Are Islington prepared to take a bullet to protect WCC?

[chairman]

Remember how I challenged PLiarge on how his comments to the PIP Board seemed totally at odds with an FOI request response from Islington Borough Council regards the latter's use of the PIP Framework contract to Verrus under the threat entitled "Is Peter Large digging himself deeper in th mire on PIP/EU Investigation?", well it would seem that IBC could be setting themselves up to take a major rap on WCC's behalf. Check it out.... 

To: [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected], "Large, Peter" <[email protected]>,BATTEN Gerard <[email protected]>, Gerard Batten <[email protected]>,Committee NTBPF <[email protected]>

date:- Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:29 PM
subject:- Misrepresentations re Verrus Pay By Phone Contract - PIP


Dear Mr O'Leary,
 
Misrepresentations re Verrus UK Ltd Pay By Phone - PIP
 
Following a request made for information under the FOIA, your officer, Mr John Quinn confirmed that Islington Borough Council has been supplied Pay By Phone Parking services from Verrus UK Ltd since December 2008, initially as a pilot scheme, and that the contract had been "called-off" from the contract awarded by Westminster City Council (WCC) on behalf of Partnerships-In-Parking.
 
As you will be aware, the award by WCC was subject to a complaint to the EU Commissioners on 3 issues, one of which was the alleged infringement of EU Procurement Law restricting "calling off", (by which access to the framework contract could be gained without the need to tender) to those unambiguously identified at the time of signing the contract. To that end, Mr Quinn confidently assured that, being a founding partner of PIP, Islington Borough Council were fully entitled to participate.
 
The document can be seen here http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/verrus_uk_ltd_pay_by_phone_contr#outgoing-99513
 
However, when responding to the assessment by the EU Commissioners that an infringement had occurred, in January 2010 WCC Head of Legal, Mr Peter Large categorically stated that it WCC alone that were party to the contract, and that no other authority had "called off" the same. This would appear to be totally at odds with the reply, under FOIA, given by Mr Quinn.
 
In an email to Mr Large, I asked him to confirm his statement to which he replied:-
"In relation to Enfield and Tower Hamlets, the allegations were not only untrue, but I now know that they should never have been made. Enfield and Tower Hamlets had both disclosed the terms of their arrangements with Verrus in response to FOI requests, as must have been known to those making the allegations, including yourself. Islington deferred signing a contract with Verrus pending the outcome of the Commissions inquiries."
 
With Mr Quinn's response to hand, I was most confused by the last sentence of Mr Large's email, and sent him copy of the same and asked him to explain the anomaly. His response:-
"It is not my role to explain responses to FOI requests given by other authorities. But it does not seem to me that my assertion is "totally at odds" with what they have said. In any event, what I have said is correct. Islington have deferred signing any contract pending the outcome of the Commission's inquiries, although strictly speaking they did not need to do so. As I explained at the PiP meeting, under the framework Westminster needs to formally nominate authorities to Verrus for them to take advantage of it, and we have not done so. In relation to Islington, we are however about to do so, and we may do so with respect to other authorities in due course."
 
It would now appear that, according to Mr Large, not only are Islington Borough Council not using a the PIP framework, but also it cannot be using it because Westminster has not yet "formally nominated" Islington to Verrus.
 
Could I ask you to liaise with Mr Large to ascertain how he arrives at these conclusions, and, assuming them to be correct, explain why Mr Quinn has led me to believe the opposite in a response made to a request under the FOIA? So you are aware, I have been discussing the matter with my MEP, Mr Gerard Batten, who is keen to take this issue up with the Commissioners should their decision to close the case have been reliant on misrepresented information from Mr Large. Similarly, am I sure you, and Mr Quinn will be appreciative of the seriousness of misrepresentations in responses to FOI requests.
 
Yours
 
Warren Djanogly
Chairman

response to follow

[chairman]

Dear Mr Djanogly,

Thank you for your email, which I am responding to on the Corporate Director's behalf.  Please see the following information, provided by our Parking Services team.

