This evening's Thames Water Update current situation re no water/low pressure/bottled water station + COMPENSATION CLAIMS

 

We’re sorry if you’re experiencing supply and pressure problems.

Whilst most of our customers should now be back in supply following yesterday’s burst pipe in Loudoun Road, there have been some knock on effects to the pipe network that have caused issues for some.

If you’re still experiencing supply problems, we’ve re-opened our bottled water station at Willesden Sports Centre, in Donnington Road NW10 3QX.

Water Quality

As you’d expect, we’ve carried out a series of tests and can confirm there are no quality issues with the returning water supply.

You can find more information about what to expect as your water returns here.

If you’ve still got problems with your supply

We’re working to resolve these as quickly as possible. We’re really sorry for the ongoing disruption and distress caused.

We expect repairs to the original burst to take several days, and in the meantime, Loudoun Road is likely to remain closed for some time.

Details on our bottled water station

Our bottled water station is accessible on foot or by car. If you drive there, we can load water into your vehicle. It’s for essential use, like drinking, cooking and hand washing, so please be considerate and don’t take more than you need.

If you have a neighbour who’s unable to get to the site, please let us know and we’ll do our best to make sure our limited supplies are fairly handed out.

We’ll provide any further updates on this page when we have further information.

Editor's comment - COMPENSATION

 

 You can claim £30 compensation from Thames Water for loss of your water yesterday (more if you have still no water today or subsequent days) and should get it credited to your account within 20  working days There are also other categories if you were affected in additional ways.

 

LINK TO CLAIM FORM

Brent Council confirm Dec 22nd extension for Wembley High Road works

Brent Council have confirmed that the Thames Water sewer works on Wembley High Road will be extended up to December 22nd. Certainly the works, which were due to be finished at the end of this week, look nowhere near completion. I understand that the concrete blockage extends further eastwards than first thought and clearing it will require further excavation.

Business on the affected closed road seeking compensation from Thames Water should follow this LINK

The final bill for the works and compensation could run into hundreds of thousands and despite their denials, Henley Homes, who are developing the  Brent House site adjacent to the sewer works, are still being suggested by locals as the most likely blockage culprit. Watch this space!

Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert – Brent’s cover-up continues (or, another Deputation that the Council would not hear!)

Guest blog by Philip Grant

“Wembley Matters” readers may be interested to know what happened at Brent’s Scrutiny Committee meeting this evening (Thursday 30 April). 

Before it started, I was treated to the sight of Cllr. Butt sitting next to Cara Davani (Director of HR and Administration), laughing and joking with her, and pointing me out as the person who had come to present a Deputation about Equalities and HR. I don’t know why the Council Leader was there, except perhaps to impress on the committee members sitting opposite him that Ms Davani was under his protection, so they had better not do anything that might annoy her.

The Chair, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, soon got on to the question of the Deputation from Phil Grant, and said that there was a matter to sort out before I presented it. He asked for my agreement that if I were allowed to speak, I should not refer to any individual legal cases, as Brent’s Chief Legal Officer had advised me earlier in the day. 

I replied that I could not accept this restriction, for the reasons I had set out in an email sent to all of his committee members, and copied to the Legal Officer, some hours ago, which had not been answered. The legal case I wished to refer to was the one which Cllr Pavey’s review had been set up, as Christine Gilbert (interim Chief Executive, and also present) had announced last September, to learn the lessons from that case. As one of the points I wished to make was that an important lesson had not been learned, and both of the points required reference to the case in order to explain the reasons for what I wanted to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on, that case was relevant to committee’s consideration, and could not be ignored.

There was some further discussion with the senior Brent Lawyer, Arnold Meagher, at the meeting, who said that as the case involved had not been fully concluded, I should not be allowed to refer to it. I responded, saying that I would only be referring to “findings of fact” from the judgment in the case, and that judgment was final as it was no longer under appeal. I could not see how any reference to that part of the case would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing, at which the compensation award would be decided. I don’t think that this point was ever answered by Mr Meagher.

