When is complaint not a complaint? – Part 2 Is there a 'cover up culture' at Brent Council

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Opening paragraphs of Kim Wright’s email to me of 27 September 2024.

 

On 2 October, Martin published my guest post “Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease – When is a complaint not a complaint?” The email of 27 September above from Brent’s Chief Executive had been sent in response to my request for her to conduct a Final Review of the formal complaint I had made on 30 August. I requested that as I was not satisfied with the initial reply of 9 September from a Corporate Director, which did not even mention the word “complaint”.

 

The grounds for my complaint were detailed in a guest post a month earlier, “Bobby Moore Bridge – formal complaint submitted over advertising lease award”. Briefly, they were that the Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, and the recommendation to make the award under Option B, were biased, and that the main author of that report had an undisclosed conflict of interests, which had only come to light months later.

 

 I wanted to understand the reasoning behind the Council’s decision not to treat my “concerns” as a formal complaint, which had apparently made before the first response to that complaint on 9 September, and what evidence it had been based on. I requested some details in an email to Kim Wright on 11 October (the text is in the comments section under the 2 October guest post). The Council decided to treat this as an FoI request, and I received the response to that on 11 November.

 

If the information provided is correct (and you would expect it to be, as the response came from a Senior Brent Council Lawyer), the decision (that my formal complaint was not a complaint) was made between 30 September and 3 October, after the Chief Executive had told me of the decision.

 

In reply to my questions about what information the decision had been based on, that the matter I’d formally complained about ‘had not affected me personally’, and ‘had not caused me an injustice’, the response in both cases was: ‘Please refer to council officer’s emails sent to you dated 27/9 and 3/10.’ In other words, if Brent’s Chief Executive said that I had not suffered any personal injustice as a result of actions by the Council, or one of its Officers, that was sufficient evidence on which to base a decision justifying her claim!

 

Extract from Brent’s FoI response of 11 November 2024.

 

The response had already told me that the (apparently retrospective!) decision had been made by ‘The Complaints and Casework Manager in conjunction with the Corporate Director, Law & Governance.’ My final request had been for ‘any documentary evidence relating to’ the decision, and ‘any communications, and any advice sought or given, in respect of it.’ I was informed that the only documents were Kim Wright’s email to me of 27 September and the Council’s Complaints Policy (a copy of which was attached). ‘No further communication is held.’

 

I have set this out in detail so that any reader who is interested can see how Brent Council operates. If it does not want to deal with a complaint, it says that it is not a complaint, without having to provide any evidence. It hopes that you will give up and go away, rather than admitting that something has been done wrongly, and trying to put it right! 

 

Anyone who knows me will realise that I am not put off by such tactics. This is the full text of an open email which I sent to Brent’s Chief Executive on 12 November:-

 

This is an Open Email

Dear Ms Wright,

 

Further to my email of 25 September, requesting a Stage 2 Final Review of my formal complaint to you of 30 August 2024 (see copy attached), you will have seen my Internal Review request (sent yesterday evening) to the FoI response of 11 November, to the questions I raised in my email to you of 11 October.

 

This is getting complicated, and is taking up quite a lot of Senior Council Officer time. The reason for that is that you and other Council Officers appear to be trying to "give me the run-around", hoping that I will give up, so that you do not have to deal with a perfectly reasonable and genuine complaint that I raised.

 

This latest letter, from Brent's Senior Constitutional & Governance Lawyer, exposes that there is no valid basis in evidence to show why Brent Council should not treat my complaint of 30 August as a complaint within the Council's Complaints Policy.

 

It appears from her FoI response that the "decision", 'that this issue does not fall within the scope of the Council's normal complaints procedure', set out in your email to me of 27 September, was not made until several days after you had sent that email, rather than before Minesh Patel's original email reply, in your absence on leave, of 9 September, which is what you had suggested.

 

And that "decision", for which there is no documentary evidence, appears to have been founded solely on a claim in your email of 27 September that: 'In this particular case you have not suffered a greater degree of personal injustice than anyone else affected by the matter raised.'

 

There was no supporting evidence for that claim. In fact, you already knew that the open tender process for the new advertising lease from 31 August 2024, seeking best value for the Council, with separate bids that would give the opportunity for Cabinet to properly consider the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, had been my suggestion in 2021, which had been accepted by your predecessor, Carolyn Downs.

