'Stand with Kushinda' daily protests outside Brent Civic Centre from tomorrow

Visitors to Brent Civic Centre and Wembley Library are likely to see daily protests from tomorrow until the end of the month.

The protests are organised by the African National Women's Organisation who explain the background here:

We are asking for your assistance to help support and raise up the story of Kushinda Olanrewaju (aka Shirley Campbell) who is the mother of learning-disabled man, Meshach Boland who has been targeted by police for years.

After a May 11th protest outside Willesden Magistrate’s Court in London’s Borough of Brent and pressure from the African National Women’s Organisation and its supporters, his case hearing was postponed until September of 2016 pending an updated education psychologist report.

What followed next was a string of retaliatory tactics from the London Borough of Brent,  where they moved to  revoke Kushinda’s assistance and benefits, which are vital for her as the mother and a full-time  carer for her learning-disabled son and her elderly ailing mother. They have also attempted to forcibly evict Kushinda from her home as well as levied her with illegitimate council taxes.

The African National Woman’s Organisation understands this treatment as targeted state violence against Kushinda and Meshach, born under a colonialist government system set up to fail and then jail poor and working class Africans. Meshach’s incarceration poses as a better investment to law enforcement than the adult social care set up to support him.

Starting August 9 @ 12-2 in front of Brent Civic Centre, Kushinda Olanrewaju will stand in daily protest over the treatment she and her son have received at the hands of the state. If we do not bring to light Kushinda’s detrimental mistreatment by the state and hold the council representatives accountable to their own policies––which ensure that the most vulnerable of us will be guaranteed services and proper consideration in legal proceedings ––then we unwittingly agree with their cavalier decision making, which only seems to change when African people are involved.

Learn more about this issue: http://anwouhuru.org/tag/meshach/

Further information on how ANWO would like you to help and a sign up form to take part in the protests are HERE

Brent's LOBO loans at 68% premium merit deeper scrutiny

In April I published some information from Cllr Michael Pavey on the complex issue of LOBO (Lender Option, Borrower Option) loans. At the time Pavey was deputy leader of the Labour Group and lead member for finance. He confirmed that Brent Council had £95.5m in LOBO borrowing. LINK

In June 2014 journalist Ian Fraser published an article entitled 'How City banks and brokers stitched up local authorities with LOBO loans' and gave this Brent example.

Click on image to enlarge

In 2015 a Channel 4 Dispatches programme 'How Councils Blow Your Millions' revealed how banks had exploited local councils through LOBO loans and as a result a Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry was set up to examine the issue.  Bob Blackman MP was a member of the Committee.  He was leader of the Brent Conservative group on Brent Council and deputy leader of the Council when it was in coalition with Brent Liberal Democrats prior to the local elections in May 2010. The LOBOS borrowing  was arranged between November 2002 and April 2010.  Minutes of the Communities and Local Government Committee oral evidence can be found HERE

Department of Local Communities and Local Government statistics for 2015-16 showed Brent Council had total long-term borrowings of £423.7m of which £328.2m was Public Works Loan Board and £95.5m LOBOs.

The campaign Debt Resistance in covering Newham Council's massive exposure to LOBOS mentioned Brent LINK:

  At Brent Council where a similar £10m LOBO loan from RBS was analysed, it was found the council was paying £1.2m more for the loan from RBS, than if it had borrowed via the UK Treasury Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) – standard practice for councils. To exit the loan would cost Brent a further £3-4m in “break penalties  

Brent Cabinet will be receiving the 2015-16 Treasury Management Outturn Report at its meeting on Monday August 15th.  The report acknowledges the high cost of redemption of LOBOS loans:

No debt was restructured during the year and no lenders exercised options to vary the terms of loans on LOBO (Lender Option, Borrower Option) terms. The Council has borrowed £95.5m under LOBO transactions, all of which were entered into in the period November 2002 to April 2010. Unlike PWLB loans, there is no formula for the cost of redemption of LOBOs, and the price quoted would depend on any bank’s view on its commercial advantage. The banks’ positions have been insured through the derivatives markets and to renegotiate these arrangements would be very expensive. The average premium on our LOBO portfolio is about 68%: this would mean that it would cost £8.4m to redeem a LOBO with a nominal value of £5m. However, there is no established formula for the redemption price and the actual cost be higher.