Cllr. Choudry said that he would discuss with his committee whether they should allow me to speak, as I would not accept the condition he had set out. There was a rather disjointed “discussion”, with several members of the committee speaking, but I could not follow what they were saying because they forgot to turn their microphones on. It seemed to be about the Legal Officer saying that I could not refer to the legal case I wanted to, but whether they viewed this as legal advice, or a legal instruction to the committee, was unclear. It appeared that the Chair was about to ask the committee to vote on the matter (which under Brent’s Standing Order 69(a)(i) he should have done, with only a simple majority being required to allow a Deputation to be received), but after further mumbled discussions Cllr. Choudry announced that I would not be allowed to present my Deputation, and moved on to the next item on the agenda.

Before leaving the meeting, I handed out the dozen printed copies of my Deputation I had taken with me to members of the public, co-opted members of the committee and other councillors present who wanted them, and I am setting out the text of what I would have said below, for anyone who wishes to read it.

Deputation to Scrutiny Committee on 30 April, in respect of item 9:
Cllr. Pavey’s Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan.

I am speaking as an individual, but am aware that many local people, including Council employees and some Brent councillors, share the concerns I am raising.

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal gave a judgment against Brent Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani, finding that a former employee had suffered racial discrimination, victimisation and had been constructively dismissed.

Cllr. Pavey’s review of Equalities and HR policies and practices was set up ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’. In the foreword to his review he says:

‘Policies are mostly sound. But policies are implemented by people and we need to do more to ensure that they are consistently applied.’

What Cllr. Pavey could not say, because his review’s terms of reference did not allow him to actually consider the Rosemarie Clarke case, was that an important lesson which should be learned is that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.

As an example, in guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director you can find statements like: ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’. Rosemarie Clarke had raised a grievance against Cara Davani, because she felt she was being bullied and harassed by her. This led to a succession of acts of victimisation against her, recorded as findings of fact by the Tribunal, such as in para. 302 of the judgment:

‘'The tribunal is satisfied that the action of Ms Davani in seeking the claimant's suspension when she did, was a direct consequence of the claimant having raised a grievance against her. The tribunal finds that the claimant was thereby victimised.'

There were other findings of fact by the Tribunal about total failures to follow HR policies, which provided evidence of Brent’s constructive dismissal of Ms Clarke. Para. 176 of the judgment says:

'The tribunal finds that, from the correspondence from Ms Gilbert on 21 February, addressing the claimant's grievance of 18 February, so as to conclude and dispense with the grievance, this was not in accordance with the first respondent's [Brent’s] procedure and a breach of contract.'

If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani why she did not do the honourable thing, and resign, following the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke case. It may also wish to ask Ms Gilbert why she did not institute disciplinary proceedings against Ms Davani when she failed to resign. If, having heard anything those Officers wish to say, committee members agree that the Equalities and HR Action Plan cannot move forward with Cara Davani still at Brent Council, I hope they will not be afraid to say so.

The second point I would ask Scrutiny Committee to consider is at Section 2 of the draft Action Plan [see page 5 of Appendix 2].  This has been prepared by Cara Davani, and is entitled ‘Achieving Excellence in Employment Policies’. 

I am deeply concerned at one of the “success criteria” which she proposes. This reads: 

‘Number of employment tribunals is low against benchmarked councils (benchmarks TBA) and ET cases are successfully defended.’

It is the second part of this that I find most worrying. “Success”, according to Ms Davani, should be measured by successfully defending Employment Tribunal cases. The risk of setting such a “target” is that it might encourage Council staff involved in these cases to fabricate or falsify the evidence that they give. 

As an example, in the Rosemarie Clarke case, a key factor in the finding of ‘racial discrimination’ against Brent Council was the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings against her after she had ceased to be a Council employee. In Para. 240 of the judgment it says:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made.’

As there would have been very few Council employees who could have made that decision, and at least some of those were witnesses at the Tribunal, this totally undermined the credibility of the Council’s evidence.

Scrutiny Committee may wish to ask Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert to tell them who did make that decision, and why. The stain of the ‘racial discrimination’ verdict against Brent Council cannot be removed, nor the Action Plan succeed, until a full and honest answer is given.

