PRESS RELEASE – UPDATE

There has been no formal engagement with the Trade Unions or staff in relation to Harrogate staff having to transfer to Veritau rather than North Yorkshire. We are therefore somewhat angry that Harrogate Council is publicly stating that there has been full engagement when there has not.

HBC has requested to meet with UNISON representatives today, 19^th January, which we are prepared to do on the basis that additional information is provided beforehand. We are seeking:

• An acknowledgement of receipt of our Dispute and a date for it to be heard.
• The Harrogate Borough Council report recommending the transfer of staff to Veritau and the commencement of consultation with the Trade Unions and staff.  Ordinarily this would go to the Council’s Management Board, possibly cabinet and the HR committee.
• Confirmation of who has made the decision to transfer the staff and commence the TUPE process and the authority on which they have acted in accordance with HBC’s governance policy and procedures.
• A formal invitation to any TUPE consultation.

As previously stated, there is no benefit to Harrogate Borough Council in transferring its staff to Veritau and it is something they do not have to do. The expectation of staff is that they will transfer to North Yorkshire Council on 1^st April and have the same opportunity as all other Harrogate staff to move on to North Yorkshire Council’s new terms and conditions, recently negotiated by UNISON.  Only then if there is a need to review how audit services are delivered for the new Council then the proper processes should be followed after the transfer including full and proper engagement with staff and UNISON.

David Houlgate            

Secretary        

Harrogate Local Government Branch – UNISON

Harrogate Borough Council

Level 7

Harrogate Convention Centre

Kings Road

Harrogate

HG1 5LA

As the time approaches for the new North Yorkshire Council to come in to being on 1^st of April, public service union UNISON is dismayed to learn that there are plans not to TUPE transfer all Harrogate Borough Council staff to the new authority but to switch them to Veritau, a shared service group owned by local authorities in Yorkshire and north east England.

PRESS RELEASE

Speaking for UNISON, Harrogate Branch Secretary Dave Houlgate said:

“Staff and UNISON have engaged with the TUPE process for well over a year now and our expectation and the expectation of all staff is that they will transfer to the new North Yorkshire Council on 1^st April on their existing terms and conditions but with the opportunity to move on to new terms and conditions at the new Council, which UNISON has negotiated.

It would seem, however, that the current County Council has decided at this very late stage, it does not want Harrogate Borough Council staff who work in the area associated with Audit services to transfer to the new Council but instead has decided that they should transfer to a separate company, Veritau.  UNISON opposes this move.

UNISON has been in discussions with representatives from all the Councils involved with Local Government Re-organisation for over a year and this option has never been on the agenda, even though we had raised it as a concern early in the process.  There has never been any indication prior to this ‘late hour’ decision that staff would not transfer to North Yorkshire Council. We are dismayed by this development.

Whilst we are aware that both the current North Yorkshire County Council and Veritau want staff to transfer directly to Veritau, ultimately we hold Harrogate Borough Council responsible as it is their decision to make and not the County Council’s.  On this basis, we have lodged a formal Dispute with the Borough Council.

Indeed we have had written confirmation from the new Chief Executive at North Yorkshire Council, Richard Flinton, that the decision is one for the sovereign Council, in this case Harrogate Borough Council, to determine where their staff transfer to. It should be noted that there is no benefit to Harrogate Borough Council by this decision.  

Our position is clear, we object in the strongest terms to this late change of plan which shows total disregard for the staff involved, denies them the opportunity to move on to new terms and conditions negotiated and agreed by UNISON and ignores established procedures and protocols that are in place.  Staff in Audit services at Harrogate should, as they expect to do, transfer to the new authority and then if there is a need to review how audit services are delivered for the new Council then the proper processes should be followed after the transfer.

Our expectation was that Harrogate Borough Council would stand by it staff and should resist this late change rather than give it the ‘green light’. Our Dispute is intended to ensure this happens.

~ END ~

Tier 2 local authorities across North Yorkshire will also be dissolved. Other councils affected are Craven District Council,  Hambleton District Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council, Ryedale District Council and Selby District Council.

The local government reorganisation will also see the end of North Yorkshire County and York City Councils.

The race will now be on to be the last leader and mayor of Scarborough Borough Council.

The wholly incompetent purveyors of poor investment decisions (otherwise known as councillors) have left large concrete slabs in prime tourist venues and other prime tourist sites decaying and undeveloped for decades.

