Duffy forces Council U-turn on out-sourcing

Following recent controversy about the Kingdom littering contract, including the Scrutiny Committee discussion from which the public were excluded and the revelation that no formal minutes existed for the original contract meeting between officers and Kingdom LINK, it appears that Cllr John Duffy may have achieved a break-through, forcing a re-think by the lead member and Cabinet.

I understand that following Duffy's production of figures showing that an in-house solution would offer better value for money than the Kingdom contract, that this is now likely to happen.

Duffy has maintained that the original Cabinet decision to out-source the contract wasted over £100,000 of the environmental budget at a time when council finance was under pressure from government cuts.  Duffy challenged the Cabinet's claim that Kingdom paid the London Living Wage and it does now appear that the company was not LLW accredited and that rates are far below those for similar officers directly employed in the public sector.

In an interchange earlier in the Scrutiny meeting Duffy quoted 73 fly-tipping fines versus 4,000 fixed penalty, notices mainly for dropping fag ends. Cllr Southwood said the proportion of FPNs for fag ends had been reduced to nearer 60% after talks with Kingdom. Cllr Duffy claimed that this was still still out of balance. An Environment Department officer claimed it was more difficult than people might think to get admissable evidence on the perpetrator of  fly-tipping. Even if addressed letters were found inside black bags you still had to prove the addressee was responsible for the fly-tipping.

The figures suggest that Duffy has been vindicated and that an in-house service will not only produce a better service and value for money for council tax payers but that workers involved will secure  better pay and conditions.

UPDATE Flytipping and Litter fines NOT DISCUSSED PUBLICLY at Scrutiny tonight

As he is now a member of Scrutiny Committee there will be a chance for Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) to get to the bottom of the Kingdom contract which employs operatives to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for litter dropping in the borough, at tonight's meeting..  Duffy has raised the issue of the legality of the contract as well as whether the Council has received 'best value for money' from the arrangement.

One of the documents tabled has been withheld from the public. The public report can be found HERE

UPDATE

When it came to the agenda item this evening Carolyn Downs, CEO said that the public and press should be excluded from the meeting because of the 'below the line' report. It apparently contained information that had not yet been communicated to Kingdom. I suspect this means that it contains a recommendation to end the Kingdom contract and perhaps to provide the service in-house. Downs also said that it was unusual to have a paper discussed before it had gone to Cabinet. Councillors who are not on Scrutiny were allowed to stay as they are bound by confidentiality rules.

Separately Cllr Duffy protested at the withholding of documents he had requested from Downs.  He'd discovered that there were no minutes of the meeting where Kingdom was awarded the littering contract. He'd then asked for any notes that officers had taken at the meeting. Downs refused this saying that these were private notes by officers and that if they were released it was likely that officers would stop taking notes at meetings for fear that they would be made public.

Duffy asked, 'What's the point of electing councillors if officers are going to make the decisions?'

Surely in a Council with nothing to hide scrutiny should take place in front of press and public? 

Duffy condemns 'folly' of failed Kingdom littering contract

In an email to fellow councillors, Cllr John Duffy, has raised key issues about the Kingdom littering contract, LINK which he expects to be officially deemed a failure by officers:

I am sure you are aware about the way the Issuing of the £80 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) contracts was given to a company by "word of mouth" tendering. I am sure you remember my objections at the time because the contract showed complete disregard to Equal opportunities, VFM [Value for money] and the terms and conditions of excising agreed staff /posts. The officers also failed to make any attempt to negotiate and allowed to company to collect £46 for every FPN issued by them whether they were paid or not. 

It's clear now a March report to cabinet will say the contract has not been successful and costs too much and will try and cancel the contract. Unfortunately the contract will have cost us over £100k, which could have been spend on other enforcement activities or environmental improvement. It seems crazy to me that when Brent is now identified as the sixth worst Local Authority for fly tipping in the country. Which is an all time low. So Instead of dealing with fly tipping we gave this private contract over £202K (Brent received £27K) to issue 4000 PFN to fag -butt litter outside tube stations and Bus stops. This contract was the lead members folly (which we will all have to pay for ) and was against my advice and costings at the time. 