“Success” over Employment Tribunals is having none, and to achieve this I would recommend that the “criteria” should be: 

100% of managers honour in practice the core value set out in Cllr. Pavey’s review:
‘Every Brent Council employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.’ 

Thank you.

Philip Grant
30 April 2015.

Note from Martin Francis: Readers may be interested in seeing the Scrutiny Committee in action discussing whether Philip Grant should be heard. Unfortunately most councillors did not switch on their microphones so the public could not hear what was being said. Muhammed Butt is sitting with Cara Davani in the right hand corner of the horse shoe.

 

South Kilburn regeneration amounts to social cleansing, claim residents and tenants

Developer's perspective & that of residents at odds

A head of steam is building up o the South Kilburn Estate about what residents and tenants see as the 'social cleansing' involved  in the Estate's regeneration.

The motion below was passed at a recent meeting of the Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants' and Residents' Association.

We’ve had enough!

Motion to the AGM of Alpha, Gorefield & Canterbury TRA

This meeting notes that regeneration was sold to residents of South Kilburn on the basis that it would provide improved housing and living conditions for all existing residents.

In fact: 

* There are fewer dwellings at social rent than there were before regeneration;

* Some of the new flats are smaller than those they replaced;

* The new flats have been let at higher rents than was the case. 

Rather:

* Flats are being sold and rented at prices which existing South Kilburn tenants have no chance of affording;

* Luxury flats are being advertised on the Far Eastern market, clearly as an investment, rather than social housing;

* Locked gardens are being created, even though they replace what was common green space. 

This all amounts to a “social cleansing” of South Kilburn, with many residents forced to move to other areas. 

Preston Manor covenant costs approach half a million

Brent Council has incurred legal costs payable to Druces LLP of almost £170,000 including VAT and disbursements in the legal case over restrictive covenants at Preston Manor School an FoI request by Wembley Matters has discovered.

The covenants forbade any new school build on the land and residents had objected to plans for a new primary school on the site. After a risk assessment the council decided to go ahead anyway and seek a removal of the covenants at the Land Tribunal. Residents then objected to the removal of the covenants at  the Tribunal and a negotiated settlement is in process which if successful would remove the necessity of a hearing.

Druces was instructed by the school but the council agreed to indemnify the school's legal costs so that the borough's families and children could benefit from 'the new much needed school building'.

In addition the council's legal services have spent 142 hours on the case. The response states that officer time in other departments involved was not recorded.

The council refuse to give the compensation costs involved in settling the case quoting legal advice that the information is exempted from disclosure under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In fact I revealed in a previous posting that according to a reliable source, residents had been offered £303,000 to settle their claim. LINK

This makes a total of £473,000 excluding the hours of officer time but this may not be the end of the matter. The council state:

If the matter is not concluded by negotiated settlement before the hearing, the Council will incur further legal costs and fees for the attendance of expert witness at the hearing.

The failure of Children and Families officers to exercise due diligence over the original proposal is proving very costly.

The full response to my FoI request can be found HERE

Brent Council pay-offs revealed

Gareth Daniel - pay-off better than a game of conkers

Brent Lib Dems have revealed 'the compensation for loss of office' sums awarded to former Chief Executive Gareth Daniel and former Director of Finance Clive Heaphy as £200,702 and £140,508 respectively. Gareth Daniel went after a row with Muhammed Butt, leader of the council and Clive Heaphy went following his suspension pending investigation of allegations of gross misconduct which were later withdrawn.

 The figure for exit packages breaks down as follows:

• 2010/11 – £3.502 million
• 2011/12 – £4.366 million
• 2012/13 – £2.311 million
• TOTAL – £10.179 million

The Lib Dem claim that  if it was managed more effectively this money could have helped keep closed libraries open, fix potholes and clean streets.

Gareth Daniel did not do as well as his predecessor George Benham. Benham got £700,00 compensation (including a car)  in 1998 when Daniel, then an ex-GLC left-winger, was installed in his place.

