Time for a review of Brent Members' Code of Conduct?

 The Audit and Standards Committee on Tuesday February 4th will received a report on complains against councillors during 2024.

The report gives a commentary on trends in complaints:

During consideration of the previous complaints review report last year, the committee asked that future monitoring reports provide an outline of any trends being identified in terms of complaints and outcomes.

 

The Committee will be aware that the Code only permits the investigation of complaints against Members made in their “official capacity or when giving the impression [they] are acting as a member of the Council”, unless it relates to a serious criminal offence being committed in the Member's private capacity.

 

Accordingly, any decision that purports to find a breach of the Code whilst the Member in question was acting in their private capacity, would be liable to challenge. The Committee will see from Appendix A that one of the main findings at Initial Assessment Stage in respect of the complaints over the past 12 months is that the Councillor “was not acting in their capacity as councillor.

 

This trend may reflect changing public expectations. Members of the committee will note that one element of the consultation referred to in this report [Open consultation Strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England LINK] is the possibility of extending the Code to some categories of behaviour by members outside their role as a councillor.

 

The other main reason for complaints not proceeding beyond initial assessment stage is that the complaint "did not disclose sufficiently serious potential breaches of the Code to merit further consideration”.

The main rationale for this finding has been that insufficient evidence has been submitted to support the allegations made and/or when considering the allegations in context, there was no significant evidence to suggest the Councillors had behaved in the manner complained off. Indeed, in some cases the evidence indicated aggressive or otherwise unreasonable behaviour by the complainant towards the councillor.

 

The Committee should note, the main recurring factor in relation to escalating complaints to the Assessment Criteria Stage have been based on the contents of the complaint and that there may be a serious issue to consider, with an opportunity for the councillor concerned to comment being necessary to establish if this is indeed the case.

 

The report is accompanied by a document listing the complaints and action taken.

 

LETTER: Researcher would like to hear about your experience of how Brent Council and Housing Associations deal with complaints and repairs

Dear Editor,

I am a student researching how Brent council and housing associations deal with complaints and repairs in Brent, and how their mismanagement affects people and families in Brent. All too often minor repairs are reported by tenants only to be ignored until they become catastrophic for the tenants, and hugely expensive for the council to put right. Our research group is looking at ways that we can increase the accountability of the council and housing associations so that trust can be restored with tenants. We also want to work to reduce the stigma involved in making issues of disrepair public - tenants should feel comfortable and powerful, not blamed and shamed for issues that they are not responsible for. 

Our research depends on the voices of tenants in Brent. Please can you share this letter with your readers and ask them to get in touch if they are willing to have a 15 minute phone call about their experiences of disrepair, complaints, contractors and so on.

Our research is part of the Royal College of Art's Grand Challenge. https://www.rca.ac.uk/study/schools/school-design/grand-challenge/

Thanks!

Maxim

maxim.lester@network.rca.ac.uk

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.

 

Brent Council to trial use of artificial intelligence in helping to answer residents' complaints

 

A question from Cllr Jayanti Patel, who is shaping up as one of the more incisive members of the Scrutiny Committee, elicited the revelation that the Council has a pilot project using artificial intelligence to assist in answering complaints from residents.

Its use would be part of the council's digital transformation programme where residents will be expected to go on-line as much as possible, athough Muhammed Butt assured residents that telephone, email and calling into the Civic Centre would still be possible.

 

The committee were told by a senior officer:

As part of the Digital Strategy we are looking at AI, There are a number of ethical issues around all of it. Our first venture isto the AI world is to pilot the development of an AI tool that will take a complaint,  read the complaint, investigate all of the systems to draw out all the information about that complaint, and then compose a response tht is empathetic, that answers all the questions and would meet all of what we expect to be a good standard of response.

That would not just go off to the individual [complainant]. It would go to an officer to double check that the information is accurate and correct.

We should have the first prototype built by the end of the month. It is an AI product that would connect to our systems and we are doing it in a very controlled way. If it works it would be deployed in July 2024 at some point.

Cllr Tatler chimed in to say that AI is still very new and Brent was one of the first councils to make sure  that ethics was built around it:

There are still a lot of unknowns and we don't want to lose the human element of how we deal with residents, so it is absolutely right that we do this bit by bit rather than go full swing into digital systems.

 

 

How can Brent Standards be upheld without properly apppinted 'Independent Persons?

Philip Grant has decided that he cannot continue his personal campaigning against what he sees as wrongs at Brent Council, because of the strain it has put on him and his family. In a final guest blog on the subject, he gives some thoughts on a report which will be going before Brent’s Standards Committee at its meeting on Thursday 7 January 2016.