 

The process was meant to be fair and transparent, and I had put in a great deal of effort to try to ensure that it was. My complaint (there can be no other valid description for it) was that the Report and recommendation, which Cabinet accepted, had been biased, and that its main author had an undisclosed conflict of interests. How could that not affect me personally, or give rise to an injustice, not just to the people who signed the petition which I presented on 28 May, but to me personally?

 

I would ask you again to carry out a Stage 2 Final Review of my formal complaint of 30 August, in the hope that this matter can be satisfactorily resolved without my having to refer it to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

In answer to another FoI request, which I received on 14 October, I was told that the new advertising lease agreement between the Council and Quintain from 31 August 2024 had not yet been signed. If that is still the case, then my suggested remedy No.1 still applies (as does the second suggested remedy in my open letter of 30 August attached).

 

I look forward to receiving your reply. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

The Leader Foreword from the Cabinet Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease report, 28 May 2024.
(The “supplier” referred to is Quintain Ltd, through its Wembley Park subsidiary)

 

You will notice a reference to some other FoI requests I made, to which I have received some partial responses. Among the information gleaned on the Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting is that the “Leader Forward” in it was not actually written by Cllr. Muhammed Butt himself (but by the Officer with the alleged undisclosed conflict of interests):

 

‘The foreword for the report was discussed by the Leader and Head of Communications, Conference and Events at a face-to-face meeting and the steer the Leader provided was included in the report and cleared by the Leader.’

 

My request for ‘copies of all email or other documentary contacts between the Contact Officers and the Leader … in the preparation of the Report’, was denied. The reason given was that:

 

‘complying with this request would exceed the cost limit set by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under Section 12 of the Act, public authorities are not required to comply with requests if the estimated time to locate, retrieve, and extract the requested information would take more than 18 hours.’

 

I doubt whether it would cost that much to provide the relevant emails etc between two people from 1 April and 14 May 2024, so I have asked for an Internal Review of that response!

 

There was an Appendix to the Report, headed "Advertising Lease Bid Evaluation", and I had also asked for ‘all the information in that Appendix 1 which was not exempt information.’ That request has also been refused:

 

‘The appendix includes commercially sensitive details related to an ongoing procurement process, as well as market-sensitive information. The public interest in keeping this information confidential outweighs the interest in disclosing it, as premature disclosure could harm the commercial interests of the bidders and the council.’

 

But the procurement process is not ongoing (it ended at the Cabinet meeting on 28 May!), and I had only requested the non-exempt information, not any commercially sensitive details. Again, I’ve asked for an Internal Review of this response. What is Brent Council trying to hide?

 

I feel that the treatment I have received in trying to pursue my complaint demonstrates a “cover-up culture” at Brent Council, which appears to go right to the top of the organisation. That is not a healthy state of affairs, especially for a public body paid for at our expense!

 

Philip Grant.

 

Should the Order of the British Empire be history?

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Medal of an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE). (Image from the internet)

 

I had been hoping to write this article earlier in the centenary year of the British Empire Exhibition, but the excellent recent guest post “An Afternoon with George the Poet: Refreshingly honest conversation about Empire”, reminded me that I had still not done so. I read that George the Poet had turned down the chance to be made a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2019. Like others before him, including Benjamin Zephaniah* and Professor Gus John, George did not want letters after his name that spoke of British imperialism. 

 

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, to give its full name, is one of a number of “orders of chivalry” under which titles and medals are awarded as part of the UK’s “honours” system. Some of them go back centuries, such as the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Bath. “Chivalry” goes back even further, signifying courtesy and valour – just think of the legends of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, or Saint George and the dragon (and those who wave the flag of England’s patron saint in protest against immigrants should remember that if he actually existed, he would have been Turkish now!).

 

15^th century painting of St George, rescuing a princess from a dragon. (Image from the internet)

 

Just as the British Empire is now history, although its legacy is still with us, and the focus for the “Becoming Brent” project, I believe that the Order of the British Empire, or at least that name for it, should also become history. But what is its history? I first started looking into that about 15 years ago, when I was researching the history of the Cox family of Sudbury, and their part in Wembley’s volunteer fire brigade.

