SLI parking money to West Berks Council Options

[Richard Garvie]

Well we know that the CCTV project was mismanaged with no penalty clauses inserted by the council. We know the bins contract will cost the council if it does not switch to fortnightly collections and on this issue, the council would have us believe that they have not calculated the potential outcomes. No wonder people get suspicious about the council and the way it conducts it's business.

From doing research online, Parkway would have been built years ago if it was not for Patrick Griffin and Nick Carter. Blue Investments had bought up all the land they needed except the £1 car parks from the council. It was at that point that Mr Carter and Mr Griffin decided the proposed scheme was not "prestigious" enough for Newbury. Nick Carter then asked Patrick Griffin to design a project brief of what the Parkway scheme should look like. The project then went out to tender, and Shearer Property / Standard Life won the contract. Now that's fair enough, but who was advising SLI / Shearer on the design / tender process???

[NWNREADER]

Well we know that the CCTV project was mismanaged with no penalty clauses inserted by the council. We know the bins contract will cost the council if it does not switch to fortnightly collections and on this issue, the council would have us believe that they have not calculated the potential outcomes. No wonder people get suspicious about the council and the way it conducts it's business.

I don't know there are no penalty clauses in any of the contracts, but I do know there is a reluctance in some corners of WBC to force delivery. The standard approach was 'we mustn't upset the contractor', but they lost no time in demanding their side of the bargain...... My small area of insight does not prove the whole, but there was not much business mindset in the cases I do know of.

[NWNREADER]

From doing research online, Parkway would have been built years ago if it was not for Patrick Griffin and Nick Carter. Blue Investments had bought up all the land they needed except the £1 car parks from the council. It was at that point that Mr Carter and Mr Griffin decided the proposed scheme was not "prestigious" enough for Newbury. Nick Carter then asked Patrick Griffin to design a project brief of what the Parkway scheme should look like. The project then went out to tender, and Shearer Property / Standard Life won the contract. Now that's fair enough, but who was advising SLI / Shearer on the design / tender process???

From having lived here at the time I too know there was a proposal that got very near to delivery. However, I'm not so sure about the personal involvement of any named individuals, and I hope you are very sure given the clear implications of what you say!!!
Also, at that time, I'm not sure Nick Carter held a senior enough position within the Council to conduct business the way you say he did. He was only a department head.

I am not saying you are wrong, and I am not defending WBC, but I do think you are on thin ice with what you imply

[NWNREADER]

Of course there could be a contract! Just implicating that WBC may not know what they have have signed up for?

If they are unable to say what the figures are for who gets what if the car parking income is at certain levels then any one could have a guess at what was in the contract and could be corrrect? No?
Really mind boggling to think this but what other decision are you able to arrive at with the very minute information the taxpayer has been allowed?

If there is no detail on what one side 'gets' from a contract, then it is not a legal contract. It may be couched in %age terms as opposed to a specific sum, but there will be a fixed baseline. That too may not be financial, but a reflection of the price band ticket levels at the time of the agreed baseline.

While the outcome would be a cash balance, the way it is calculated could be based purely on numbers of tickets at the individual rates. Thus in terms of numbers of pennies, WBC may not know how many they have to cough up and SLI may not know how many they will receive. What needs to be 'known' is that WBC do not end up getting fleeced. I care not if SLI get nothing/less than they anticipated.

(I understand what I think I am trying to say, but it may be what you understand is not what I am trying to tell you).

[Richard Garvie]

From having lived here at the time I too know there was a proposal that got very near to delivery. However, I'm not so sure about the personal involvement of any named individuals, and I hope you are very sure given the clear implications of what you say!!!
Also, at that time, I'm not sure Nick Carter held a senior enough position within the Council to conduct business the way you say he did. He was only a department head.

I am not saying you are wrong, and I am not defending WBC, but I do think you are on thin ice with what you imply

It's well documented here and at the other place about why the other development was scrapped. It also says in this weeks NWN who was advising Shearer and SLI. When you add up all of the pieces, it does seem odd that someone who is not either an employee or elected member of the council can have so much power on these issues. For me, this is the one reason why we need to have a more open and transparent town centre steering group, we need to know what is discussed and what is voted on, and certainly what influence they have over the council.

[Richard Garvie]

If there is no detail on what one side 'gets' from a contract, then it is not a legal contract. It may be couched in %age terms as opposed to a specific sum, but there will be a fixed baseline. That too may not be financial, but a reflection of the price band ticket levels at the time of the agreed baseline.

While the outcome would be a cash balance, the way it is calculated could be based purely on numbers of tickets at the individual rates. Thus in terms of numbers of pennies, WBC may not know how many they have to cough up and SLI may not know how many they will receive. What needs to be 'known' is that WBC do not end up getting fleeced. I care not if SLI get nothing/less than they anticipated.

(I understand what I think I am trying to say, but it may be what you understand is not what I am trying to tell you).

I can grasp your position, but surely you do not really believe that WBDC have not done any calculations about potential outcomes? Is that any way to run a business, let alone manage taxpayers money?

[NWNREADER]

I can grasp your position, but surely you do not really believe that WBDC have not done any calculations about potential outcomes? Is that any way to run a business, let alone manage taxpayers money?

I am sure there are calculations, but not in 'cash' terms. If they do not want to let information out, either because the contract is not yet complete or maybe they have (Hail Mary) had one over on SLI, then keeping things confidential for a while longer could be sensible - especially if some issues re future arrangements are still under discussion.