Whilst we have been in breach of our own internal procurement rules by not signing the documents with Westminster Council and using their contract for services, this has no bearing on the legality of
Westminster's contract with Verrus.

Mr Large and Mr Quinn's statements are both correct but in different contexts.  As far as Mr Large is concerned Islington has not formally signed an agreement to use the contract and was correct to make that
statement.  Mr Quinn confirmed that we do use Verrus as a supplier, this is also correct.  This came about because we continued to use Verrus as a supplier after the pilot scheme expired, without signing formal
contract documents.  This was an administrative oversight which the Council's Procurement team has made recommendations to rectify and we intend to formalise the arrangement by signing formal contract
documents.

As stated above, the status of Islington's arrangement with Verrus as a supplier, has no bearing on the validity of the contract between Westminster and Verrus nor any investigation that the EU made in to that
contract.

I hope that that this is satisfactory.

With kind regards

Philippa Murphy
Departmental Support Manager
Environment & Regeneration Director's Office
Islington Council
Municipal Offices, 222 Upper Street, N1 1XR

Tel: 020 7527 2350
Mobile: 07826 904527

[chairman]

Dear Ms Murphy,
 
Many thanks for your prompt response, however, alas it is far from satisfactory.
 
In his response to Questions 4 & 5 of my original request under FOI, Mr Quinn categorically states:-
"Islington used the framework agreement under PIP."- reply to Qu.4
"As founder members of PIP, Islington utilised the framework agreement." - reply to Qu.5
 
Can you now please categorically, unequivocally & unambiguously state for the record whether both these statements from Mr Quinn are either CORRECT or INCORRECT?
 
Or to put it more succinctly, was Verrus UK Ltd contracted to be a supplier to Islington Borough Council via the PIP Framework contract, AS IS CLEARLY IMPLIED BY Mr Quinn, or not?
 
Yours sincerely
 
Warren Djanogly

[chairman]

Best of all is that, thanks to PLiarge taking a case for defamation, we can let the Court decide exactly whose telling the truth here!

Could PLiarge actually becoming our best ally??

[simon0600]

Mr Large has caused irrevocable damage to his career.  I have a feeling we may be looking at the next fall guy. 

[gibbo]

Being it on.  One by one the house of cards it falling

[spannermonkey]

I don't know if its connected,

but I saw a shadowy figure sculking around the back of WCC building last night,

just after our website came back on line.

He was mumbling a over and over something about having to dig ANOTHER shallow grave,

and at this rate he is going to run out of space UNDER THE MOTORCYCLE parking around the back.

Q. How tall is Mr Large?  

Q. Can we claim to have the paving slabs in the motorcycle parking at WCC leveled after this is all over?
 

[chairman]

no word from Ms Murphy, so I sent her a little nudge...


Ms Murphy

I still not appear to have received a reply to my email below of Jan 27.

As the information requested would be either a "yes, Islington did call off the PIP contract as confirmed by Mr Quinn" or "No, Islington BC did not call off the PIP contract as confirmed by Mr Large, and that therefore Mr Quinn was misrepresenting the facts."

I fail to see how such a reply could be delayed, so could I now ask you to assume it to be requested under the FOIA, and thus, reportable to the Information Commissioner should you fail to reply.

Yours

Warren Djanogly


...and it worked - her reply coming next

[chairman]

...and here is her incredible reply...

Dear Mr Djanogly,

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your recent email.  I am waiting for a response from colleagues in our Parking Services team and will get back to you as soon as I receive this.  In the meantime, I am writing to acknowledge that you have now made this request under the Freedom of Information Act.

...followed by...

Dear Mr Djanogly,

Further to my email, I have just received a response from our Parking Services team, who advise that there is a third alternative to the two options proposed in your email, which is as follows:

"No, Islington BC did not call off the PIP contract as confirmed by Mr Large, but Mr Quinn was not misrepresenting the facts because we used it without formally signing the contract, to formally call off from Westminster.  Therefore both Mr Large and Mr Quinn were correct."