The last residents of the Clown Hall will be fighting like rats in a sack to be the last name on the hallowed boards of the great and the crud that once included Scarborough’s celebrity paedophile ring; Savile and Jaconelli.

It is expected that some councillors will retire before the local government reorganisation so they can be awarded Honorary Aldermen status for their length of service and similarly get their name up in lights.

Six figure salaried Senior Officers across North Yorkshire will also be looking to secure their gold-plated pensions pots, lucrative early retirement on an unaffordable final salary pension scheme or formulating plans to land a money-spinning new job to swell their already bulging pension pots before retirement.

How will Scarborough’s Senior Officers fare in the race for a new job given their accounts haven’t been signed off for five years? With the reorganisation likely less than two years away it looks like they never will be signed off. With the record of poor service delivered to the people of the Borough will anyone offer them a job cleaning loos?

In response to a Freedom of Information request to Harrogate Borough Council, in the following terms:

For each of the financial years 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 until the date of your response:

(1) which HBC Councillors have been the subject of recovery action, either in the form of demands sent by letter or email, or by court action. Please specify which type of recovery action, where applicable.

(2) which HBC Councillors have been barred from participating in voting on budgetary decisions, contingent upon Council Tax arrears of two months or more.

the Council has provided the following information:

As can be seen from the above table, Councillor Barrington John BATT [Con.] has been a persistent and habitual offender.

Following his summons in November 2011, he managed to conform to the Council’s requirements throughout 2012 – only to slip back into arrears ever since.

Councillor Barrington John BATT [Con.] has drawn the following Harrogate Borough Council Allowances in recent years:

2011/12 – £3,981.82
2012/13 – £4,448.16
2013/14 – £4,518.66
2014/15 – £4,517.28
Total  –   £17,465.92

By comparision to Councillor Barrington John BATT [Con.], it should be noted that Councillor Jean M. BUTTERFIELD appears to have paid up promptly when issued with a reminder in 2013.

Former Councillor Christine HILL also reacted promptly to a reminder in 2013 and again in 2014.

No councillors were barred from participating in a budgetary vote.

Harrogate Borough Council, to its credit, is the first of a raft of Councils to provided a transparent response to identical requests.

