Cllr Duffy calls on Brent to remove 'insensitive' littering posters from Kilburn

Cllr John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has written the following letter to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive,after a resident complained about the above poster displayed on Kilburn High Road:

Please find attached sign that has been place on Kilburn High Road.

A resident approached me claiming, in her view, that the sign was racist.

Whereas I would not go that far, until I hear the full motive behind the cabinet agreeing the signs, I would say I agree with her general concerns. 

I believe the signs are inappropriate and could be seen as an attempt to stereotype persons of colour as the culprits of crime and it is also conceivable that used a mug shot of a young black man against a background commonly used by LAPD ( who are widely believe to be the most racist American police-force) as offensive to many people. 

I am asking you to remove these signs forthwith from Kilburn - other councillors can make their own minds up. I do not wish to see rows of these along Kilburn High Road as I believe they give the wrong impression to the public about how to care for the environment and who is responsible for environmental crime.  

I am concerned this is another display of the Cabinet devotion to the failed Zero Tolerance policy, which is in fact is a reactionary policy. This policy has stigmatised many innocent residents, because of the bounty hunting approach of issuing tickets and now this dubious awareness campaign.

Bearing in mind you as the CEO accept that the Kingdom Securities contract had no negotiations, equalities training or monitoring concerning the issuing of the 6000 Fixed Penalty Notices. I again ask you to independently audit the FPNs to ensure they were issued fairly and were not issued using the person’s colour or mental health conditions as the main factor.

Ms Downs, I am sure you read the Prime Minster’s race audit, which pointed out "Black people are more than six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than White people". I cannot help thinking this type of subliminal stereotyping being produced by Brent is not helpful to those who wish to see this figures reduced.

I hope you will confirm ASAP:

(1) Removal of these signs from Kilburn forthwith.

(2) How many of these signs went up and where they went -up.

(3) How much the signs cost.

(2) Could you furnish me with the reason behind these signs, as they make no sense to me as they do even mention the fine.

(3) Confirm you will haves an independent audit of the 6000 FPNs issued

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.

Last chance today to submit comments on Wembley Stadium events and capacity increase

Guest blog from Wembley resident Denise Cheong

 I write regarding Wembley Stadium planning application 17/0368, which Martin has covered extensively.

For your information and in the interests of raising greater awareness on the issues residents face, these are the comments I submitted to the Head of Planning, Alice Lester.

"Dear Ms Lester

Thank you for consulting us on planning application 17/0368.

We object to the proposed variation of condition 3 (event cap, to allow 31 additional full capacity events) and removal of condition 33 (temporary traffic management) of planning permission reference 99/2400.

The proposal would adversely affect the quality of life of not only Wembley residents, but also a far reaching radius of other Brent residents (as well as their visitors). Traffic congestion generated on Event Days on local roads is noted to be over 3hrs per Event in supporting documents. Granting planning permission of this would effectively impinge on 1/5 of an average person's day time (based on an average adult sleep of 8 hrs per night) on up to 68 Event Days a year; an Event Day every 5.3 days.

The Stadium is not highly accessible by public transport. The supporting documents note the centre of the Stadium has a mere PTAL rating of 3.

There is no robust plan to safeguard residents (as well as their visitors) from additional litter and public order offenses such as urination generated by such Events. There is no firm plan noting exact monies sought from the applicant or the Stadium user for post Event clean up. There are guidelines and assurances but nothing specific to safeguard Brent residents (as well as their visitors). These issues are the financial responsibility of the applicant and need to be individually addressed.

Whilst we appreciate the many benefits our National Stadium affords us, Brent Council has a responsibility and duty of care to it's residents which it needs to safeguard."

Following on from the above, I was pleased to read on page 4 of the 13th March Brent cabinet report Pilot Paper on Managing Street Drinking that:

"7.1 The introduction of the Met Patrol Plus scheme in May/June 16 will also ensure there is robust policing plan of the PSPO areas in the pilot areas.

7.2 ASB Localities Officers, Local Safer Neighbourhood Teams and Kingdom Officers will also assist with the policing of these areas. There will be discussions with Quintain to address what resources they could contribute to the policing of the PSPO in Wembley Park."

We would like to see the specific details of the precise resources that Quintain will be contributing to the Wembley Park PSPO.

Have you submitted your comments yet? Today's the deadline.

Thanks for reading!
Denise Cheong

Submit on-line comments HERE

In a Tweet this afternoon Cllr Stopp (Wembley Central ward) said he was keen to hear residents views on this issue:  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

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.