The 68% average premium applied to total LOBO borrowings of £95.5m would give additional redemption costs of £65m with the possibility, as in the last sentence above, that it could be higher. It would be worthwhile for the Cabinet (or perhaps Scrutiny) to go into the issue a little deeper and particularly to explore what appears to be some complacency about the situation:

There are complex arguments made about LOBOs, by their supporters and by their detractors. The Council's position is simply that the LOBOs are part of its portfolio, and must therefore be managed as effectively as possible. There are no plans to enter into further LOBO contracts. However, it should be noted that the average rate of interest being paid on LOBOs is little different to that on PWLB debt (4.75% compared to 4.71% at 31 March) and the range of rates lower. The most expensive LOBO was at 6.234% on 31 March, compared with the most expensive PWLB at 8.875%.

Since, the end of 2015/16, Barclay’s Bank decided to give up its lender option to £15m of LOBOs. There were three loans of £5 million each, with interest rates of 3.95%, 4.35% and 4.5%, with maturities between 2048 and 2076. Barclays did this to ensure it could meet Basle III Capital Requirements that banks need to comply with by 2019. As these changes are to the borrowers’ advantages, it merely needed to notify us and provide us with the signed declaration of its change. It is likely, according to Arlingclose, our Treasury advisers, that other lenders will soon follow suit. 


These are Brent Council's LOBO loans according to Debt Resistance. The tables on its website are interactive providing more information LINK:

Auditor asked to make a Public Interest Report on Davani pay-off

The Cara Davani issue just won't go and the news that she now runs a 'boutique hotel' in Suffolk LINK isn't going to exactly endear her to those who have been seeking out the truth about her £157k pay-off.

Now Councillor John Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group, has asked Brent Council's Auditor, KPMG, to make a Public Interest Report under Section 24  of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Dear Mr. Johnstone, 

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

As is required by law the request has also been submitted to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer, Conrad Hall.

If anyone else wishes to make a request it must be written in a proper form to the Auditor by August 11th. Here is some guidance from  Philip Grant submitted earlier today as a blog comment:

if you are on the voters list for Brent, you have a right, if you wish, to object to the expenditure of £157,610 by Brent Council, BUT ONLY if you submit your objection in a proper form by Thursday 11 August.

If you do want to do this, it can be done by email to the auditor at KPMG: philip.johnstone@kpmg.co.uk , and a copy must also be sent to Brent Council's Chief Finance Officer: conrad.hall@brent.gov.uk .

Your email would need to say that it is about the accounts of the London Borough of Brent for 2015/16, and that you are objecting under Section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

You need to say that you are an elector in Brent, give your full postal address, and (if you know them) the name of the Ward in the borough and the constituency (e.g. Brent North, Brent Central or Hampstead & Kilburn) in which you are registered to vote.

You must say what you believe is wrong about the accounts and why you believe they are wrong. If it is the £157k payment, you should say that you are objecting to the compensation for loss of office payment of £157,610 to Brent's former Human Resources Director, shown at Note 30 (Senior Employees' Remuneration) in the accounts, and that you think it is wrong to include this amount in the accounts because it was not a proper payment for the Council to make.

In support of your objection, you need to explain why you think the £157k should not have been paid, and provide what evidence you can. Based on your comment, you could say that Cara Davani should already have been sacked for gross misconduct after the Tribunal findings against her (Note: these were NOT for racial discrimination, but for victimising Rosemarie Clarke and for wrongly having her suspended for misconduct just because Rosemarie had complained about being bullied and harassed by her); that she should not have been given a compensation payment for leaving (or at most only a small one, quoting the normal redundancy rates from your comment); and that the £157k payment shows she was being treated more favourably than she should have been because she was a crony of Christine Gilbert.

You don't need to provide much evidence, as you can also say that you are aware that there has been another objection about the leaving payment to Cara Davani, and that you would like any evidence provided in any other objections to be used in support of your objection as well.

At the end of your objection email, you would need to ask the auditor to investigate the payment you have objected to, and either:

1) ask the Court to declare the payment unlawful, under Section 28, if he thinks there is a strong enough case for this; or,

2) make a public interest report, under Section 24, giving his views on the payment and asking Brent Council to take action to remedy it.

Brent's Annual Governance Statement: Public money safeguarded & properly accounted for?

A Wembley Matters reader writes: I came across the attached document tucked away in the "Transparency in Brent" section of the Council's website, while researching a point on the 2015/16 accounts. Brent's Annual Governance Statement opens with the words:

'Brent Council (‘The Council’) is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper standards, and that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for, and used economically, efficiently and effectively.'