 

Wembley’s volunteer fire brigade, with their fire engine, in 1920. (Courtesy of Carol Snape)

 

Edward Cox (standing on the right) was the brigade’s Chief Officer from 1920 until it was replaced by a full-time professional Wembley Fire Brigade in 1936. I found that he, and his brother Ernest (sitting on the running board next to him), had the letters O.B.E. after their names, and wondered how they had come to be awarded that honour.

 

A report from the “Middlesex County Times”, 10 February 1917. (Ealing Local History Library)

 

Research in local newspapers (on microfilm) took me back to a night in February 1917, when the Wembley Brigade were called out to a fire in Greenford, with Edward as the fire crew’s Captain and Ernest as the engine’s driver. [Luckily, this was during a three-month postponement to his army call-up, so that a new driver could be trained!] The Wembley firemen organised the effort to bring water from the canal, which stopped the fire at the Purex lead paint factory from spreading to the adjacent National Filling Station No.28. 

 

That “filling station” was not a petrol station, but a large complex of wooden huts used for filling 6-inch diameter artillery shells with high explosive charges and poison gas, for use against the German forces on the Western Front. If the fire had spread, it could have been disastrous for people and property over a very wide area! 

 

It was for honouring actions such as these that King George V established the Order of the British Empire in June 1917. The new Order was principally intended to recognise courageous acts by civilians during the First World War, as distinct from the medals which could already be awarded for distinguished military service. As I wrote in my first BEE centenary year article last January, the King had visited many parts of the British Empire, and considered it to be a family of nations (although not all of equal status), so the name of the Order did reflect that the honours could go to anyone within the Empire, not just to his British subjects.

 

The London Gazette list of OBE medals awarded, July 1920. (Image from the internet)

 

The Cox brothers’ awards of the Medal of the Order of the British Empire were made in July 1920 (‘For conspicuous courage and devotion to duty on the occasion of a fire at a munitions factory’). They were among the names listed alphabetically in the London Gazette, and as you can see from the image above, one of the first names was Ali Akbar Khan of the Indian Police, for his wartime work in the Straits Settlements (now Singapore and parts of Malaysia).

 

Thousands of these medals were awarded, and their holders were allowed to use the letters O.B.E. after their names. But the Order of the British Empire was expanded, to reward contributions to the arts and sciences, and for public service and charitable work. Although these were at first awarded in much smaller numbers, there were other classes of honours within the Order, from bottom to top being Member, Officer, Commander, Knight or Dame, and at the very top, Knight or Dame Grand Cross.

 

I don’t know whether it was because of class snobbery by Officers of the Order, but from 1922 the Medal of the Order of the British Empire was renamed the British Empire Medal. It is now awarded to anyone in Britain or the Commonwealth whose meritorious service ‘is considered worthy of the honour by the Crown’. Those, like the Cox brothers, who had already been awarded the medal could continue to use the letters O.B.E. after their names, but from then on BEM has been the lowest class of honour under the Order, still with “British Empire” in its name.

 

Why hasn’t that name changed, given that the former British Empire had been redefined as a Commonwealth of Nations as far back as 1949? I’m not the first person to ask that question. In fact, a cross-party House of Commons committee, the Public Administration Select Committee, considered it twenty years ago, and published a report “A Matter of Honour: Reforming the Honours System”, including this recommendation:

 

An important recommendation from the Select Committee Report in July 2004.

 

It wasn’t just politicians on the Left who thought this was a good idea. The report includes the views of a former Conservative Prime Minister on removing the word “Empire” and replacing it with “Excellence”, given as part of his evidence to the Committee:

 

‘Mr Major also backed the idea of an Order of British Excellence. This view was a direct reversal of his opinion of 1993, when he told the House that he could “see no advantage or purpose in changing the Order of the British Empire”. Today, he told us:

 

“Although that argument still has force, I believe it is now out of date. In order to remove one of the persistent criticisms of the system, I would now be inclined to propose an “Order of British Excellence” with Awards at the level of Companion (i.e. CBE), Officer (OBE) and Member (MBE). This is minimum change for maximum effect. It retains the familiar abbreviations whilst removing reference to an Empire that no longer exists. It does have an awkwardness with Northern Ireland, but no more so than now”.’ 