I hope that this clarifies this to your satisfaction.

...well, couldn't let that one rest, could I...

[chairman]

Dear Ms Murphy
 
Could I ask you to desist from insulting my intelligence, and from being so evasive?
 
Fact: Islington BC has been paying tax-payers funds to Verrus UK Ltd against invoices for the provision of Pay-by-Phone Services. For this to happen, IBC has a legal obligation to formally contract the same, else why would any council incur the cumbersome expense of a tender process, else the payments could be challenged via the District Auditor as unlawful.
 
Furthermore, all contracts awards are accompanied by a Statement of Decision from the Councillor responsible, or an Officer with delegated power to make the same, after which an entry will appear in the Deeds Registry.
 
On the assumption that there is a written contract, this can only happen 1 of 2 ways
 
1) It was called off the PIP contract award, as confirmed by Mr Quinn, on the understanding that, as a founder member of PIP, whilst not formally identified in the documents, entry to the contract was legitimate, thereby circumventing the need for a tender process, or
 
2) The contract was awarded by IBC separately from PIP, as claimed by Mr Large, which could only occur following a full OJEU Tender.
 
If IBC did NOT call off the PIP contract, then
- Mr Quinn has misrepresented the facts.
- IBC's award to Verrus must be seen as an infringement of EU procurement legislation for not procuring via a full OJEU tender process.
 
Could you, Mr Quinn, Mr O'Leary & Councillor Smith please make careful note of the following. Mr Large has made it known that he intends to issue proceedings for defamation against me personally for alleging that he has deliberately misled the PIP Board & the EU Commissioners;- "Hence bearing in mind, according to the UK authorities, that by the time the UK reply was sent, no organisation other than WCC itself had entered into a contract for the services under the FA (framework agreement). Please be advised that the evidence so far submitted to me by IBC will be fully scrutinised within those proceedings.
 
For the final time of asking:-
Mr Quinn has confirmed, under FOI, that the contract was called off the PIP framework agreement. Was Mr Quinn telling the truth with this statement?
 
For your information, if your still wish to maintain that IBC has violated both UK & EU Procurement legislation, and has, in your own words, breached IBC its own internal rules, then please explain why Verrus is continuing to provide the service &, more poignantly, payments are still being made against their invoices.
 
Furthermore, an objection will be lodged with the District Auditor for these unlawful payments, whilst a formal complaint will be lodged with the EU Commissioners.

[chairman]

...and her reply...

Dear Mr Djanogly,

Thank you for your further email.  I did not intend to insult you or to be evasive, and I would be grateful if you would accept my apologies if my response gave you this impression.

However, I have already said in my email dated 27 January, that our Parking Services team have confirmed that Islington Council did not sign formal contract documents in relation to this contract, did not award a contract and that were in breech of our own procurement rules.  The service continued to be provided by Verrus following the cessation of the pilot scheme without any contract documentation being signed by either party.

I am sorry that I am not able to assist you further.

With kind regards

Philippa Murphy
Departmental Support Manager
Environment & Regeneration Director's Office
Islington Council
Municipal Offices, 222 Upper Street, N1 1XR

Tel: 020 7527 2350
Mobile: 07826 904527

[Legolas]

Curious that the critical sentence "...did not award a contract and that were in breech of our own procurement rules..." is so badly worded and badly spelt that it doesn't actually make any sense grammatically. Deliberate perhaps?

Taken at face value, I read it as saying that "...Islington Council ... were in breach of our own procurement rules..."

An admission?
Smoke and mirrors?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick completely?

[Chalky]

Is it, that by saying, "we are in breach of our own procurement rules", they are trying to pass it off as a, tsk tsk sort of "minor inhouse oversight, don't worry, we will have an internal review" and all will be made good. So you have no need to keep calling up Brussells, as its such a tiresome process. Now please go away and stop bothering yourselves with things that don't concern plebians?