High Standards of Conduct at Brent Council?

A press release issued by the Council on 11 December 2015 stated: ‘Brent Council is committed to the highest ethical standards in the work of its elected councillors and co-opted members, embodying the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.’ But how true is this in practice?

In her Annual Report for 2015 to Brent’s Standards Committee LINK the Monitoring Officer says that she received SIXTEEN complaints against councillors for breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct during the year (nine from members of the public, two from Council employees and five from other councillors). One of the main purposes of the Standards Committee is to ‘hear allegations of misconduct against members’, but NONE of these complaints were actually referred to the committee in 2015, so that it could consider whether they should be investigated.

I was one of the local residents who made a complaint during the year against a leading councillor, which alleged multiple breaches (covering all seven of the conduct principles) of the Code which members are supposed to follow. My complaint must be among the EIGHT which the report claims ‘did not disclose a potential breach of the code’, as the reason why it was not brought to the attention of the Standards Committee. The Monitoring Officer has the authority not to consider a complaint, but only if it is not against a named member and/or is not ‘in relation to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct’.

As anyone who has read my open letter of 27 November 2015 to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs LINK , will know, the allegations in my complaint to the Monitoring Officer against Cllr. Muhammed Butt disclosed a number of potential breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, which should have been referred to Standards Committee. How can Brent’s people have confidence that high standards of conduct are being maintained by the Council, when genuine complaints of misconduct are covered up in this way?

In explaining how complaints about members are dealt with, the Annual Report says (at 3.7): 

‘There are clear parameters for this and these are set out in the procedure LINK that was adopted by this Committee in January 2013’.   

If the complaint is one which should be considered, the procedure states (at 4.5):

‘The Monitoring Officer will consult with the Independent Person to determine the course of action to be taken.   This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of the complaint.’

It was only after I challenged the Monitoring Officer’s decision, made three months after my complaint had been received, not to refer my complaint to Standards Committee that a possible review by ‘the Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011’ was suggested.

Who is that Independent Person? According to the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report (at 3.3):

‘The Council is in the process of recruiting Independent Persons to fulfil the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 …. The recruitment process will start in January 2016.’ *

The Council did appoint two Independent Persons under the Act’s transitional provisions, John Mann and Sola Afuape (who had both been independent members of Standards Committee under its old format). Those appointments ended in May 2014, and these two persons were not eligible to act as Independent Persons thereafter. Minutes of Council meetings show that there have been “vacancies” for Independent Persons for Standards purposes since then, and that NO ONE has been properly appointed to fill that role. It would appear that, for more than eighteen months, Brent Council has not had “an Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011”. In that case, how can Brent’s Standards procedures have been properly applied?

Standards Committee meets at the Civic Centre on Thursday 7 January to consider the Annual Report. The meeting starts at 7pm, and is open to the public. I hope that the committee members will ask the Monitoring Officer to explain why she is not allowing them to carry out the important work of hearing ‘allegations of misconduct against members’ which they were elected to do. Unless there is openness and accountability over standards, Brent, like Rotherham in an Inspector’s report last February, will show itself to be a council which ‘goes to some length to cover up information and to silence whistle-blowers.’

* NOTE:

Wembley Matters readers may like to consider whether they could help to improve standards of conduct at Brent Council by applying to be an Independent Person. The role should be advertised later this month, but from a previous “candidate pack” (issued by the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden, in April 2014) the main requirements are:

·      to be committed to the need for high standards in public life and be aware of the views of the local community in relation to standards;

·      to have the ability to be objective, independent and impartial;

·      to have a demonstrable interest in local issues and desire to serve the local community and uphold democracy; and,

·      to be of good standing in the community.

There is one main bar to appointment as an Independent Person:

‘A person cannot be appointed as an Independent Person if they have been a member of any political party within the last five years or are actively engaged in party political activity.’ 

Eric Pickles decides NOT to intervene in Kensal Rise Library case

Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has  decided NOT to intervene in the case of the Kensal Rise Library Planning application.  The Brent  Planning Committee decision had been the subject of a call-in request by a member of the public. LINK

The National Planning Casework Unit said:

The Secretary of State has carefully considered this case against call-in policy, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Nick Boles on 26 October 2012. The policy makes it clear that the power to call in a case will only be used very selectively. The Government is committed to give more power to councils and communities to make their own decisions on planning issues, and believes planning decisions should be made at the local level wherever possible.

In deciding whether to call in this application, the Secretary of State has considered his policy on calling in planning applications. This policy gives examples of issues which may lead him to conclude, in his opinion that the application should be called in. The Secretary of State has decided, having regard to this policy, not to call in this application. He is content that it should be determined by the local planning authority.