The statement does actually mention (though not by name) the Rosemarie Clarke case and the settlement with Cara Davani at the end of Section 5 - Significant Governance Issues.

I wonder if other Wembley Matters readers might be interested in having this Statement brought to their attention (as I am not aware that the Council has done much to publicise it).

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.

Cllr Southwood working on improving bulk waste collection service times with officers

A few minutes after I tweeted an update of my story on the long service times of Veolia's bulk waste collections LINK Cllr Eleanor Southwood tweeted that she shared frustrations at the service times and said that she was working with officers to improve the service.

Opposition to Tory Trade Union Act given top priority at Green Party Autumn Conference

Green Party Trade Union Group at Tolpuddle Martyrs' Festival last month

Trade Unionists in the Green Party, organised as the Green Party Trade Union Group (GPTU), have successfully put Trade Union issues at the top of the policy agenda for this year’s Green Party Autumn Conference.

GPTU’s first motion opposes the Tory Trade Union Act, passed into law earlier this year, and has been voted by members as the top priority in the “C” section for policy motions.

The second, calling for legislation to make it easier for Trade Unions to organise in new workplaces, has made it to fifth place (out of 25) on the agenda for policy motions.

Kieron Merrett, Green Party Trade Union Group Secretary, said,

As Trade Unionists in the Green Party, we’re delighted that Trade Union and workers’ issues have been voted as the very top priority for policy discussion at this year’s Autumn Conference.

Well done to all those Green Party members who voted in the prioritisation ballot. It is clearly no coincidence that the Green Party has the most pro-worker and pro-Trade Union policies of any major party.

We’ve shown that the Green Party is the party for Trade Unionists and working people.

£96k levied in litterering fixed penalty fines in first 6 weeks of Brent Council trial

On Sunday I posted a blog LINK on the 7 week wait that Paul Lorber experienced for a bulk collection by Veolia. In passing I wondered how the new litter enforcement trial was working. The scheme was out-sourced to Kingdom.

Lo and behold on Monday Brent Council issued a press release announcing that more than 1200 people have been spot-fined in the first 6 weeks of the trial. That gives an income of £96K plus from which wages and overheads have to be paid.

This is the council press release:

More than 1200 litter bugs have been fined within the first 6 weeks of placing dedicated patrol officers on the streets of Brent.

There are few things that can affect the look and reputation of a place more than litter. Whether it’s fast food wrappers, cigarette butts or dog fouling, it’s a blight that should not be tolerated anywhere. And here in Brent, our fight against litterbugs is well underway.

Kingdom, the company whose dedicated officers are patrolling the streets in Brent, have issued over 1200 fines since the pilot scheme began 6 weeks ago.  Officers have been deployed to hot spot areas in the borough with the purpose of issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices to anyone caught in the act of committing a waste offence, including littering, paan spitting and not cleaning up after their dogs.

Residents or visitors who do not pay the fine could end up in court, where they face the prospect of being named and shamed, and landed with a much heftier penalty.

This innovative 12 month pilot scheme has been put in place to help keep our streets clean and litter-free, and supports the efforts of our existing Enviro-crime Enforcement Team, who work tirelessly to investigate littering and illegally dumped rubbish offences and prosecute offenders.

Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for the Environment, said:

Dropping litter is the kind of anti-social behaviour that really gets people’s backs up, and rightly so. It’s thoughtless, selfish and ruins shared spaces for everyone. Not only that, clearing and disposing of litter costs millions of pounds each year, and this money could be better spent in different areas.

The majority of residents here in Brent love where they live and take great care of our streets and parks, which is why we are determined to take action against those whose behaviours are spoiling Brent for the rest of us.
We want to make it as easy as possible for everyone in Brent to get rid of their waste legally, to recycle more and to take greater care and pride in the local area. These activities are part of our Love Where You Live campaign and send a clear message to residents and visitors that littering will not be accepted here in Brent.

You can do your bit to help make Brent a cleaner and greener place to live and visit, by reporting illegally dumped rubbish or graffiti with the Cleaner Brent App or organising your own clean-up day. You can also download the new recycling app for clear guidance on what you can recycle, and where.

This afternoon the Kilburn Times posted a story in whicb residents complain that the enforcement officers use 'underhand practices' to catch residents out. There were complaints of officers hiding to pounce on offenders and the lack of litter bins etc. LINK 

At Scrutiny Committee in April Cllr John Duffy warned that the enforcemment officers would oook out for 'easy pickings'. LINK

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