manage, or which may impact on those services financially or operationally. To suggest that officers should be precluded from involvement in such matters is unrealistic and unreasonable and would often prevent members from receiving advice from those best placed to give it. It is of course proper for an officer dealing with a contract award to set out any impact on the service budget of different options and to recommend that members take that into account in making their decision. The council’s communications service budget is used to support the delivery of essential services including ensuring residents are informed and engaged about issues that affect them and know how to access the services they need.

 

It should also be noted that Service Heads routinely work with officers to generate reports where income is allocated into their budget. In this case, there were many officers involved, besides the two officers stated in the Cabinet Report. This includes procurement officers, the heritage officer, highways officers, sales and marketing officer, finance officer, governance officers and colleagues from legal. The report was also agreed by the Corporate Director, Partnerships, Housing & Resident Services before it was presented to Cabinet. The two officers named in the report also made additional efforts to work with you in advance of the tender given your interest in the tiles.

 

In summary, I am confident that this procurement was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Minesh Patel (Covering for the Chief Executive)

 

Corporate Director Finance and Resources
Finance and Resources
Brent Council’

 


Extract from the “How your complaint will be dealt with” section of Brent’s website

 

My open letter to Brent’s Chief Executive was headed: “Formal complaint over the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.’ You may have noticed that the response from Brent does not mention the word “complaint”, and the email subject line was simply ‘CRM:00000000488000000021’! And it does not inform me of my right to request a final review (or of my right to involve the Local Government Ombudsman if I am dissatisfied with the way my complaint was dealt with). Is Brent Council now dealing with complaints by not even treating them as complaints?

 


Philip Grant.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Quintain are celebrating British music here but covered up the tiles by Wembley Park station celebrating Live Aid, the greatest concert ever which was held in Wembley Stadium, with advertising panels😞

https://harrowonline.org/2024/09/13/wembley-apartments-embrace-britcore-as-oasis-reunion-approaches/

Philip Grant said...

Dear Anonymous (13 September at 13:29),

I'm sorry that I did not notice your comment earlier.

The tile mural celebrating Live Aid, and other pop music concerts at the old Wembley Stadium, was not covered up by Quintain's advertising panels.

Unfortunately, it was largely destroyed c.2006, during work by TfL to build a new staircase down to Olympic Way from the bus stop (now moved) on the bridge above the subway, ahead of the opening of the new stadium.

You can find more details about this, and what replaced it, in this blog from December 2022:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/12/a-new-tile-mural-at-olympic-way-wembley.html

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION:
As Brent's Chief Executive was on leave when the unsatisfactory reply in the article above was sent to me on 9 September, I waited until she returned to the Civic Centre on 25 September before I sent my response to it.

This is what I wrote, in an email headed "Request for a Final Review on formal complaint over the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease":

'Dear Ms Wright,

I was advised that you were on leave until 25 September, so have delayed my request for a final review of the complaint I originally sent you on 30 August 2024, in order that you could deal with it personally, and reply to me personally.

I realise that there will be other matters awaiting your attention on your return from leave, so do not mind waiting for up to twenty working days for your final review response.

However, there is one point which I would ask you to act on immediately, please. The first suggested remedy in my formal complaint letter asked that if the new advertising lease from 31 August had not yet been signed, 'no further action should be taken towards finalising the lease agreement until the choice between options A and B has been properly considered and determined.' Please check whether the new Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease has been signed, and if it has not yet been signed, please stop any further action on signing it until my complaint has been fully resolved. Thank you.

My formal complaint letter of 30 August 2024 was dealt with in your absence by Minesh Patel, Corporate Director Finance and Resources, in an email to me of 9 September. As that email does not appear to have been copied to you, I will set out a full copy of it below, for ease of reference.

Mr Patel's response made no mention that it was replying to a complaint, and did not contain the required information on what to do if not satisfied with the reply. In the circumstances, I must treat his reply as Stage 1, and as I am dissatisfied with it, ask you to treat this email as a Stage 2 request for a final review of my original complaint of 30 August 2024, which I was advised was given the reference number IRC-50718-D2N0R5.

The reason why I am not satisfied with the Stage 1 response copied below is that although it sets out to give the impression that it has answered the points raised in my open letter to you of 30 August, it has not actually addressed and answered my complaints of bias and a conflict of interests in the Report and recommendations to the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024.

This is a serious matter, involving what I firmly believe is an injustice, which totally undermined what should have been a fair and transparent consideration of two alternative options for the new advertising lease.

I look forward to receiving your Stage 2 response, once you have had the time to independently investigate the matter I have complained about. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.'

[My email added the full text of the 9 September email reply to my formal complaint.]