Further responses will appear on the Enquirer as they are provided.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, examining the paper trail of a corporate cock-up in Harrogate, North Yorkshire.

~~~~~

Background

Harrogate has a long history of traffic management problems. For those with a general interest, the Harrogate Advertiser has published a number of reports concerning problems with the town’s traffic-lights systems.

In late October 2015, concerns over the incomprehensible traffic-lights system on Station Parade known as the ‘Pedestrian Scramble’ came to a head when an 83-year-old man was knocked down by a car and later died (on 6th November 2015). Again, the Harrogate Advertiser covered the “utter nightmare”.

The spectre of injury and death in urban road traffic accidents places a huge burden of responsibility on the North Yorkshire Council Officers who administrate the deployment of traffic-lights, preparation for which entails calling upon a variety of specialist skills – traffic-flow monitoring, risk assessment, disability impact assessment, public consultation, computer modelling, drafting of regulations, etc, etc – quite aside from the physical installation and 24/7 operational management of the ‘hard wiring’. It is a serious business; lives are at stake.

So I decided to investigate the diligence and justification (if any) with which the ‘Pedestrian Scramble’ at Harrogate’s Station Parade had been brought into being.

There can be no doubt that it is a monumental cock-up. What I wanted to know was: whose cock-up?

Because somewhere in the higher branches of Council hierarchy is an Officer upon whose recommendation an Executive Member and other Councillors were called upon to vote “Yay” or “Nay” to the scheme. And what could they know, beyond what was spoon-fed to them by their Officers? How often the tail wags the dog.

So, on 21st December 2015, I lodged a Freedom of Information request with North Yorkshire County Council, seeking answers to the following questions:

In reference to the central Harrogate traffic lights system, including the section known as ‘scramble crossing’ (as referenced in the following press report: http://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/station-parade-businesses-dub-100-000-scramble-crossing-an-utter-nightmare-1-7567531), please provide the following:

(1) The Risk Assessment analysis referencing the central Harrogate traffic lights system,

(2) The Equality Impact Assessment referencing the central Harrogate traffic lights system,

(3) The cost of the design, construction and installation of the central Harrogate traffic lights system,

(4) The cost of any external consultancy advice in respect of the central Harrogate traffic lights system,

and

(5) The document bearing the name and signature of the Officer/Councillor who bears the ultimate responsibility for authorising the central Harrogate traffic lights system.

In short, I wanted to know how a procedure containing, on the face of it, many checks and balances could conceivably arrive at such a disastrous result.

And, as you see, Item (5) was the $64K question. With whom does the buck stop for such an unmitigated folly – a folly that has already cost one man his life?

Perhaps the greatest duty falling to every one of us in a civilised and democratic society is the principle of personal responsibility. And yet wherever I look in the large commercial corporations that our public authorities have become, I see an almost complete absence of personal accountability.

Somebody recommended a traffic-lights scheme that has, from its inception, drawn criticism and vehement complaint from the local population – who, I am sure, take no satisfaction in having been proved right by an unnecessary fatality.

On 14th January 2016, I received my response from NYCC – to their credit, comfortably within the statutory 20 working-day time-frame.

The response to the all five Items of my request scan be viewed here, but it is the response to Item (5) that I propose to address in some detail here.

Having noted that the Officer signing off the Decision Record was none other than NYCC Director of Business & Environmental Services David BOWE. His primary source was a Report to Executive Members, signed off by Assistant for Highways & Transportation Barrie MASON on 12th December 2014.

The ‘Rush Job’

During my first ‘speed read’ of the Report, my eye fell immediately upon this:

So. It was a ‘rush job’ – rushed because NYCC ‘optimises’ its revenue by seeking funding from central government for virtually every project that can be dreamed up to fulfil the criteria upon which grant funding is contingent. Why? Because a valuable slice of each grant is absorbed or dispersed underwriting unnecessary jobs at County Hall and keeping preferred contractors solvent (and more) – for which, quite naturally, they evince appropriate gratitude. Projects are pursued not serve residents but to serve the ‘apparat’.

And worse, it was a ‘rush job’ that seems to have drawn upon no further consultation beyond the Steering Group. One might infer that not only was it rushed up the command chain, it was virtually forced up, like rhubarb under a box – so great is the determination to pull in grant funding.

But it gets worse still. Far worse.

4.1 asserts that, “in the view of Officers”, there will be no adverse impact on the ‘protected characteristics’. For convenience of reference, here are the ‘protected characteristics’, as defined in s.4 of the Equality Act 2010:

So, at a crossing referred to as a ‘Pedestrian Scramble’, neither the Officers nor the Steering Group could foresee that (i) the aged, (ii) the disabled, and perhaps (v) the heavily pregnant (or mothers and toddlers) might struggle to ‘scramble’ across the carriageway quickly enough to avoid what happened to that 83-year-old man? Is that not an “adverse impact”? Death by automobile impact?