[javabike]

I must admit the lack of gramma and speliing in the 'elite' in this country is appalling - I have to struggle with German rules telling I have spelt it wrong - have the Germans taken hold of WCC as well?
Logic is wrong, spelling is wrong gramma is wrong!  OK you can not blame the Germans for bad logic - they are good at that stuff.

[Legolas]

As spelt by Islington:

breech |bri?t?|
noun
1 the part of a cannon behind the bore.
• the back part of a rifle or gun barrel.
2 archaic - a person's buttocks.

I wouldn't put it past these people to deliberately spell breach wrongly so that when they are finally hauled up before the beak they can say "Sorry, M'Lud, we never said we breached our our own procurement rules, we merely likened our procurement rules to a person's buttocks - a humourous statement which has no legal standing and therefore cannot be deemed to imply that we lied".

What other explanation can there be for an (allegedly) well educated and articulate public servant, who has already shown that she knows how to spell breach in a previous email, to make such a mistake in the middle of a crucial sentence that actually doesn't make sense in the first place?
 

[Bandit]

breech |bri?t?|
noun
1 the part of a cannon behind the bore.
• the back part of a rifle or gun barrel.
2 archaic - a person's buttocks.

Nice one Legolas!
Perhaps what they implicitly mean is: "our own procurement rules continually shoot us in the arse".

Squirm, Islington, and rue the day that you ever got involved with those snakes at Wastemonster Council. A councillor from any other borough would do well to run a mile from any overtures from Wastemonster to share services.
Better for you to let them flounder alone.

[staps]

I suppose warran can always go back and ask them to confirm their spelling of breech is as intended, as he is Suspicious of them AGAIN, if they say yes, it will be a laugh listening to their explanation.

[simon0600]

I believe the ability of these officials to
cover one's breech (a person's buttocks) is becoming more difficult with every email sent from warren

[chairman]

Guys,

To be honest, this is far more serious than even Islington Borough Council (IBC) realise.

Chalky could be near the truth on what IBC are TRYING to do - ie try and write it off as an oversight that they are committed to correcting as this would be the only excuse they could have for not formally tendering the contract once the pilot was finished, but they are missing one very crucial element.

The Pay-By-Phone contract is not a typical council contract for one critical reason - DATA.

As we have exposed, the real reason for WCC luring others to not only sign up to Verrus, but to sign thru' WCC's framework agreement contract with Verrus via PIP is that WCC would OWN the data on all those motorists, irrespective of which borough through which they registered.

In trying to con the EU into believing that only WCC had "called off" the FA contract, Islington had to change their story, even though I had them already admit that Islington had "called off" the FA.

This latest admission is incredibly dangerous now for Islington. For them to admit it, they are also admitting that the "pilot" scheme had finished (hence the importance of the word "cessation") and thereafter, Verrus had been collecting motorists personal details in Islington WITHOUT any contract, and thus, WITHOUT any authority.

From Islington's point of view, they would have therefore been paying for an outside company that they merely BELIEVED were Verrus UK Ltd - no contract thus no due diligence - and this leads to the most important and telling question...

WHO OWNS THE DATA

If Islington had stuck to their original story of calling off the framework, firstly they could have argued that they were eligible as being a founding member of PIP, but more importantly, they could point to the original idea that WCC owned the data. Thus, in the event of a breach of the Data Protection Act, Islington could look to PIP or WCC to take the rap.

However, now if there is such a breach, who does the aggrieved motorist sue? Islington, Verrus, WCC, PIP , who??

I reckon this could be just the tip of an iceberg that will have every member of PIP regretting the day that WCC employed that slime-merchant Alistair Gilchrist, because this is a minefield waiting to be explored.

Watch this space, people, watch this space

[chairman]

Guys

Anyone live or work in Islington prepared to get a PCN for NOT paying via the Pay-by-Phone system?

If you are, we can argue that payment could NOT be paid because Verrus has not been authorised to collect money on Islington's behalf, and that they provided no alternative.

That way it gets this matter into the public arena, and a positive result could mean rebates from Verrus

W