Brighton Green Party calls for Green councillors to 'take back' control of pay review process

This Green Party press release sheds more light on the current situation in Brighton and Hove

A meeting of the Brighton & Hove Green Party earlier this week overwhelmingly agreed that it could not support any Brighton & Hove City Council pay offer now being made that would leave staff worse off.

The council's pay offer, which it suggests will affect about 10% of staff, varies from employee to employee, so each offer is now being individually communicated to staff members by their managers during a 90 day 'staff consultation'.

Hundreds of staff face a drop in take home pay, offset by one-off, lump-sum compensation packages; the council has stated that, as a result of allowance changes and the compensation, some affected staff will be better off while others have to decide whether they feel the compensation is enough to offset their overall loss. This is an individual decision.

Much play has been made on social media that individuals may lose up to £95/week, or more than £4,000 a year. However, unofficial sources have recently revealed that a reduction of that level applies to just three employees and does not take into account their compensation package, which is worth about three years' losses.

Most staff face lower reductions and lower compensation, generally worth between two and three years of loss, sometimes a little more.

The complete picture is not this simple but it seems clear that once the compensation is gone, low paid staff will be living on even lower weekly take home pay. This has angered staff and it's unacceptable to the Brighton & Hove Green Party, which has resolved to campaign against it.

BHGP chair Rob Shepherd said:

“The party's made it clear it cannot support a final offer that appears to leave council staff with a cut in their consolidated take home pay. These include some of the city's lowest paid workers and we understand how they must be feeling.

"We recognise that the offer particularly benefits women who, it seems, have not been treated fairly under the existing payment structure. It goes without saying that women should be paid the same as men in comparable situations and we support creating a fair and gender-balanced pay structure. But it is not right if low paid people of either sex end up with a loss of income to achieve that balance.

"We're also disappointed with the council administration's decision to delegate pay negotiations entirely to council officers, meaning the administration now has no say in what's being proposed. This is a council offer, not a BH Greens offer. If there are pay cuts on the table, they are not in our name.

“We hope that, as a result of the party's intervention, the Green administration will find a way to take back control of the process and ensure the council will look again at any offers that result in consolidated pay losses."

Green MP Caroline Lucas said:

"Since the negotiations began, I have made my opposition to any cuts in take home pay very clear.

"I am therefore disappointed that, whilst some will gain from this process, a number will face a reduction in the money they have to live off each week.

"This is unacceptable. I know from the many constituents who have written to me about this issue that they agree.

"So too does the Brighton and Hove Green Party, whose members have voted to condemn the offer and also express dismay that responsibility for the pay negotiations was handed to council officers.

"With the support of the local Green Party, I have pledged to campaign against proposals made to workers that will lead to a loss of pay, in accordance with the local and national party's democratically agreed anti-cuts and anti-austerity policies."

Rob Shepherd added:

"We also condemn the city's Labour and Conservative parties for creating the mess that the council is seeking to manage. They are quick to criticise the Green administration yet they created the problem.

"Going back decades, both parties have presided over agreements which look blatantly unfair to some parts of the workforce and especially women. Both parties permitted what look like unethical, unequal deals. And both parties were warned time and again by council officers that they needed to sort it out but they bottled it in fear of industrial disputes.

"Whatever the current state of the pay offer, it is utterly hypocritical of Labour and Conservatives to say anything other than 'sorry'."

"However, it’s more important that all politicians now pull together in the interests of some of the city's lowest paid workers. These people must be at the heart of whatever we do."

Responding to the party’s decision, council leader Jason Kitcat said:

"I very much understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed in the local party motion.

"Members of council staff have just received the council's offer to create a fair and clear system of allowances which completes the final step of the ‘single status’ process. There is now a 90 day consultation period for staff to consider the offer, how it will affect them and respond to their managers with their views.

"I believe it is important to not prejudge that consultation, how staff may consider the proposals, nor any negotiations which I hope will follow.

"During this consultation period I am confident that the council continues to be open to any suggestions from staff and unions that could further improve the offer whilst ensuring it remains legally and financially viable."