And yet, in the very next Article, we find this:

In 4.1, it was “the view of Officers” that there would be “no adverse impact” on those with ‘protected characteristics’; now, in 4.2, the Report intimates that failure to take up the grant was in itself “anticipated to have an impact on people with mobility difficulties” – and “mobility difficulties”, of course, are innate characteristics of the old, the disabled, the heavily pregnant and the very young; all “protected characteristics”.

Forgive my cynicism but, in my view, the subtitles to all this Council-speak read, “Let’s grab some of this grant funding before the pot runs dry!”, and to hell with any “adverse impact” on the most vulnerable pedestrians or the breach of duty of care that that inevitably entails.

So let us cut to the chase – the Recommendation:

7.1i recommends that the contents of the Report be “noted” (i.e. accepted). An innocuous enough formality.

But 7.1ii recommends approval of the proposal to deploy the ‘Pedestrian Scramble’ – in the blind belief that it would “not have any adverse impact” (see 4.1, above) on the old, the disabled, the heavily pregnant or the very young – meaning, irrefutably, people possessing “protected characteristics”.

That approval was duly granted and the paper-trail shows that the buck stops right here:

And thus the ‘Pedestrian Scramble’, branded “confusing” and consistently excoriated by the residents of Harrogate as “dangererous” and “an accident waiting to happen”, came into being and, as we know courtesy of that Harrogate Advertiser article, already has a death on its record, despite the corporate processes having been scrupulously documented, regimented, defragmented and seemlessly implemented.

And it is left to Executive County Councillor Don MACKENZIE [Con.] (Harrogate Saltergate) to explain:

Coun Mackenzie has admitted the junction has caused a considerable amount of misunderstanding and an increase in congestion but believes pedestrians still have long enough to cross.

He said: “I want to reassure people that the beeping only lasts for five seconds but the lights will stay on red for the traffic for 10 seconds. The reason it stops early is if you let it go until the end people could set off on the last beep and then you would be holding the traffic up for even longer to cross the road.”

A fisaco indeed – but no-one wants to hold up the traffic. Perish the thought.

A life has been lost and others are at risk, but where is the accountability?

Any motorist careless or unfortunate enough to knock down a pedestrian – any pedestrian; young or old, fit or disabled – would expect to face prosecution.

But what of the system that created the prevailing circumstances – the convoluted and extensive ‘apparat’ that rushed it through, in hot pursuit of the grant funding, though apparently in disregard of the all-important  ‘protected characteristics?

And what of the individuals who signed it off?

One wonders why the Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was ever enacted, if not to hold decision-makers to account for faulty decisions leading to fatalities . . .

Like the Harrogate, Scarborough and Whitby’s CPZs, the signage does not make a single mention of parking permits for the Residential Parking Zones. As such, the on-street signage does not convey the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in place and any PCNs issued within the CPZs are unenforceable.

Last week, I posted an adjudication notice from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal after I had contested a couple of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Scarborough Borough Council (SBC).

The outcome was that my appeal was accepted and the Tribunal ordered SBC to cancel the PCNs.

It is my belief that anyone who has paid out for a Residential Parking Permit or has paid a PCN for ‘Parked in a disc parking place without clearly displaying a valid disc‘ in Knaresborough is due a refund as the local authority has not implemented the signage in the Controlled Parking Zones correctly.

I had a couple of emails asking if I could explain exactly how SBC got it so wrong, but the information pertaining to Scarborough is identical so I will share it here for the benefit of folks who’ve received PCNs in Knaresborough.

This is a TSRGD 2002 663 sign. It should appear at the start of every CPZ, one each side of the road. The lettering can be varied from ‘Controlled‘ to ‘Meter‘, ‘Disc‘, ‘Ticket‘, ‘Disc and Meter‘, ‘Ticket and Meter‘ or ‘Pay and Display‘. If there is no 663 signs at any one of the zone entrances, the CPZ is invalid.

This is a TSRGD 2002 662 sign. This is a repeater sign used in a Disc Zone. These signs are commonplace within the CPZs implemented in Knaresborough.

This is a TSRGD 2002 660.6 sign. This is a mixed use sign for areas where a local authority wants both residential permit and disc parking. These are the signs that should probably have been implemented in Knaresborough’s CPZs.

A large number of signs currently in situ in Knaresborough’s CPZs clearly do not provide adequate information as to the parking restrictions within the CPZ as the majority of them do not mention Permits.

If you’ve recently received a PCN for ‘Parked in a disc parking place without clearly displaying a valid disc‘ on a street in Knaresborough which had a TSRGD 662 sign close by, then appeal it using this information.

Subject: PCN Appeal

Hello,

I wish to appeal PCN XXXXXXXX on the following grounds.

The contravention did not occur.
The Traffic Order concerned is invalid.
