Bad things are happening at my Council - who do I complain to?

Question

Here's a run down of a handful of naughty things that have happened at my local PC recently:
1) Signed off £11k contract with no quotes, just the renewal notice from the existing service provider. The Clerk didn't have time apparently to get quotes for this twice a year grass cutting contract that was due to expire - why did she put it on the agenda?
2) Signed off £6.5k spend on improvements to the local football club facilities with just one quote. The hope from the PC is to claim back the money from an S106 agreement, but they hadn't consulted the District Council first; they just used the same service provider used some four years ago that the District Council agreed to back then!
3) A working group - so no decision making powers - was set up by the Council to investigate erecting a new football pavilion. In December, they reported to the council they had met the local football club, agreed what the pavilion would look like, the facilities (without actually specifying to the council exactly what they would be) and an estimated £200k-£300k price tag. No vote was taken by the council on these proposals; it was literally a report on events that happened the previous day. In February, they sought to pass a resolution to have a design drawn up for the structure from one particular company. The council hadn't resolved for them to get quotes to do this and they only got one quote from a guy associated to the football club. The council hadn't resolved to undertake the project. But they were told the price for these designs was a "really good deal" compared to this councillors calculations on RIBA costs (the guy doing the work is not a RIBA member). However and quite unbelievably, it was resolved by the Council to get the designs made. This month, they're trying to push those designs - which haven't been shared with the public in the agenda and which the Council still hasn't formally recognised this project in any capacity (certainly not the £200k-£300k cost; the precept is approx £100k, £60k of which is used to pay off an existing loan!) When talking generally about the project back in their December report, one councillor stated that about half the money for the project would come from the S106 pot and the other half would come from a Football Association grant if they could convince them they will try to get a "girls" team and a youth team in place.

Parents in the village would actually like the S.106 money spent on improvements to the playground first and foremost, with anything left spent to renovate the existing pavilion (which is owned by the football club). They have started a petition to say as much.

I don't know why the Clerk/RFO (one and the same person) is allowing any of this, it's surely bordering on criminal behaviour to be THIS negligent and to be taking these kinds of risks. But who do I take it to? The police? District? County? Internal auditor? External auditor? I need someone who can act to stop the Council voting unlawfully on yet another thing otherwise every taxpayer in the village is going to get screwed when the District Council fail to hand over the S106 money or if legal action is started. One of the other villagers has audio recordings of all the meetings.

Answer 1

Can I ask if you're a councillor or a member of the public?

I'm asking the first question because your background information implies the councillors are complicit in this having apparently made decisions as a council which, on the face of it, suggest lack of adherence to financial regulations.  It is not for the clerk or rfo (usually the same person) to "allow" anything - he/she can advise but if that advice is not accepted, so be it.   Parish council procedures aren't always easy to understand and in some cases financial regulations can be suspended legitimately so, for example, if it proves impossible to get comparative quotes then councillors can resolve to accept a quote that has been received in order to ensure continuity of service.   I'm not suggesting that has happened but in the absence of further information that might be the case.  The Minutes should reflect this.   
If you are unhappy about the process followed in decision making then your complaint should be to both the internal auditor (if given the opportunity - there isn't usually one!) but in particular to the external auditors when the period for the exercise of electors rights is open.  There should be a notice on the website and notice boards which gives the contact details of the external auditor and the period for the exercise of electors rights will be a period next summer but the period must include the first two weeks of July.

Comments

At a recent council meeting we have been discussing S106 funding. Trying to find out exactly what is  'in the pot' can be a challenge with our DC. Looking at the planning applications can help somewhat. Often the wording of the agreement can be difficult, is our case hinging on one word in the agreement.

We were also surprised when a local organisation applied and were granted S106 funds, without the PC's knowledge. In the past the PC has had to approve the project beforehand even if we were not involved in the subsequent building works.

I was always under the impression that retrospective funding was not permitted. So your PC might find itself on a limb if a retrospective application was made.

---

Thanks Delboy's wife. I'm an ex-councillor who's glad to be out of it to be honest! No there was no suspension of regulations or anything like that. One of the Councillor's piped up "Should we not get three quotes?" and the clerk responded "I just haven't had time and if we delay it, it's going to take another two months to get sorted." on the £11k item. I put it on the clerk to have "allowed" it simply because if she hadn't done the work, it shouldn't have been on the agenda for the Council to put itself at risk (it was after all a grass cutting contract!). If anything, she was encouraging them to vote for it almost certainly so she wouldn't have to show other potential bidders exactly what needs cutting under the contract.

But yes, I spoke to the internal auditor today who advised me to speak to the external auditor too.  Thanks for you help and your suggestions!

---

Hey Caroline Nelson, thanks for responding. Yes, our DC hasn't got any info on their website about how they allocate S.106 monies to projects, what criteria has to be met and so on. I found some information about other DCs though that all read similarly, so I kind of assume my DC must expect a request first before simply agreeing to pay out. This does seem to be the case elsewhere and makes the most sense since the DC is responsible/accountable for it.
I was aware that other "responsible public bodies" can apply for it, but I thought only with the PC permission? I also believe the S.106 money can only be used for capital projects and not for on-going/running costs of existing things. Anyway, hopefully with our local petition, we can convince the DC not to release the funds, hopefully before the PC votes to (and does) go on a spending spree!

---

How s106 funding is used seems to vary from local authority to local authority.  Where I am based, it is under unitary authority control.  Monies can only be spent in accordance with the original s106 agreement with the developer (it's different for CIL money I believe) and here the parish council has little opportunity for involvement either in the original agreement or now that funding is spent.

Answer 2

it seems that some council ignore both regulations/standing orders and to be frank common sense .audio recordings can be very useful so my first step is to ask for a full copy from the individual  if its the clerk even better for destrurcution of such recordings made in public section is dealt with under i beleive section 77 and is deemed a criminal act if a request is made under the freedom of information act i suspect you will shortly be submiiting figures to your internal auditor ( in effect a compliance check ) may be worth bring the matter to his/ her attention

Comments

Internal auditors do not just check figures.  They should be (I fully accept that word should is a key problem sometimes) be checking not just the arithmetic, but the processes and compliance with regulations.
A final point, one of the major issues with recordings is that they record the general chit chat of the meeting.  the actual decision (or indeed that there wasn't one) can get lost in the noise.  There's often general chat about a project that is never properly costed or followed up and no decision therefore is actually made whether to go ahead or indeed to reject it.   The general chit chat can muddy everyone's understanding of what is actually happening in the meeting so an (uneducated) comment about funding sources is actually just that; a comment which is never followed up, substantiated or corrected in a later meeting as why would it be?  Everyone has moved on.   Chairs need to get a grip of the meeting when this happens.

---

agreed about the chair getting a grip how ever i have seen cases where the chair is a key player in the problem  none the less deciscions should be evidence based and well recorded in writing including any external advice sought