NTC and the Market Cleansing Scam Options

[Simon Kirby]

I've been banging on for several years now about how NTC and WBC have operated a democracry-dodging scam with the Charter Market cleansing contract - well, I seem to have got a result by bringing that to light and the Town Council have stopped it, saving the Newbury tax-payer the best part of £50k.

It worked like this: NTC put £50k on the town council precept and they charge it to the Charter Market head as a "cleansing contract", only they don't tender for the best value cleaning contractor, they just make an arrangement with West Berkshire Council to do a bit of sweeping up in exchange for the cash. WBC are happy because they make a substantial profit on the cost of a man with a broom for two afternoons a week and the profit circumvents central government limits on the council-tax they set because the town council precept isn't actually council tax, it's a separate charge collected with the council tax by WBC on behalf of NTC, and NTC can set whatever precept they like. NTC are happy because in exchange for the deal they hope to win some tasty snibbits of busy-work off WBC to add to their burgeoning administration empire.

The down-side for the Town Council is that the ridiculously inflated cleansing contract makes the Charter Market look ludicrously expensive because the running costs far outstrip the rental revenue, but that's not really a problem for the council unless anyone takes a close look - and of course asking questions about the accounts gets you declared a vexatious complainant and that pretty effectively silences any protest.

So now the contract has been stopped and the market traders just take their own rubbish away - just like they do in other markets.

The net cost to the Newbury tax-payer of the Charter Market is now around £63k. Running costs are still puzzlingly high at £36k, there's £21k of NTC direct staff time, with another £38k of administrative staff time and administration overheads. Revenue from the stallholders is now at an all-time low of just £32k - it was £90k nine years ago.

Next stop: saving the £105k cost of the allotments service!

[Andy Capp]

It worked like this: NTC put £50k on the town council precept and they charge it to the Charter Market head as a "cleansing contract", only they don't tender for the best value cleaning contractor, they just make an arrangement with West Berkshire Council to do a bit of sweeping up in exchange for the cash. WBC are happy because they make a substantial profit on the cost of a man with a broom for two afternoons a week and the profit circumvents central government limits on the council-tax they set because the town council precept isn't actually council tax, it's a separate charge collected with the council tax by WBC on behalf of NTC, and NTC can set whatever precept they like. NTC are happy because in exchange for the deal they hope to win some tasty snibbits of busy-work off WBC to add to their burgeoning administration empire.

Any chance for some language a mortal like me can understand?

[Simon Kirby]

Any chance for some language a mortal like me can understand?

Hmm, alrighty...

NTC were giving WBC around £50k to sweep up after the market. It wasn't that the market really needed any sweeping up, and £50k paid for way more sweeping up than was done.

Now they've stopped doing it, and the market traders just sweep up after themselves, like they do in other markets.

That's a Good Thing because that was our money that NTC was giving away, and now NTC are just that tiny bit more accountable, because it shows that NTC's awful inefficiency can potentially be challenged.

[On the edge]

This is really sharp practice in my book. Same as what our political friends are complaining bitterly about. Starbucks, Google, and the like. It gets worse, because all these little scams mean contracts have to be agreed - so keeping the legal people in expensive paid employment. Remember the Victoria park saga? It took a year plus to transfer that!

[Simon Kirby]

This is really sharp practice in my book. Same as what our political friends are complaining bitterly about. Starbucks, Google, and the like. It gets worse, because all these little scams mean contracts have to be agreed - so keeping the legal people in expensive paid employment. Remember the Victoria park saga? It took a year plus to transfer that!

A side note: The town council have financial regulations which govern the awarding of contracts, and the council is required to invite tenders. I can't find any record that the council has ever tendered for this contract, or has ever discussed it. The regulations are there to prevent any inappropriate bias and give us at least a chance of getting value for money - though the council aren't required to award contracts to the cheapest bidder and they can keep all of the tenders secret so there is still considerable scope for some jiggery pokery. There's no suggestion here that the contract was awarded to WBC for anyone's direct personal gain, but there are questions to be asked about whether the regulations were followed and whether the contract was reasonable value for money, and if public money has been spent unlawfully it needs reclaiming, or else the district auditor needs to surcharge the councillors.

[Andy Capp]

Do councils like NTC not have any periodic audit? Now that NTC don't pay for a bloke to throw a broom round the market Place, does that mean WBC will now have to either make a cut somewhere else, or load the council tax bill?

[On the edge]

Quite agree, high time the District Auditor was involved. I'm going to write to Eric Pickles as well, because having now been sent the leaflet which accompanied the community charge demand, its very clear, to me at least, that the financial summary presented in a manner designed to confuse. This is is unacceptable in the financial services industry and commerce generally - it should be even more so here. I also certainly appreciate this is not for personal gain.