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

It has come to my attention that the signs within the Controlled Parking Zone do not reflect the Traffic Regulation Order in force as there is no mention of residential parking permits on any signage where I parked.

Kind regards,

If you’ve paid a PCN for ‘Parked in a disc parking place without clearly displaying a valid disc‘ on a street in Knaresborough that has a TSRGD 662 Sign then request a refund.

If you’ve paid for parking permits for a CPZ that doesn’t have the correct signage in Knaresborough then request a refund.

Subject: Parking Permit / PCN Refund

Hello,

It has come to my attention that the Controlled Parking Zone implemented in Knaresborough was not implemented correctly and the signs within the CPZ don’t convey the traffic regulation order in force.

I’ve purchased X permits at a total of £XXX. I’ve also paid £XXX for X PCNs. Since I didn’t need to buy a permit and since it has been proven that the PCNs are not legally valid as the zones have not been signed correctly, please can you organise a refund of £XXX.

Kind regards,

Amusingly, Andrew Jones, the local MP, is currently an under-secretary of State for Transport! Maybe he can lend a hand and sort this mess out.

Happy Motoring!

Related articles:

• Parking Refunds On Cards For Harrogate? by Tim Thorne (9th December 2015)
• “SBC Parking Refunds Ahoy!” by Tim Thorne (29th November 2015)
• “ERYC – Parking Tickets Refund” by Andy STRANGEWAY (2nd December 2015)
• “Parking Refunds For Whitby” by Tim Thorne (4th December 2015)
• “The Great Yorkshire parking Rip-Off” by Nigel WARD (7th December 2015)

Like Scarborough and Whitby, Harrogate’s CPZs do not make a single mention of parking permits in their Residential Parking Zones. As such, the on-street signage does not convey the traffic regulation order in place.

Last week, I posted an adjudication notice from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal where I contested a couple of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Scarborough Borough Council (SBC).

The outcome was that my appeal was accepted and the Tribunal ordered SBC to cancel the PCNs.

It is my belief that anyone who has paid out for a Residential Parking Permit or has paid a PCN for ‘Parked in a disc parking place without clearly displaying a valid disc‘ in Harrogate is due a refund as the local authority has not implemented the signage in the Controlled Parking Zones correctly.

I had a couple of emails asking if I could explain exactly how SBC got it so wrong, but the information pertaining to Harrogate is identical so I will share it here for the benefit of folks who’ve received PCNs in Harrogate.

This is a TSRGD 2002 663 sign. It should appear at the start of every CPZ, one each side of the road. The lettering can be varied from ‘Controlled‘ to ‘Meter‘, ‘Disc‘, ‘Ticket‘, ‘Disc and Meter‘, ‘Ticket and Meter‘ or ‘Pay and Display‘. If there is no 663 signs at any one of the zone entrances, the CPZ is invalid.

This is a TSRGD 2002 662 sign. This is a repeater sign used in a Disc Zone. These signs are commonplace within the CPZs implemented in Harrogate.

This is a TSRGD 2002 660.6 sign. This is a mixed use sign for areas where a local authority wants both residential permit and disc parking. These are the signs that should probably have been implemented in Harrogate’s CPZs.

A large number of signs currently in situ in Harrogate’s CPZs clearly do not provide adequate information as to the parking restrictions within the CPZ as the majority of them do not mention Permits.

If you’ve recently received a PCN for ‘Parked in a disc parking place without clearly displaying a valid disc‘ on a street in Harrogate which had a TSRGD 662 sign close by, then appeal it using this information.

Subject: PCN Appeal

Hello,

I wish to appeal PCN XXXXXXXX on the following grounds.

The contravention did not occur.
The Traffic Order concerned is invalid.
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

It has come to my attention that the signs within the Controlled Parking Zone do not reflect the Traffic Regulation Order in force as there is no mention of residential parking permits on any signage where I parked.

Kind regards,

If you’ve paid a PCN for ‘Parked in a disc parking place without clearly displaying a valid disc‘ on a street in Scarborough or Whitby that has a TSRGD 662 Sign then request a refund.

If you’ve paid for parking permits for a CPZ that doesn’t have the correct signage in Harrogate then request a refund.

Subject: Parking Permit / PCN Refund

Hello,

It has come to my attention that the Controlled Parking Zone implemented in Harrogate was not implemented correctly and the signs within the CPZ don’t convey the traffic regulation order in force.

I’ve purchased X permits at a total of £XXX. I’ve also paid £XXX for X PCNs. Since I didn’t need to buy a permit and since it has been proven that the PCNs are not legally valid as the zones have not been signed correctly, please can you organise a refund of £XXX.

Kind regards,

Amusingly, Andrew Jones, the local MP, is currently an under-secretary of State for Transport! Maybe he can lend a hand and sort this mess out.

Happy Motoring!

Related articles:

• “SBC Parking Refunds Ahoy!” by Tim THORNE (29th November 2015)
• “ERYC – Parking Tickets Refund” by Andy STRANGEWAY (2nd December 2015)
• “Parking Refunds For Whitby” by Tim THORNE (4th December 2015)
• “The Great Yorkshire parking Rip-Off” by Nigel WARD (7th December 2015)

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, contemplating the ramifications of a monstrous Council faux pas in North Yorkshire and all over this land – with special thanks to campaigner Andy STRANGEWAY for the FOIA data.

