Who Knew about Costain Legal Bill Advice Options

[Simon Kirby]

Charlie Farrow asked on Monday at the Town Council Policy and Resources Committee who knew about the failure to claim on the legal expenses insurance (Story here.). Julian Swift-Hook, who was Deputy Leader at the time in 2010, refused to answer, claiming that "The issue to which you refer is subject to legal proceedings, so I cannot comment further".

I find that answer frustrating for a couple of reasons.

1. What legal proceedings? The NWN reports that NTC commenced legal proceedings against Costain in 2010, but that's not so and to my knowledge NTC have still not commenced proceedings - this has been the source of much frustration for the town because if, as Dave Allen has asserted so confidently, the council's case is so "robust" why in the name of the Great Prophet Zarquon has the council not brought a claim for damages in the county court.

2. So was JSH just lying about legal proceedings because he doesn't want to answer the question, or is the Council involved in legal proceedings which they haven't told us about. Consequences of the former are obvious, but what about the latter? Is NTC embroiled in a legal case which it hasn't told us about? That clearly has the potential to cost us yet more money and it's hardly acceptable that we should know nothing about the case at all.

3. The 2010 cover-up might have been limited to a small number of councillors and officers, but every councillor will now know who it was who covered up the failure, so even if JSH doesn't want to name names at least some other councillor should.

The failure to make the insurance claim is the central problem here. If CrackGate was in the hands of the insurers then not only would it have been resolved competently and professionally but the claim wouldn't have cost us anything if it failed. It was inept, but failing to make the claim is nowhere near as serious as covering up the fact from the precept-payer, and we need to know who was involved.

We also need to know what these "legal proceedings" are that JSH talked about - we don't need to know the legal arguments so there is no question of prejudice and sub judice, but we need to know the nature of the proceedings and the parties involved - English justice is a public matter, and if the Council is embroiled in a dispute the precept-payer needs to know what's at risk.

[Exhausted]

There were in fact two questions posed by Charlie Farrow, although both related, to which the reply was "subject to legal proceedings."
This is a hidey hole used on a regular basis by NTC when they wish to obscure something from the precept payers.
Are these matters part of the Crackgate affair or as you say Simon, yet another separate legal proceedings of which we know nothing.

However, JSH appears in the NWN in a nice smiley photograph directly alongside the article about the appointment of a new CEO for the town council and I wonder why the newspaper thought that was a good idea especially so close to the elections. That appointment will still leave the council short of a Responsible Financial Officer who has also resigned.

Depending on the result of the election, I doubt we will ever know the full story but what I do find a little strange is that the council runs like WBC and Westminster with a two party (there are no independents or labour) system, so why did the opposition keep so quiet at that meeting unless of course, they were complicit.

[Exhausted]

Talking of legal proceedings, local legal firm Gardner Leader have done quite well out of NTC. Between 31st August 2013 and 27th March 2015 they have received £107,088. Not saying this is all Parkway/Victoria park as a couple are identified as "Freedom of Information" but nice to see it's going to a local firm.

[Simon Kirby]

Talking of legal proceedings, local legal firm Gardner Leader have done quite well out of NTC. Between 31st August 2013 and 27th March 2015 they have received £107,088. Not saying this is all Parkway/Victoria park as a couple are identified as "Freedom of Information" but nice to see it's going to a local firm.

I'm guessing you haven't added the legal bills that I suspect were suppressed in the January and February schedule of account.

[Exhausted]

I'm guessing you haven't added the legal bills that I suspect were suppressed in the January and February schedule of account.

I have included the January, February and March for 2015 amounts. £17,846 I reckon.

Funny little thing I noticed in the accounts, £25:00 to Mr Hunt for an eye test.

Add the figures for Jan 2012 through to end July 2013 £36,616 to G.L but of this, £3,180 for employment advice.

[Simon Kirby]

I have included the January, February and March for 2015 amounts. £17,846 I reckon.

Do you have a link to the January and February accounts, I couldn't find them.

[Simon Kirby]

Talking of legal proceedings, local legal firm Gardner Leader have done quite well out of NTC. Between 31st August 2013 and 27th March 2015 they have received £107,088. Not saying this is all Parkway/Victoria park as a couple are identified as "Freedom of Information" but nice to see it's going to a local firm.

It's not great is it, but fr me the bigger problem is that we can't have any confidence in the Council's judgement, so while it's just about possible that the prudent thing is still to press on it's also quite possible that we should have backed down years ago but we haven't because the Council have no idea what they're doing and they couldn't bear to admit what will obviously be a significant failure.

[Simon Kirby]

Do you have a link to the January and February accounts, I couldn't find them.

S'OK, I see they've posted them separately now.

[Simon Kirby]

I have included the January, February and March for 2015 amounts. £17,846 I reckon.

A quick add up in my head and I see around £25k from January - March 2015 paid to Gardner Leader.

[Exhausted]

Do you have a link to the January and February accounts, I couldn't find them.

Council website

Meetings

Agendas

Policy and resources.

Not where you would expect to find them perhaps.

[Andy Capp]

I too was wondering what these legal proceedings were. Is it true? I find it difficult to believe anything Julian Swift-Hook says.

[Simon Kirby]

I too was wondering what these legal proceedings were. Is it true? I find it difficult to believe anything Julian Swift-Hook says.

Even if you take on trust that what JSH says, that was a bizarre way for the leader of the council to publicly inform his fellow councillors and public that the council is involved in legal proceedings without giving councillors any opportunity to ask questions or debate the matter.

It is conceivable that some kind of legal action has been brought involving the failure to claim on the insurance and it is also conceivable that the issue of who exactly was advised about the need to make a claim is in dispute and central to that case, but I can"t conceive of a situation in which it would be prejudicial simply to explain what that litigation was without touching on the arguments. This is after allpublic money that is involved and the public have a right to know. Whicever way you look at it I feel the council's response to a legitimate question was unsatisfactory.

RUP claims to have a copy of the email advice and it is surely incumbent on him now to publish it.

[Exhausted]

... It is conceivable that some kind of legal action has been brought involving the failure to claim on the insurance and it is also conceivable that the issue of who exactly was advised about the need to make a claim is in dispute and central to that case,.........

If one looks at the council expenditure with Gardner Leader in 2013, the bill for Employment advice was about £3060. The payments to them subsequently don't split them out so who knows what's going on.

[Simon Kirby]

If one looks at the council expenditure with Gardner Leader in 2013, the bill for Employment advice was about £3060. The payments to them subsequently don't split them out so who knows what's going on.

Indeedy.