You wouldn't tell your house builder you had scored off him on the cost of the ground floor when he was still fitting out upstairs, would you?

[NWNREADER]

It's well documented here and at the other place about why the other development was scrapped. It also says in this weeks NWN who was advising Shearer and SLI. When you add up all of the pieces, it does seem odd that someone who is not either an employee or elected member of the council can have so much power on these issues. For me, this is the one reason why we need to have a more open and transparent town centre steering group, we need to know what is discussed and what is voted on, and certainly what influence they have over the council.

Maybe, but I read your words as implying something sinister. Repeating something that is (erroneously?) published elsewhere joins you to the action rather than exonerates you. Especially if the other publisher is able to explain away their version....

I'd hate for you to end up in Newgate

[Bartholomew]

Cos it is win win.

Either you own Betfred (other gambling establishments are available) which is win win or you don't accept that gambling can lose as well as win

[Richard Garvie]

Maybe, but I read your words as implying something sinister. Repeating something that is (erroneously?) published elsewhere joins you to the action rather than exonerates you. Especially if the other publisher is able to explain away their version....

I'd hate for you to end up in Newgate

I've got it on pretty good authority that this is what happened. The key thing when writing on here is that you can provide sources and paper trail to back up what you are saying (just in case). Some people write on here based on "what somebody was overheard saying in the pub". That's when you can potentially open yourself up to legal problems.

[Cognosco]

If there is no detail on what one side 'gets' from a contract, then it is not a legal contract. It may be couched in %age terms as opposed to a specific sum, but there will be a fixed baseline. That too may not be financial, but a reflection of the price band ticket levels at the time of the agreed baseline.

While the outcome would be a cash balance, the way it is calculated could be based purely on numbers of tickets at the individual rates. Thus in terms of numbers of pennies, WBC may not know how many they have to cough up and SLI may not know how many they will receive. What needs to be 'known' is that WBC do not end up getting fleeced. I care not if SLI get nothing/less than they anticipated.

(I understand what I think I am trying to say, but it may be what you understand is not what I am trying to tell you).

I think you are missing the entire point? Any one can dream up what they like and they could well be correct.

I think what I am trying to get across is, until WBC informs the taxpayer of what they have commited us to then guesstimation will come into play. It begs the question on why they keep doing this? Lets have some answers. If it is a good deal let the taxpayer be the judge. Why is it everything is done in secret? The contract has been signed now so no confidentiallity needed.....unless it really is a case of keep it from the taxpayers.

Keep the language plain and simple for us poor plebs please?

[Simon Kirby]

I've got it on pretty good authority that this is what happened. The key thing when writing on here is that you can provide sources and paper trail to back up what you are saying (just in case). Some people write on here based on "what somebody was overheard saying in the pub". That's when you can potentially open yourself up to legal problems.

Actually, no. In an action for libel you would have a defence if you could prove on the balance of probabilities that what you said was true. Proving that someone else said it first is, in general, no defence. This is why both NewburyToday and their ISP can be sued if you post something defamatory about someone.

[Simon Kirby]

Anywho, to re-cap: RG finds out from some WBC councillor about some dodgy-sounding deal involving WBC giving SLI carpark revenue, WBC take the weekend to think about it, and now the official WBC story is: It's complicated, but everything's OK, trust us.

Is that where we are?

[Richard Garvie]

Anywho, to re-cap: RG finds out from some WBC councillor about some dodgy-sounding deal involving WBC giving SLI carpark revenue, WBC take the weekend to think about it, and now the official WBC story is: It's complicated, but everything's OK, trust us.

Is that where we are?

I think that sums it up pretty well, but the councillor told the media that we were paying 50% over £300k parking income, she didn't tell me. Pamela Bale (deputy leader of the council) was the member in question, and although the council have said that what she said is inaccurate, they are yet to provide details of what has been agreed. Apparently, it's far too complicated that the council themselves haven't even tried to work out how much they would be paying to SLI.

[Cognosco]

Anywho, to re-cap: RG finds out from some WBC councillor about some dodgy-sounding deal involving WBC giving SLI carpark revenue, WBC take the weekend to think about it, and now the official WBC story is: It's complicated, but everything's OK, trust us.

Is that where we are?

Who really knows Simon? There is no one to put pressure on WBC to find out is there? As we are only taxpayers we are not meant to be asking probing questions of contracts etc that WBC have made. We would not be able to understand if they gave us any details so the answer is WBC Business as usual.

This equates to WBC taxpayers probably shafted again!

[Simon Kirby]

I think that sums it up pretty well, but the councillor told the media that we were paying 50% over £300k parking income, she didn't tell me. Pamela Bale (deputy leader of the council) was the member in question, and although the council have said that what she said is inaccurate, they are yet to provide details of what has been agreed. Apparently, it's far too complicated that the council themselves haven't even tried to work out how much they would be paying to SLI.

It wouldn't surprise me if councillors didn't understand it, it wouldn't surprise me if councillors thought they became invisible if they closed their eyes, but I'm sure there are folk here who could tease the truth from the words of the contract if WBC were only to publish it, and as they refuse to publish you'll excuse me if I assume the worst.

[blackdog]

There is no way that WBC will publish the contract - it is very easy to quote commercial confidentiality as a reason for not doing so. It would also allow everyone to see ALL the terms of the contract, including the ones that we have not yet heard of.

[Richard Garvie]

There is no way that WBC will publish the contract - it is very easy to quote commercial confidentiality as a reason for not doing so. It would also allow everyone to see ALL the terms of the contract, including the ones that we have not yet heard of.

Quite...