~~~~~

Background

In recent years, the so-called ‘Static Caravan’ (or ‘Static’) has achieved extraordinary popularity in the United Kingdom. It is not necessary to labour the difficulties facing would-be house-owners since the property collapse of 1990 and the financial crash of 2008, and it is unsurprising that many couples (and small families) have opted to buy a ‘Static’, situated on a rented plot, with the intention of living in it full-time – treating it as their Sole/Main Residence.

Others have invested in Statics as so-called ‘Second Homes’ – or ‘Holiday Homes’.

A considerable industry has sprung up to exploit this growing market. Many small towns, especially (but not exclusively) in sea-side locations are encircled by ‘Static Sites’; plots of land with the appropriate Planning Consent have provided many a nouveau entrepreneur with an opportunity to exploit the increasing demand.

The shrewd operators (and most of them are shrewd enough) have based their businesses on the sell/rent model; prospective clients can (and generally must) buy a Static from the site-owner if they wish to rent a plot on which to stand it. Of course, it is necessary to obtain Planning Consent for the sites, which recognises two scenarios – Holiday Homes and Residential.

The Harrogate Example

Following series of Freedom of Information requests submitted by campaigner Andy STRANGEWAY, an astonishing revenue racket has been revealed in the picturesque North Yorkshire district surrounding Harrogate – presided over by Harrogate Borough Council (HBC), where encumbent MP Andrew JONES [Con.] was formerly Portfolio Holder for Finance & Resources. I mention the fact because it was on his watch that the following extraordinary scenario came into being.

Residential or Holiday Home?

In recent years, HBC have issued 26 Residential Caravan Site Licences and 58 Holiday Home Licences.

On Residential sites, occupants may live permanently and may be charged Council Tax.

On Holiday Home sites, occupants may not live permanently; they must fully vacate the site for part of the year (variable, according to the terms of the Licence) and cannot be charged Council Tax.

(There are also Hybrid sites, on which a mixture of Residential and Holiday Home Statics co-exist.)

It is important to note that Council Tax cannot be charged on Holiday Home Statics because Council Tax is payable only on Statics that are the Sole/Main Residences of the occupants. Since the Planning Consent for a Holiday Home Static does not, by definition, permit permanent residence, it cannot conceivably qualify as a Sole/Main Residence and it is clear that charging Council Tax on such a Static is unlawful, possibly fraudulent.

However

However, Andy STRANGEWAY’s FOIA responses reveal a rather disturbing state of affairs in the Borough of Harrogate.

For example, HBC has charged Council Tax on 44 Statics at the Pinemoor Caravan Park, Harrogate, for (on average) the past four years – a total revenue stream of around £176,000 – based on Band ‘A’ valuation of around £1,000 p.a., as determined by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), the body that is responsible, under the terms of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for compiling and maintaining the Valuation List, which identifies those Statics on which Council Tax is payable.

Similarly, at the Lido Leisure Park, Knaresbrough, HBC has charged Council Tax on 43 Statics for (on average) the past four years – a total revenue stream of around £172,000.

Together, these two figures produce an average revenue stream of £174,000 per site.

There are 58 Holiday Home Static sites in the Borough of Harrogate & Knaresborough where Holiday Home Static occupants have been charged (and have paid) Council Tax for the past four years – and in some cases since 2007 and even before.

A swift rule-of-thumb calculation shows that HBC has unlawfully charged a little over £10 million (58 x 174,000 = 10,092,000) over the past four years alone.

That is a lot of mazuma, all accrued from charging Static occupants Council Tax – based on the VOA determination that their units are liable to Council Tax, though they have no legal obligation to pay Council Tax because their Statics are not Sole/Main Residences, as defined in their sites’ Planning Consent – HBC Planning does not permit them to be Sole/Main Residences. More than that, it has prohibited then from being Sole/main Residences – but charged them Council Tax anyway.

The Serious Fraud Office states that fraud “is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party”.

It can readily be argued that fraud has been committed by HBC, since its intention was to mislead occupants into believing that Council Tax was payable when, in fact, it was not. Occupants have paid Council Tax in the belief that they were liable to do so, and HBC has arguably misled them by presenting them with unlawful demands for payment, thus deceiving the occupants into believing that payment must genuinely be due, when it is not. Council Taxation Officers are expert in matters pertaining to Council Tax liability and can reasonably be expected to be aware that occupants of Statics occupied under Hilday Home Planning Consent are not liable for Council Tax. Thus, the act of demanding payment of Council Tax can be shown to be fraudulent when there exists no liability to pay Council Tax can be seen to be fraudulent.

Furthermore, by demanding Council Tax, HBC has condoned breaches of their own Planning Consent, because by charging Council Tax, HBC has tacitly asserted that the Statics were Sole/Main Residences – which they clearly are not because the Planning Consent defines them as Holiday Homes and not Sole/main Residences.

The Bigger Picture

The bigger picture is that there are in the UK over 400 Principal Authorities that, like HBC, are authorised to charge Council Tax. If the £10 million that HBC has unlawfully collected is typical, that would suggest that £4 billion plus has been unlawfully collected nationwide. That really is a lot of mazuma

Where Does The Buck Stop?