[Simon Kirby]

Do councils like NTC not have any periodic audit? Now that NTC don't pay for a bloke to throw a broom round the market Place, does that mean WBC will now have to either make a cut somewhere else, or load the council tax bill?

The council's books are independently audited, and if I remember right they lost their "Quality Council" status because of poor accounting practice - perhaps someone could clarify whether that's right and what the irregularities were.

There is an audit standard I believe, though it's too technical for me to understand, but I would have thought it would include auditing that the council were following their own financial regulations (and it would probably set standards for what those regulations required, but I don't know about that).

However, I think the audit does a spot check and not a "deep clean", and if the contract was awarded in a previous year I don't suppose the audit would turn it up as an irregularity now.

I don't think the audit is looking for good value, simply making sure that the council has documented procedures to avoid fraud, and that there is documentary evidence that those procedures are being followed.

The annual audit is done by a firm of private commercial accountants, but the District Auditor is a statutory authority and has a different remit and is interested in whether expenditure was lawful - that there was a statutory power to enable it, and that the council acted property as a public body - if the financial regulations weren't followed or the council acted improperly by awarding the contract other than in the public interest she can order the councillors to pay the money back personally.

However, you can't just take a complaint to the District Auditor, you have to take it all the way through the council's own complaints procedure first (that's the one where you're a vexatious complainant and they are entirely and irreproachably right) and only then can you take it to the District Auditor, and you can only do it in the financial year of the jiggery pokery - which in this case is probably ten years ago!

[Andy Capp]

However, you suggested that we as tax payers might benefit from this, but I suggest that this might not be the case, or might mean a loss or a cost somewhere else.

[Simon Kirby]

However, you suggested that we as tax payers might benefit from this, but I suggest that this might not be the case, or might mean a loss or a cost somewhere else.

It's £50k of tax that WBC are not now getting, but if the contract was legitimate there is no loss of service because the sweeping up that the council were doing is now done by the market traders themselves.

The market rent has been reduced to account for the loss of the service to the traders, but it's been cut by £25k, so it looks as though WBC have been getting £25k on the sly.

Your suggestion is that WBC have used this money to provide vital services which they would not have taxed us directly to provide, but my contention is that the limits placed by central government on the amount of council tax an authority can charge are the only measure that's driving any efficiency at WBC and that circumventing those controls can not be in the public interest.

The other problem with laundering the money like this is that it creates improper leverage between NTC and WBC - if NTC has something on WBC then NTC will use that leverage to encourage WBC to make other decisions that favour the NTC empire which otherwise WBC would not consider to be in the public interest.

There are several of these arrangements in place between WBC and NTC, and the simple fact is that NTC uses the pretext of these "services" to load the council with busy-work and an empire of administrators to administer it.

[On the edge]

That is exactly the point. No one knows if its a loss or a gain because the books are being cooked. On the numbers presented, I would argue that in these times of financial stringency we simply can't afford the charter market. No other retailer in town gets such a subsidy.

Similarly, I voted for my WBC Councillor to make decisions against WBC's duties. That includes providing a youth service. I voted for my NTC councillor to make decisions against NTC's duties. That does not include providing a youth service.

Perhaps unlike you, I don't have a bottomless pit out of which I pay Community Charges. So, I may not be happy about budget cuts at WBC, but understand prioritisation is necessary. However, I didn't expect and it would have been wrong for me to assume that NTC would make good the youth service cuts. If they hadn't done that, and if they had managed to collect the whole cost from the market traders etc. etc., my overall charge would have been lower.

Why would NTC want to do this? In my view, simply to play Lord and Lady Bountiful with my money possibly in a misguided attempt to secure a vote at the next election. In my case, they've had that!

On top of all this, we are constantly hearing the LibDems harp on about public companies using sharp practice to avoid tax. Calling such practice immoral and wrong. In accountancy terms this is exactly the same - but worse, because its less transparent.

The most vulnerable in our society simply can't afford to play these games any more. Time to eliminate the LibDem Surcharge.

[Simon Kirby]

The most vulnerable in our society simply can't afford to play these games any more. Time to eliminate the LibDem Surcharge.

Precisely. Of course the elephant in the room is the charter market itself. We're being taxed £63k so that the town council can provide the market, not because it's a vital service - it manifestly isn't because there are any number of other shops where people can buy stuff - the town council provide the market solely for their own benefit - it brings in £63k in tax which adds nicely to their administration empire. Let the market run itself, and if it can be a going concern then good luck to if, and if it can't run without a £63k subsidy, then for goodness sake why should it exist at all?