 

I don’t know why Tony Blair’s Labour Government did not follow this sensible advice from Parliament. The Order of the British Empire was already “past its sell buy date” then, and is even more so now. I hope that the current Government will look again at this suggestion, but the people with the greatest power to make that change are the “Sovereign” of the Order and its “Grand Master”. They are, respectively, King Charles III and Queen Camilla.

 

Do you agree that change is needed? Please feel free to add your comments below.

Philip Grant.

* Benjamin Zephaniah wrote this in 2003 about his reaction to the offer of an OBE: ‘“Me? I thought, OBE me? Up yours, I thought. I get angry when I hear that word ‘empire’; it reminds me of slavery, it reminds of thousands of years of brutality.”

This Sunday at Preston Community Library 3pm. Philip Grant on the British Empire Exhibition

 

Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease – When is a complaint not a complaint?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Final slide from petition presentation, asking 28 May Cabinet meeting to choose Option A.

 

On 2 September, Martin published a guest post, giving details of the formal complaint I had made to Brent’s Chief Executive over the advertising lease award. The main grounds for the complaint were that as well as being biased in favour of “Option B”, the main author of the Report and recommendation, which Council Leader Muhammed Butt had accepted (in the name of his Cabinet), had not disclosed his conflict of interests, in that he was the Head of the Council Department which benefitted financially from “Option B”.

A further guest post on 11 September set out Brent Council’s response, from the Corporate Director Finance and Resources (covering for the Chief Executive). He told me ‘that the report was drafted and agreed in accordance with the council’s standard practices,’ and expressed his confidence ‘that this procurement was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.’ 

“How complaints are dealt with – Stage 1” from Brent Council’s website.

 

The email did not actually address the main points I had raised, and did not even refer to my open letter of 30 August being a formal complaint, or what I should do if I was not satisfied with the Council’s response to it. I ended that article by asking (jokingly, I thought!): ‘Is Brent Council now dealing with complaints by not even treating them as complaints?’

 

As I found out that Kim Wright, Brent’s Chief Executive, was on leave until 25 September, I waited until then to write, requesting a Stage 2 final review of my complaint. I included the text of my email to her as a “for information” comment under my 11 September guest post, but this is the relevant section of it:

Extract from my email to Kim Wright of 25 September 2024.

 

Earlier in my email, I had said: ‘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.’ I was surprised when I received her response only two days later, and even more surprised by what it said:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your emails. I understand that my office and Minesh Patel, covering for me, replied to you on 9 September outlining a response.

 

Whilst I do not dispute the significance of the issue at hand, I regret to inform you that this issue does not fall within the scope of the Council's normal complaints procedure. The complaints procedure is intended to deal with cases where a member of the public has suffered personal injustice as a result of the Council's actions or inactions. This is also the criteria that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) uses to decide whether to investigate a complaint. This is mentioned on the LGSCO’s website and in the Council’s Complaints policy.

 

The policy states under section 3.2 “Who can make a complaint? Anyone who uses and/or is individually affected by our services can make a complaint. We cannot investigate complaints where there has been no personal injustice (in other words, where the complainant has not been directly affected by the matter raised).” In this particular case you have not suffered a greater degree of personal injustice than anyone else affected by the matter raised. Your concerns were therefore not logged as a formal complaint but were addressed in the response provided to you by the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources whilst I was on a period of annual leave. I do apologise that this was not explained to you at the outset. If you disagree with the way we have addressed your concerns, you can if you wish approach the LGSCO to ask them to review our decision to not treat your concerns as a formal complaint.

 

I understand that you have submitted a number of FOI requests concerning the Bobby Moore Bridge lease, including one relating to the signing of the lease, and you will receive replies to these within the usual deadline.

 

Kind regards

Kim Wright (she/her)

 
Chief Executive, Brent Council’

 

The Policy Statement from the Brent Council Complaints Policy (August 2024).

 

That response does not fit well with Brent Council’s stated policy of welcoming complaints, aiming to resolve them quickly and using the information gained from them to improve the quality of what they do!