This is an interesting conundrum.

• The VOA has misidentified Statics as being liable for Council Tax that cannot be so, since their Planning Consent specifically defines them as Holiday Homes – NOT Sole/Main Residences.
• Councils’ Planning Departments have failed to notify either the VOA or the Councils’ Taxation Departments that the Planning Consents for these Statics define them as being exempt from Council Tax, since they are not Sole/Main Residences.
• Building Regulations determine that the construction of Statics renders then ineligible for Sole/Main Residences. Statics do not comply with Building Regulations in respect of construction and proximity.
• Councils’ Taxation Departments have charged Council Tax on Statics that are not, in virtue of their Planning Consent conditions, liable to Council Tax at all. In doing so, they have arguably committed fraud.
• Site Operators may have been guilty of mis-selling Statics – i.e. sold them without making clear to purchasers that the Planning Consent did not permit Sole/Main Residence. This would be a matter for Trading Standards, a department of the County Council. (in the case of HBC, this would be North Yorkshire County Council).

What Should Be Done?

This is another interesting conundrum.

• Councils, having taken in the order of £4 billion unlawfully, may be legally bound to refund it (rather like the City of York Council refund of PCNs issued to motorists who fell foul of the unlawful Lendal Bridge regulations) . But where will they find £4 billion?
• These Statics cannot be used as Sole/Main Residences – they do not have the necessary Planning Consent – which means that people cannot dwell in them permanently. Where should they go? Councils have a statutory duty to make housing available. But how could they re-house so many people?
• Councils cannot simply grant Residential Planning Consent retrospectively, since the Statics would fail the requirements of the Building Regulations. And how could they amend the Building Regulations retrospectively, which would force occupants either into financially burdensome alterations, some of which may not be possible, or lawful eviction – which takes us back to the re-housing solution?

The conclusion has to be that, in their enthusiasm to maximise the exploitation of Council Tax revenue, Councils appear to have overshot their authorisation to the tune of £4 billion plus, and would appear to have committed fraud in the process.

Of course, the honourable outcome would be for Councils to refund the money.

Long-term, it would be helpful if Councillors would appoint Officers of sufficient professional competence and integrity to ensure that such a monstrous example of maladminstration never arises again – which is to say that it would be helpful if voters declined to elect self-serving mediocrities to administer the public purse. We know who they are.

It is fair to say that Andrew JENKINS MP [Con.] made some huge mistakes during his tenure as Portfolio Holder for Finance & Resources at Harrogate Borough Council. Parliament is full of such incompetents and electors have only themselves to blame. Such is democracy.

Facts & Figures

There are 72 Councillors elected to North Yorkshire County Council.

Of those 72 Councillors, 49 also sit on Tier-2 District or Borough Councils.

Of those 49 Councillors, 37 receive an IT / Broadband Allowance from both North Yorkshire County Council and their local Tier-2 Council.

75% of Councillors who are able to receive an IT / Broadband allowance from both of the Councils they are elected to, elect to receive two IT / Broadband allowances.

Of the 37 Councillors who are receiving two IT / Broadband allowances;

• 20 are Conservative,
• 9 are Independent,
• 7 are Lib Dems
• 1 is Liberal.

The 37 North Yorkshire County Councillors who have received two Broadband Allowances sit on the following local authorities;

10 sit on Scarborough Borough Council;

Cllr Andrew Backhouse
Cllr John Blackburn
Cllr Bill Chatt
Cllr Mike Cockerill
Cllr David Jeffels
Cllr Janet Jefferson
Cllr Penny Marsden
Cllr Joe Plant
Cllr Peter Popple
Cllr Brian Simpson

9 sit on Harrogate Borough Council;

Cllr Jim Clark
Cllr Margaret-Ann de Courcey-Bayley
Cllr John Fox
Cllr Andrew Goss
Cllr Bill Hoult
Cllr Don Mackenzie
Cllr John Savage
Cllr Geoff Webber
Cllr Andrew Williams

7 sit on Hambleton District Council;

Cllr Arthur Barker
Cllr David Blades
Cllr Tony Hall
Cllr Neville Huxtable
Cllr Caroline Patmore
Cllr Peter Sowray
Cllr Tim Swales

5 sit on Craven District Council;

Cllr Philip Barrett
Cllr Polly English
Cllr Robert Heseltine
Cllr David Ireton
Cllr Richard Welch

5 sit on Selby District Council;

Cllr Elizabeth Casling
Cllr Mike Jordan
Cllr John McCartney
Cllr Chris Pearson
Cllr Dave Peart

1 sits on Richmondshire District Council;

Cllr Stuart Parsons

Problem

A sizable proportion of Councillors in North Yorkshire are milking the system and profiteering at the public’s expense. Whether they have done so intentionally or unintentionally is unknown, but most have attended the relevant meetings so they should be aware they receive money from both NYCC and their local Tier 2 Borough or District Council for Broadband.

