Covid 2019 has delayed this audit finding.
In 2019 I objected to a payment of £68,830.80 made to Cowman Road Surfacing Contractors,
invoice dated 31 July 2018, paid in September 2018.
because Oakham Town Council did not comply with central government procurement rules for this level of spending or with European procurement laws and that little effort was made by the Council to seek value for money.
At the Council meeting on 14 June 2017 it was agreed in principle to repair/widen the path and obtain three quotations. (Cutts Close Path)
The Council has informed the auditors that it wrote to five County Councils asking for recommended and approved contractors, inviting them to quote for the works. As a result of this exercise, only one response was received, from Martin Cowman Ltd. (no of evidence this was ever shown to members of the council or provided when I requested to see it as a Councillor)
At the Council meeting on 8 August 2017, the matter was discussed and as only one response had been
received, it was agreed to seek tenders again, this time advertising in the press, on noticeboards and
on the website. No further tenders were received and at the Council meeting on 8 November 2017 it
was resolved to award the contract to Martin Cowman Ltd. (this part is true, but then what contractor looks at the council notice board or even the Rutland Times)
The invoice for the works was presented for payment approval at the Council meeting on 8 August 2018 and was in accordance with the original
quotation. Payment was not approved at this meeting but was deferred until the specification and path
had been re-examined. (at this point the majority of members were unhappy with the process of awarding this contract and I pointed out to members that rules had been ignored)
At the Council meeting on 12 September 2018 the Chairman Adam Lowe gave a presentation on the subject and it was resolved to pay the invoice. (Cllr Adam Lowe misled members accused me of lying and bullied members into agreeing to reverse there decision not to pay the invoice, a video recording of this presentation of false information can be found on youtube and a link was provided to the auditor)
The external auditor has concluded that Oakham Town Council failed to follow rules and regulations AS A RESULT THE PAYMENT MAY BE UNLAWFUL an auditor can not say the payment is unlawful, their full conclusion shown below means the payment made was unlawful and fortunately for Cllr Adam Lowe they are not taking Oakham Town Council to the High Court. The same happened when the previous Mayor was found to have made a unlawful payment without the Town Councils knowledge. That Mayor did the decent thing and resigned and repaid the couple of hundred pounds he unlawfully spent.
Cllr Adam Lowe has always bullied people to get what he wants and it needs to end. I have messaged him to seek a comment or an apology for how he treated me when he insisted the council would not be making an unlawful payment. He has ignored my message.
The auditors say I have a right to appeal their decision not to apply for a declaration under section 28(3) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Should I wish to do so, I must issue mu appeal with the High Court, I have told Oakham Town Council I may exercise my right to appeal if Cllr Adam Lowe remains office, I don't want to take this action because the costs would have to be paid by Oakham Town Council. It could also make the members who approved the payment liable for this expenditure. I strongly believe if Adam Lowe remains a member of Oakham Town Council nothing is going to change and they will continue to ignore laws and rules that they should follow.
Oakham Town Council is aware that I am raising a conduct complaint with Rutland County Council regarding Cllr Adam Lowes bullying and dishonest conduct during the time he was attempting to secure this unlawful payment.
Auditors Conclusion: It is our view that OTC did not follow the provisions of the Public Contracts Regulations
2015 and thereby their own Financial Regulations in respect of this contract, as the contract was not
advertised on the government’s “Contracts Finder” website. As a result the payment may be unlawful;
however, the Council has informed us of the tendering processes that it followed (as detailed above) in
an attempt to obtain best value for money.
Despite these attempts, only one quotation was received and, in accordance with Section 11.1.f. of the
Financial Regulations, the Council made the decision to proceed with the works with the only contractor
who had tendered. In our view, this was not an unreasonable decision in the circumstances; however,
we are minded to raise this non-compliance with laws and regulations in our external auditor report for
2018/19.
Please note that there is no right of appeal against a decision not to issue a public interest report in
respect of any of the objections. With regard to objections 3 and 4, you have a right to appeal our
decision not to apply for a declaration under section 28(3) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act
2014. Should you wish to do so, you must issue your appeal with the High Court within the period of 21
days beginning with the day after you receive this statement of written reasons.
Yours sincerely
PKF Littlejohn LLP
.jpg)
.JPG)