 

I don’t agree that I have not suffered any personal injustice, (or as the Local Government Ombudsman’s website actually describes it ‘not affected you personally or caused you an injustice), but if I try to argue with the Chief Executive on that point she will just “kick the problem down the road”. 

 

I believe that there has been an injustice in this case, not just to me personally, but to everyone who signed the petition (which was ignored and not even considered by Brent’s Cabinet) in support of “Option A”, and also to every Brent resident and visitor to Wembley Park who continues to be denied the enjoyment of the tile murals in the subway from the station to Olympic Way which celebrate Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage.

 

If Brent won’t consider my complaint, by abusing the words of its Complaints Policy to pretend that it is not a complaint, how else can that injustice to be dealt with? That is the issue I took up in my reply to the Chief Executive on 27 September:

 

‘Dear Ms Wright,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Without prejudice to the question of whether or not I have suffered a personal injustice in this matter, please to me have your answer to the following question.

 

If this significant issue does not fall within the Council's complaints procedure, under what Brent Council process can the 114 citizens of the borough, who were signatories of the petition which I presented at the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, seek redress for the collective injustice which they suffered, as a result of the actions by Council Officers (and the Council Leader) set out in my formal complaint letter to you of 30 August 2024?

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Please feel free to add your comments below on this particular matter, or on how Brent Council has dealt with (or not) a complaint that you have made.

 

In answer to my own question of “When is a complaint not a complaint?”, I would say “When Brent Council knows it is wrong, but is afraid to admit it, or to put it right.”

Philip Grant.

 

'When Wembley welcomed the World' Sunday 27th October, Preston Community Library

 

Some forthcoming British Empire Exhibition talks you may wish to enjoy

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

Some images from Burma at the British Empire Exhibition

 

If you have found my recent articles about the Pageant of Empire in 1924 of interest, you might like to discover more about the British Empire Exhibition from one (or more) of the three illustrated talks I will be giving over the next few weeks, as part of its centenary.

 

The first, “The Jewel of Wembley – Burma at the BEE”, is on Friday 20 September, from 7.30 to 9pm, in St Andrew’s Church Hall, Kingsbury. This is at regular monthly meeting of Wembley History Society, but visitors are welcome [we just invite a contribution of £3 (£1 for students) towards the cost of the hall]. All the details you should need are here:

 

 

One of the aspects of the Exhibition’s history that I am most keen on is the perspective of people who came here from the countries of the Empire, rather than just the “official” British view. The album on which much of my talk is based contains dozens of newspaper cuttings and photographs. One of the most intriguing of which is an article by a female journalist of her interview with Ma Bala Hkin, the leading actress and dancer of the Burmese theatre troupe at the Exhibition.

 

One of the headlines from the “Evening News” article.

 

If you want to know what Ma Bala thought of the English women she saw in Wembley in 1924, you should come along to my talk!

 

The second of my talks, “A Harlesden Photographer at the B.E.E. – the West Indies at Wembley in 1924”, is a free coffee morning event at Harlesden Library, on Tuesday 8 October from 11am to 12noon. 

 

 

Back in the 1990s, Wembley History Society received a donation of photographs, together with some glass plate negatives, showing images of the Exhibition in 1924, especially from inside the West Indies Pavilion. They were the work of a little-known local photographer, whose stamp was on the back of some of the prints:

 

Harlesden Library seemed the ideal place to present this talk, and you can find more details and reserve your free place on the Brent Libraries, Arts and Heritage Eventbrite website. This talk is part of the Becoming Brent project, re-examining the British Empire Exhibition and its legacy.

  

The final talk I will be giving in the Exhibition’s centenary year is “When Wembley Welcomed the World”. This is being hosted by Preston Community Library on the afternoon of Sunday 27 October (exact time and further details will follow). It will be a free event, but with donations to the work of the community library invited from those who attend.

 

 

This illustrated talk is an introduction to the various nations which took part in the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley Park in 1924, and their people who came here for the event, but then moves on to show how Wembley has continued to welcome people from across the world ever since the 1920s.

 

I hope that “Wembley Matters” readers will find something of interest in these presentations, and I look forward to welcoming you to any of these events.

 

Philip Grant.

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.