Councillor accuses Brent Council/Kingdom Securities of 'bounty hunting' over littering fines

Cllr John Duffy has condemned the Fixed Penalty Notice Littering Scheme run for Brent Council by Kingdom Securities as 'bounty hunting' and 'entrapment of the worst type:

My understanding is that these tickets should not be issued until the resident have had the chance to pick up the  litter.  I believe this whole scheme is a con , these officer will not investigate dumped bags, only hang around outside fast food  bookies and pubs looking for smokers, instead of approaching the premises and asking them to place a receptacle for smokers.

This is bounty hunting  the poorest residents  and in the case of Kilburn High Road is entrapment of the worst type.

Duffy visited Victoria Road and McDonalds to see for himself and wrote to Carolyn Downs, Brent Chief Executive Officer: 

I visited the area last night.  I spoke to someone from McDonald's  and some residents .

No one seems to understand why Brent would remove the bins from outside a major fast food retailer , with a high foot fall, a young demographic  and a strategic location.

One resident asked were they removed to increase the numbers of litter tickets issued by KS.  As I cannot think of any other reason for the removal, can you confirm the day they were removed , who made the request to remove  them and were any FPN issued in that area during the time the bins were removed .

This morning  (10mins ago) I heard of KS issuing tickets on  Kilburn High Road, without  giving the person an opportunity to pick it up.

I realise this a serious issue  removing litter bins when we have an enforcement process going on.  If we are trying to entrap residents into committing a offence , that is unacceptable. I believe we need to get to the bottom of the issue immediately. 

I have always had concerns about the policy of paying for bounty hunters to issue tickets , which was promoted by Cllr Southwood and Cllr Mashari, now I believe we should suspend the service until we have sorted out clear rules of engagement with public.

In the meantime I demand to know why they were removed and who requested there removal , with a full email trial of the instruction. I also need to know the number of tickets that were issued in Kilburn high road during the period the bins were removed.

In an earlier email to Brent Council officers, Cllr Duffy asked for answers to a series of questions:

I understand from the local paper, that the private firm introduced by the cabinet, Kingdom Securities (KS),  has issue 1200 FPNs.I therefore would like the following information.

(1) Can you also tell me how many FPN were issued for offences other than Littering( list below provided by DEFRA )

·       littering

·       fly-tipping

·       dog control offences

·       graffiti

·       fly-posting

·       nuisance parking (people selling or repairing cars on the road)

·       abandoned vehicles

·       leafleting without permission on land where leafleting is restricted (‘designated land’)

·       failing to nominate a key holder or give the council key holder details in an alarm notification area

·       failing to provide a waste carrier licence (for businesses transporting their own waste)

·       failing to provide a waste transfer note when moving non-hazardous waste

 or are KS employed exclusively for littering.

(2) What percentage were issued outside Tube stations, bus stops for discarding cigarette butts or similar before they enter a tube station or get on a bus.

(3) How many of these were issue following the searching of dicscarded waste under section 87 and section 88.

(4) Were any of the 1,200 offenders offer a chance to pick the offending litter as per the guidance laid down by Defra "that strictly speaking the unintentional dropping of litter is an offence , however DEFRA advise that a notice should only be issued if, after drawing the matter to the person’s attention, and he then fails to pick it up. Can you confirm you have followed Defra's guidelines that you have allow the offender to pick it -up and therefore only cautioned them if they did so, instead of issuing a FPN.

(5) As you may be aware Defra also say that in practice, the overwhelming majority of environmental offences are ‘summary offences’, this is to say they are criminal offences that are tried summarily, in front of the magistrates.  Also it is a requirement that records should be kept of the number of fixed penalty notices issued, the resulting receipts and the number of cases pursued through the courts. This information is legally required on an annual basis by Defra for monitoring purposes.Therefore can you confirm how many cases have been referred to the legal section for prosecution.

(6) How many have been paid within the 14 days required? (please change the question below to your anwser)

(7) I am assuming  we have received 70% payment and have been  paid = £67200 we have paid KS £55200 and therefore we have received £12k extra revenue to deal with appeals and taking legal actions against the outstanding offenders,can you confirm that is the case. Can you  also estimate the cost of the legal department of dealing the outstanding unpaid FPNs.

(8) Can you give me the on costs for the office space per month for the six members of staff , which was  circulated in your report to scrutiny and has KS incurred and other costs like the use of IT, use of pool cars , free car parking,  could you also give me the cost of collecting the fines by Brent.

 (9) It is clear the only fixed cost is the £55k income we have paid KS, can you confirm we have stopped cost for any item in part (8) above.