[Andy Capp]

It's £50k of tax that WBC are not now getting, but if the contract was legitimate there is no loss of service because the sweeping up that the council were doing is now done by the market traders themselves. The market rent has been reduced to account for the loss of the service to the traders, but it's been cut by £25k, so it looks as though WBC have been getting £25k on the sly. Your suggestion is that WBC have used this money to provide vital services which they would not have taxed us directly to provide, but my contention is that the limits placed by central government on the amount of council tax an authority can charge are the only measure that's driving any efficiency at WBC and that circumventing those controls can not be in the public interest...

You have exaggerated what I said. You sounded triumphant that you have saved the taxpayer money. I simply suggested that it might ultimately not.

[Simon Kirby]

You have exaggerated what I said. You sounded triumphant that you have saved the taxpayer money. I simply suggested that it might ultimately not.

I am triumphant, and I may have exaggerated the saving. I will be more triumphant still when the town council abandon the charter market to its fate, and I'll have a bloody great dance of joy when the town council lets the allotment service self-manage, moves out of it's Gothic mansion, ditches the mayor, and does nothing more than managing the parks and gardens with a part-time clerk and a couple of decent park keepers.

[Andy Capp]

I am triumphant, and I may have exaggerated the saving. I will be more triumphant still when the town council abandon the charter market to its fate, and I'll have a bloody great dance of joy when the town council lets the allotment service self-manage, moves out of it's Gothic mansion, ditches the mayor, and does nothing more than managing the parks and gardens with a part-time clerk and a couple of decent park keepers.

Héll hath no fury than an allotmenteer scorned!

[NWNREADER]

I actually quite like Newbury having a Town Hall.

[blackdog]

I actually quite like Newbury having a Town Hall.

So do I, but it is a drain on the precept. It's a monumentally inefficient office building that could, perhaps, generate an income as a restaurant/pub/flats which would more than pay for a modest office in a more convenient location.

I also like having a mayor - but did it cost so much to have one when the Charter Trustees were responsible?

NTC's big problem seems to be the number of staff - it is hard to see what they are all doing. Though I'm sure they all feel they are overworked ...

[Simon Kirby]

So do I, but it is a drain on the precept. It's a monumentally inefficient office building that could, perhaps, generate an income as a restaurant/pub/flats which would more than pay for a modest office in a more convenient location.

I also like having a mayor - but did it cost so much to have one when the Charter Trustees were responsible?

NTC's big problem seems to be the number of staff - it is hard to see what they are all doing. Though I'm sure they all feel they are overworked ...

I don't believe you've ever engaged with these criticisms before, and I'm grateful that you have, so thank you. All I'm asking for is an honest debate, and despite the extreme position I've taken I too enjoy the colour and pageant that a mayor can generate and I would accept too that there is a place for a grand town hall as a symbol of civic pride. Not to labour the point too much, but the Town Council are appallingly arrogant, and appallingly inefficient, and while they suppress dissent and victimise anyone who raises such questions the only position to take is a hostile one. There is a debate to be had, about the mayor, the town hall, the council inefficiency, and yes, about allotments, and while the town council tries to hold on to everything they have they risk losing it all for the lack of a middle ground.

[Cognosco]

I actually quite like Newbury having a Town Hall.

But in these times of financial hardship is it vital? What benefit does it bring to Newbury taxpayers?
All the accounting shenanigans that are alleged to be going on is utterly wrong. If any council be it WBC or NTC believe they are morally correct in what they are doing to circumvent laws, regulation or whatever from Government or whomever they are controlled by, then they should be open and transparent and produce the figures in a way that the local taxpayer has at least a sporting chance to understand it and let the taxpayers decide if this is how they want any precept spent.

This openness and transparency has always been the cause of the majority of complaints regarding our local councils and has resulted in a number of genuine local enquirers being classed as vexatious purely for persisting in probing council replies that do not produce any sensible responses that are able to be understood.

I feel sure that if local taxpayers were actually informed that the administration costs of the the NTC could be achieved at a considerable annual saving then they would vote for it.
As it is it is the same as knowing that you purchased a loaf of bread for five pounds and then was informed you could have purchased the same loaf of bread for one pound. But of course our councils ensure they produce these figures in a format that the majority of local taxpayers is unable to easily decipher. Therefore anyone who tries to inform the taxpayers of what is actually occurring with taxpayers money is very quickly discredited and declared vexatious and underhanded spin and publicity ensures they are silenced.

Is a local parish council really necessary, with all the extra costs involved, in these modern times?