In considering whether to exercise the discretion to call in this application, the secretary of State has not considered the matter of whether this application is EPA Development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.  The local planning authority responsible for determining this application remains the relevant authority responsible for considering whether these Regulations apply to this proposed development and, if so, for ensuring that the requirements of the Regulations are complied with.

In relation to the comments that it is considered the local planning authority of Brent has incorrectly and arbitrarily applied the regulations of the Localism Act 2011 to this proposal and its progression, the Government is concerned that all local authorities should administer the planning system with utmost propriety, However, authorities are independent of central government and are responsible for their actions and decisions to the local electorate, their Auditor and, ultimately, the courts. Ministers have no statutory duty or powers to supervise the general propriety of individual authorities and, therefore, I cannot  comment on London Borough of Brent Council's handling of this matter.

The letter went on to suggest contacting the Council's Monitoring or Complaints officer stating:

It is his or her duty to report to the full council any cases where he or she thinks that the council, one of its committees, sub-committees  or officers is about to or has done something unlawful, improper, or which would constitute maladministration.

They also suggested an approach to the Local Government Ombudsman if this is within 6 months of the original complaint being lodged with the local authority, although they often have more than one stage in their complaints procedure.

A cautionary tale about stereotyping and free speech at Kilburn station

Yesterday evening along with others I was giving out leaflets at Kilburn Station about today's demonstration.

There follows a troubling account of what happened to one of the women who was leafleting which raises issues about stereotyping (religion, age, gender) as well as free speech in a democracy.

After about twenty minutes of leafleting just outside the station, I had a most unusual encounter with a middle-aged Pakistani man who works there. He told me I should move away and stand more discretely and not so close to the station. I asked why, and he said he had received complaints and some people were afraid that I was going to blow up the station because I was wearing a headscarf.

Really? There were plenty of women wearing headscarves walking in and out of the station and past it. Were people afraid they were going to blow the station up as well? What if such a complaint had been made against one of TfL’s female staff members who wear a Muslim headscarf or would he say the same thing to one of them? Here was an Islamophobic comment being made by a Muslim.

I pressed him to find out how many such complaints had been made in such a short space of time as there were few people around. I asked many times until finally he said three. I said I was outside the station and it was not the station’s concern as in a democracy a person can hand out leaflets and people can complain about it, but if neither of us is breaking the law, there is not much anyone can do. There were Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) inside the station the whole time, so I said that if I was breaking the law, he should complain to them and they could deal with it directly.I remained calm all along.

He had picked on the wrong woman to intimidate: he then told me that I was actually on TfL property. I asked for proof of that but he just pointed to the bridge above the station. He said the land just outside the station is also owned by TfL. I said, then why aren’t you talking to other people? He said “you’re too close to the station”. I said if I’m not breaking the law and you can’t prove it, I’m not moving. I did ask him which statute I was offending, to which he could not answer. I also pointed out the discriminatory nature of his actions. Instead, he went on, claiming I was aggressively leafleting people and making them feel scared. This was after he had accused me of being a terrorist, trespass and aggressive behaviour. I am intimidating when I am the person being intimidated.

He spoke to me in a patronising tone. It is not only the fact that I was wearing a headscarf: he also chose to target me as I am a younger person. I think he thought I was a school kid on holiday. 

He eventually gave up and left. As he walked away, I told him I hadn’t moved and didn’t plan to: I stayed where I was until I finished. Before I left, I finally entered the station. I asked his colleague, a younger man, if anyone had made any complaints. He said no, and none had been mentioned to him by anyone else.

I then wanted to make sure I had been in the right: I spoke to the PCSOs who were there the whole time. I asked if anyone had complained to them. They also said no. I told them what had happened and they were surprised as they had not noticed any of this. Another activist had come inside to hand out leaflets but she left when they asked her to step outside and took up a similar position to myself. In this case, the younger man asked the PCSOs to ask her to move.

Explaining that his comments were discriminatory, although I was the one who had been accused of all sorts of things, it was me the PCSOs asked if I wanted to make an official complaint. I said no, as they said they could speak to him instead.

I have been an activist for a long time and I am well aware of my rights. He chose to pick on me because of his perception of my age as well as my attire. I am aware that this happens very often to young people of both sexes, and that a less experienced person would be intimidated and walk away when told to by a person in uniform or authority, even if they are wrong. When I spoke to the police, it was me they agreed with. Issues like the current war in Gaza bring in people who are new to activism and such things can really put them off. I have seen this many times. Like war, discrimination is pretty much an everyday fact of life for most of us. The issues we campaign for, however, are bigger than any one of us and we must not forget that wars abroad have their home fronts too.