Council Officers who were investigating previous complaints about double payments at North Yorkshire County and Scarborough Borough Councils did not do so independently. The Officers produced one-sided reports and passed those to the Standards Committees.

Sources & Further Information

This downloadable spreadsheet contains a list of payments made over the last four years. They were gathered from FOI requests and documentation available on the respective Authority websites. All payments listed in BOLD denote two payments in a single calendar year.

• Craven District Council currently give their Councillors a yearly IT Allowance of £400 to cover the cost of Broadband and IT equipment such as a laptop, printer and network hardware. Up until the end of financial year 2009/10 the IT Allowance used to be a separate element of £600, but Councillors voted to roll the IT Allowance into the Basic Allowance effectively cutting the cost of the IT allowance by £200 to the current level of £400. I’ve apportioned nearly half of the IT Allowance, £180, towards the cost of Broadband.

• Hambleton District Council do not give their Councillors a Broadband Allowance. They expect that elected members already have Broadband, but, if not, they will arrange for Broadband to be installed at the Councillor’s home address and the Council will pick up the cost of the installation and the monthly fee. The average cost per elected member is £403.08 per annum. Currently, 18 of the 44 elected members receive Broadband paid for by Hambleton District Council. HDC will not divulge the identity of those Cllrs and claim the information is sensitive under the Data Protection Act.  The nine Hambleton District Councillors who also sit on NYCC were asked if they are in receipt of one of the Broadband connections. The nine Cllrs were emailed twice, to their official email addresses at both Councils, asking the question. Four responses were received. Two Cllrs said they are not in receipt of a Broadband connection paid for by HDC. Two Cllrs were evasive and would not answer the question. The other five Cllrs have not responded to any of the emails. It is assumed the seven Cllrs who will not answer the question are in receipt of one of the HDC-funded Broadband connections.

• Harrogate Borough Council currently give Councillors a yearly Allowance of roughly £255 to cover the cost of Broadband.

• North Yorkshire County Council currently give their Councillors a yearly allowance of £501.23 to cover the cost of Broadband. Up until the end of financial year 2009/10 the allowance used to be a separate element. In Dec 2008 Councillors discussed whether to roll the IT/Broadband Allowance into their Basic Allowance. In December 2009, they elected to roll the IT/Broadband Allowance into their Basic Allowance, which increased proportionately.

• Richmondshire District Council currently give Councillors a yearly allowance of £180 to cover the cost of Broadband.

• Ryedale District Council do not give their Councillors a Broadband Allowance. They expect that elected members already have Broadband, but if not they expect the Councillors to pay for Broadband out of their Basic Allowance.

• Scarborough Borough Council gave their Councillors a yearly allowance of £255 for many years. In 2012/13 they gave their elected members iPads and the Council now directly picks up the bill for 3G connectivity.

• Selby District Council currently give their Councillors three different amounts for Broadband depending on their circumstances. If the Councillor uses their own PC they receive a £330 yearly allowance with £180 earmarked towards Broadband. If the elected member uses a Selby District Council PC they receive a £180 yearly allowance for Broadband. If the Councillor uses North Yorkshire County Council equipment they receive a £50 yearly allowance for consumables only.

Conclusion

NYCC should remove the £501 IT / Broadband Allowance from the £8,994 Councillor Basic Allowance, then implement a system which pays an IT / Broadband Allowance to elected members who do not receive a similar allowance from any other bodies they are elected to.

Nationally, Standards Committees should be reconstituted with independent members of the public and they should sit in judgement on how Councillors have acted.

The system where Councillors sit on Standards Committees and sit in judgement on fellow Councillors and party members without any independent scrutiny is unfit for purpose and is being abused.

Standards Committees should be reconstituted with independent members of the public and an independent panel should sit to decide on if the Councillors allowance schemes are appropriate, true and fair.

Article first posted to Real Whitby on February 17 2013.