I asked the CEO to carry out an independent investigation, but she has refused. However she did release information to me about income from the contract. The information shows we have paid £11k for 160 tickets that were written off by the council because of reasons like they were issued to the incorrect address or incorrect person. The 160 includes 25 that were written of because the person had Mental Health Issues.  

Firstly let me thank the council officer who did not send these 25 cases for prosecution (presumably after seeing the CCTV) and saved Brent council the shame of taking people who have Mental Health issues to court. However in our efforts to maximise the profits for the private company , we still paid them £46 for every ticket issued including the residents with Mental Health Issues.

In my opinion this payment was not only morally wrong is was also illegal. In the report that was sent to both the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee in part 4.10 of the report under responsibilities to be undertaken by the contractor , they were not to issue them to persons under the age of 18 or those suspected of suffering from mental health issues.

I am asking the CEO and head of legal to confirm

(1) Is the payment to the contractor legal, if so why.

(2) if not what steps are they taking to redeem the money. 

(3) What penalty will the contractor pay for issuing tickets to persons with mental health issues.

I am also concerned many more FPNs were have been given to persons with Mental health issues , but were paid by them. I believe we should review all the CCTV evidence ( whether they paid or not) as the % of mental health cases in the non payers is approx. 15%,. If that is reflected in paid tickets it could be as high as 500 tickets which were wrongly issued.

I hope the CEO and Legal officer will treat this issue with the importance it deserves. I believe the CEO should get back to all council members ensuring them the issuing of FPN to persons  with Mental Health Issues has stopped.

Duff litter enforcement proposal slammed by Kilburn councillor

The proposal to out-source litter enforcement came in for a drubbing from Kilburn Councillor John Duffy at last night's Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Sam Stopp stated at the beginning of the meeting that the Task Group he led report on illegal rubbish dumping could have been interpreted as advocating some sort of out-sourcing  but this was not the case. He cited Islington as a borough where in-house services had proved to be more efficient.

Stopp went on to express 'deep dissatisfaction' that the Task Group had not been consulted on the implementation of any of the recommendations made in their report. He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment  opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both.  He said that there should be a clear commitment to continuing liaison with task group members when implementing recommendations.

Cllr Duffy said that the proposal to out-source to Kingdom was a decision made to employ 'cheaper people'. The Council had reduced enforcement officers from 21 to 7 but were now proposing getting people back to do the same job through a private company - the 'most basic and primitive' form of out-sourcing.  They would be employed well below the average wage and would be reliant on in-work benefits.  He challenged the officers and lead member's view that these would be 'different jobs'.

He challenged the Council's claim that Kingdom's enforcement officers would not be involved in Court appearances.  This was tantamount to saying to those caught 'if you don't pay you won't end up in court'.

He presented figures to show that the Council stood to lose income of up to £100,000 by out-sourcing rather than setting up an in-house operation.

Chris Whyte in response said that the Kingdom employee's enforcement role was on the ground, patrolling streets, spotting litter dropping and issuing tickets, while the Council enforcement team, did a wider spectrum of work investigating fly-tipping crime and follow up work including preparing cases for Court. Kingdom staff would make occasional appearances in Court but would not prepare and investigate cases.

Cllr Duffy said that he had got hold of a Kingdom job description and it was very similar to that he used to have to do as an enforcement officer.  Cllr Southwood, lead member for environment admitted that a job evaluation would only be done if the Council went out to procurement after the six month pilot with Kingdom.

Cllr Kelcher, chair of Scrutiny expressed concern over the safety of enforcement officers issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices. Chris Whyte responded that a risk assessment would be undertaken as Brent Council was responsible for the safety of staff.

A 'social value' assessment would be incorporated into the specification if it was decided to go for external procurement after the trial. Whyye said it was essential to collect data during the trial to see what the scale of the litter problem in Brent. By out-sourcing the risk of little return via fining would rest with the contractor and not the Council.

