Age UK disappointed at watchdog's findings (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Age UK disappointed at ombudsman's decision in row with Watford Borough Council
4:04pm Tuesday 11th September 2012 in News
A charity has expressed its disappointment at a watchdog’s decision to clear Watford Borough Council of wrongdoing in a row over a £500,000 repairs bill.
Age UK Hertfordshire has said it is surprised that the Local Government Ombudsman did not take legal and documentary evidence it provided for its investigation into the spat with the council.
Last month the ombudsman cleared the council of maladministration in the dispute that arose over a repair bill for two borough-owned buildings from which the charity operated.
Age UK Hertfordshire has also protested over its treatment during the investigation by the watchdog.
Marion Birch, the chief executive of the charity, said it was still to receive the formal findings from the ombudsman.
She said: "We were never interviewed or asked for further information by the LGO and initially we only found out about their final decision because it was sent to us by the Watford Observer.
"It has been an extremely difficult time for Age UK Hertfordshire as our integrity has been questioned which we feared may damage our reputation."
The argument was sparked over Harebreaks and Exchange Road buildings, which the charity used from 2006, when the council presented Age UK Hertfordshire for repair bill of close to £500,000 for them.
The dispute spilled into the public domain and the charity claimed it was defamed when council cabinet member, Councillor Iain Sharpe , attacked it in the letters page of the Watford Observer.
Age UK and the council eventually managed to come to an agreement for a much-reduced bill of around £30,000 and the charity is still a tenant in the Exchange Road building.
However the bitter saga has dragged on and the charity took the council to ombudsman over the affair.
Last month the ombudsman cleared the council of wrongdoing and also said it had a right to defend its actions. Following the decision Ms Birch said she was disappointed with the Ombudsman’s decision, but said she hoped the saga had not damaged the charity’s standing in the eyes of the residents.
She said: "All we have been guilty of is naivety as we believed that the written assurances that we had been given about the properties would be honoured. "Our charity agreed to take over the provision of Meals on Wheels on behalf of the Council and then received a demand for £250,000 for property dilapidations on that building where there was no apparent lease.
"Unfortunately cooking and delivering meals to vulnerable older people and running a lunch club does not generate that level of income."
Comments(13)
Reg Edit
says...
4:59pm Tue 11 Sep 12
Politics can be a grubby little affair, as the Liberals have shown in Watford. Age UK are better than that.
LSC
says...
5:01pm Tue 11 Sep 12
And they had the building since 2006 'with no apparent lease'? Didn't anyone query this in 6 years?
I think that statement damages their reputation far more than the rest of the dispute.
Who in their right mind would operate out of a building they didn't own with no written agreement as to who had responsibility for what?
That is on page 1 of any 'How to run an Organisation' book.
Reg Edit
says...
5:26pm Tue 11 Sep 12
looked at from that viewpoint, Age UK are indeed lucky, at least on the financial front.
Looked at a different way, someone (Dotty and the Liberal council) tried to rip them off to the tune of £470,000 but didn't get away with it.
I agree it's a mess, but the question is, why did the council get into this mess in the first place and why did it get personal against a charity?
It's my opinion the council owes us all an explanation. It's my fear that the explanation would not show the Liberal council or councillors in a positive light, and so no explanation will be forthcoming. Instead they will hide behind the Ombudswoman's report, which is exactly what they have been doing.
LSC
says...
5:58pm Tue 11 Sep 12
The very definition of maladministration in my book is getting sums wrong to the tune of nearly half a million pounds.
However, it seems to me there is fault on both sides, and sadly both sides aren't using their own money to fund this very public slanging match.
Mike Watford
says...
10:10am Wed 12 Sep 12
The council's initial figure came from professional, external property experts.
Their willingness to compromise with the charity should be lauded.
The Ombudman said the council was right to respond to Age UK making the issue very public.
Age UK should get on with doing what they supposedly are there to do.
Reg Edit
says...
12:13pm Wed 12 Sep 12
can you ask your colleagues to release the facts rather than hiding behind the Ombudswomans report?
I know it exonerates the council on the matter of maladministration. What we are all wondering is how?
LSC
says...
12:53pm Wed 12 Sep 12
Then quite obviously they are using the wrong experts, which one must conclude is at best lazy, or at worst incompetent.
If I went to a builder who quoted me half a million pounds for a job I subsequently found I could have done for £30k I'd be on to Trading Standards in a heartbeat.
And yet these 'experts' are presumably on the 'Approved Contractors' list for the Council. So how did they get on this list? Are they still on the list?
Who got reprimanded for putting them on the list and then allowing the claim to go through without double checking it?
If we were talking about a difference in quotes of 5, even 10k, then fine.
But HALF A MILLION POUNDS?
Answers please.
Scot Hill
says...
5:22pm Wed 12 Sep 12
garston tony
says...
8:06am Thu 13 Sep 12
Reg Edit
says...
9:02pm Thu 13 Sep 12
any chance of you or any of the other councillors answering LSC's question above?
Or is half a million pounds neither here nor there for the council? There are some of us, including Age Concern (I assume) who still think half a million pounds is a lot of money. What do you think?
Mike Watford
says...
9:26am Fri 14 Sep 12
Reg Edit wrote:...I've no idea what you are on about (as usual_) about colleagues...
Mike, can you ask your colleagues to release the facts rather than hiding behind the Ombudswomans report? I know it exonerates the council on the matter of maladministration. What we are all wondering is how?
Anyway, the I looked up the full report on the net: It say the indepndent Ombudsman saw all the emails between the council and Age UK. Also both sides presented their documentation - Age UK on four occasions
...but somehow you think you know more... lol
Mike Watford
says...
9:37am Fri 14 Sep 12
LSC wrote:...why are they the wrong experts?
"The council's initial figure came from professional, external property experts." Then quite obviously they are using the wrong experts, which one must conclude is at best lazy, or at worst incompetent. If I went to a builder who quoted me half a million pounds for a job I subsequently found I could have done for £30k I'd be on to Trading Standards in a heartbeat. And yet these 'experts' are presumably on the 'Approved Contractors' list for the Council. So how did they get on this list? Are they still on the list? Who got reprimanded for putting them on the list and then allowing the claim to go through without double checking it? If we were talking about a difference in quotes of 5, even 10k, then fine. But HALF A MILLION POUNDS? Answers please.
Looking up the online Ombudsman report, It says: "The Council instructed building consultants to produce schedules of dilapidations for the properties. A different consultant dealt with each property. The instructions to the consultants dealing with Building B states their task was to ensure ‘...the Schedule is fair and reasonable...’ and that accuracy is important. The consultants’ reports identified works to Building A
estimated at £161,900 and a total of £243,800 with fees and allowances for other costs. For
Building B the estimated cost of works was £155,000 rising to £236,790 with fees and
allowances."
The Ombudsman concluded: "My view is:
a. There is no evidence that the Council acted with maladministration. It initially acted on external advice and when the charity made representations the Managing Director negotiated with it. In reaching agreement with the charity the Council compromised. Its
willingness to negotiate and compromise cannot be taken as an indication that it was
not entitled to make its original demands."
.
Reg Edit says...
4:54pm Tue 11 Sep 12
Something still smells about this whole affair, and that smell is coming from the Liberal Mayors office.
Despite the best efforts of the Liberal dirty trick team, Age UK still gets my vote. In fact, why don't they run a serious candidate against the Mayor at the next Mayoral election and see who the people believe over all this? It would be good to see the back of Dotty and her merry men.
Dotty, call a Mayoral election now and let's see if the people of Watford believe you!