Duffy pointed out that Kingdom would  be motivated to issue a high number of tickets as this would boost their profits. Operatives were likely to go for the easy option of targeting 'rich pickings', such as smokers outside tube stations, where they could issue many tickets in a short time, rather than areas where real action was needed on street litter.

Cllr Southwood said that Kingdom would be guided by Veolia, ward councillors and the public, Chris Whyte said monitoring of the contract was essential. He would be concerned if it was only cigarette butts.

Duffy said that the report had argued that the proposal was cost neutral but the real issue was whether it was best value for money.  He questioned how much of the £52,000 income to Brent Council would be taken up by costs of going to Court.  He claimed the Council were 'addicted to out-sourcing'.  He presented figures to suggest that there was little risk to the Council from an in-house contract but  Whyte said that Ealing Council had found their in-house provision was inefficient and had therefore out-sourced to Kingdom.

For the Committee Matt Kelcher said that after the pilot Brent Council should look at in-house provision and build social value into the process.

Brent Council clarifies Kingdom flytipping and litter patrols contract proposal

I put a number of questions to Brent Council about the proposed Litter and Flytipping patrols contract LINK which is being discussed at Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday next week.

These are questions and responses:

1.    The report states that the Kingdom operatives will be paid at a lower rate than current Brent staff because they perform a different role. One of the differences cited is that they will not represent the Council in Court as part of their enforcement role. I would have thought that if there is an appeal against a fixed penalty notice or a refusal to pay that the Court would require the officer who spotted the infringement to appear as a witness. Is that your understanding?

The Kingdom role will be to undertake patrols to issue on the spot fines for littering. Our own waste enforcement team undertake more complex and weightier investigations, mainly of illegal dumping offences. The two activities are intended to be separate but will complement each other. Our own officers are professional enforcement officers who will investigate and prepare cases and then attend court to present them. It's complex and usually done without witness evidence.

In terms of Kingdom acting as witnesses, last year they issued over 50,000 FPN’s nationally and had less than 30 trials whereby the offender pleaded not guilty. Approximately 75% were paid which negates the need to prosecute. Out of the remaining 25% the vast majority plead guilty by letter or personal appearance or are found guilty in absence. The remainder of cases are remanded for a trial. In these instances, there may be the need for the issuing officer to attend court as a witness only. They would not be preparing and presenting the case.

2.    Can you clarify the total number of staff that Kingdom would deploy on the contract. Will there be a supervisor and manager in addition to the four ‘on the street’ operatives? Would the supervisor also be deployed on the street? Would there be a separate Kingdom admin support worker or would that be provided by the Council?

The Kingdom model proposes the following dedicated personnel. The supervisor would be deployed on-street as necessary.

            4 Enforcement officers

            1 Senior Enforcement Officer

            1 Supervisor / Team Leader.

            1 Admin officer

3.    As the contract was not put out to competitive tender is it possible to give like for like costings for  in-house provision of the service?

The costings from Kingdom and their anticipated resource allows for a like for like comparison with an in house service. However, each job role would be subject to the council's job evaluation process. That review has not been undertaken so the exact cost of the staffing element is not known. Also, any assumption that existing resource can be used to support an in house model is not tested. One benefit of the Kingdom model is that it complements rather than draws from existing resource. An in house model would obviously see the council retain all fines income so it could create more revenue, although experience in Ealing suggests that non-payment may be a more significant factor with an in-house service. The downside is that it would transfer the financial risk from the contractor to the council. The council would need to commit to the cost of staff and equipment without the absolute certainty of recovering that cost. Also, it is hoped such an initiative would correct behaviour over time so less fines would be issued. A contracted pilot arrangement offers better flexibility in that it can be changed or terminated without liability.

What's intended is a pilot and this will allow us to test the model and costs. When the full procurement process commences, any in house option would be considered alongside a bid from Kingdom (should they bid) and any other firm. The benchmarking from the pilot will ensure we have a clear idea of costs to compare.