Today I looked at part of Oakham Town Councils accounts and found a number of basic procedures
are not being followed along with some more serious issues a year on from our qualified accounts report and lots of costly advice most of which has been ignored.
I made my request last week, although the chairman or proper officer has no authority to stop any Councillor making a request to see anything to do with the accounts and make copies I reminded the chairman and proper officer that in a few weeks time we post a notice for the electors to come in and inspect and take away copies of anything related to the accounts they require.
The council does this to comply with the audit act and electors rights.
Cllr Lowe wrote to the proper officer saying Cllr Brookes can see anything as long as its convenient for the proper officer currently the Assistant Clerk.
I am wondering what has changed since that email? because this evening I have been receiving
emails from the Mayor Adam Lowe objecting to my visit, suggesting I am breaking rules when I am not. I did not spend a whole day in the office.
The more I receive this style of email from Cllrs Like Adam Lowe, I become more convinced there is something bigger they are hiding.
Today I have only seen evidence of incompetence or sloppy working practices.
The council has less than 500 transactions in a year and we cant seem to be able
to get it right. It comes as no surprise to me that Streets Accounts can visit the
office and complete the end of year accounts in a few hours with no fuss.
We should consider employing them from now to do all the councils accounts work
because they are also a lot cheaper than the person who is meant to do the work.
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 at 11:02 PM
From: "Adam Lowe"
To: "Martin Brookes", "Michael Haley"
Subject: Re: Essential Enquiries.
Martin
From: "Adam Lowe"
To: "Martin Brookes"
Subject: Re: Essential Enquiries.
Martin
There are no shutters, you clearly are not reading the e-mails. You are being made aware of the rules, these are rules bought to my attention, or shall I just turn a blind eye to your antics, is that acceptable?
I take it that you accessed the Council documents as a Councillor and now you are making a statement of complaint to Grant Thornton using the information as a member of the public?
In the last week you were saying that Allison is overworked and under pressure and yet you spent all day at the Council office and you did ask for copies to ALL contracts and you expected her to do that. If anyone else did this you would be criticising them for wasting the Officers time, you are sending out conflicting messages.
As a Councillor you do not have an automatic right to view all Council documents, I don't.
I understand your objective is to cost the Oakham taxpayer as much money as you can without a real rational behind your approach, i really just do not understand what you are playing about at.
You are abusing your position as a Councillor by accessing documents then popping on the , 'I am acting as a concerned citizen' hat to justify your sharing of the same documents.
Just don't get it, don't understand your motivation or why you are doing what you are doing.
Can you confirm that you do not wish to be notified of any potential rules you are breaching , if you do that I won't waste my time any more pointing them out, of course you can always ignore the rules but that makes you the same as everyone you claim are breaking the rules, what do you want me to do Martin?
Communicate with you or No communicate with you?
Regards
Adam Lowe
My objections to Oakham Town Councils Accounts 2015 -2016
Dear All
As an Elector, I
will be sending the following objections to the external auditor.
The audit act
requires me to notify Oakham Town Council
From
Martin Brookes (Cllr
OSE Ward)
Dear Mr Heap
(Director for Grant Thornton.)
Throughout 2015 –
2016 the council did not carry out its normal internal
audits.
The councils financial
regulations according to the web site were revised January 2016
the councils
regulations now say regular internal audits should be carried out at
least once a year.
I can not find a minute
that confirms the council approved this change. This of course does
not
cover the period of
accounting I am objecting to.
I wish to object to a
number of payments made by Oakham Town Council
during the accounting
period of 2015 – 2016. I will detail my evidence below.
Before I do that I
wish to point out the following:
for 2014 - 2015 you
provided the town council with a qualified audit and made
recommendations.
Although the report has
been published on-line, for some reason despite
repeated requests the
document has not been presented to full council,
for consideration,
comment or action.
Cllr Michael Haley has
written to me stating I am misinterpreting
you statements that the
council has not followed its own regulations
and broke laws. I am
not sure how I can be misinterpreting this or your
words stating what has
happened is more serious than the council led you
to believe.
When the chairman Cllr
Alf Dewis resigned after your findings, that
he acted unlawfully,
both he and our current Mayor Cllr Lowe
were quoted in the
press, saying the unlawful conduct was just a minor
mistake. Since Mr Dewis
resigned many Councillors seem to be fed up with
me wanting the council
to follow correct procedures. One wrote to me stating I am
nasty etc.
Cllr Lucas responds to my findings today by sending two replies to all:
Returned to
sender
Sent
from Mail for
Windows 10
Also today our Chairman
Adam Lowe sent a email to all members, after myself and other
members have requested to see council documents,he quotes common law.
As you know the audit
act permits the electors to visit the council before
the accounts are sent
to you, they can copy anything related to the accounts
A Councillor does not
have to wait for the allotted time. Cllr Lowe sent this:
Under common law
principles councillors have the right to access information held by
their authority where it is reasonably necessary to enable the member
to properly perform their duties as a councillor.
However, if the councillor’s motive for seeing documents is
indirect, improper or ulterior this
may be raised as a bar to their entitlement. Councillors are not,
therefore, allowed to go off on a ‘fishing expedition’ through
their council’s documents.
If a councillor is a member of a particular committee or
sub-committee, then they have the right to inspect documents relating
to the business of that committee or sub-committee. If not a member
of that committee or sub-committee, the councillor would have to show
good cause why sight of them is necessary to perform their duties
(See R v. Clerk to Lancashire Police Committee ex parte
Hook [1980] Q.B. 603).
Confidentiality
A member must not
disclose information given to them in confidence nor disclose
information acquired which they believe is of a confidential nature,
unless they: a) have received the consent of a person authorised to
give it; or b) are required by law to do so.
If information is
accessed using the Freedom of Information / Environmental Information
Regulations provisions the information can be regarded as public and
the councillor may share the information with others.
If on the other
hand the councillor has accessed the information via the provisions
of the Act or the common law 'need to know' then in some cases the
information may still be confidential and the councillor bound by
confidentiality. In that case they should not publish or otherwise
disclose the information to a third party.
I am not sure why Cllr
Lowe is sending the above and highlighting the line in red: if
the councillor’s motive for seeing documents is indirect,
improper or ulterior this may be raised as a bar to their
entitlement.
I can only assume that
he and others are unhappy that I have found the council has not
followed procedures or regulations and laws once again.
Cllr Lowe has also
banned me from sending emails containing the word unlawful, this
causes a problem If I need to quote most acts.
I am told I should draw
a line and just move on, we can only move on when the council
recognises where it is wrong and makes the necessary changes.
For the period of 2015
– 2016 the clerk had delegated powers to spend up to £500
in an emergency. This
year his delegated powers have been raised to £1000 each time
I raise a issue about
the 2015 – 2016 accounts, I am told that £1000 applies to that
period when it
does not. As we were
told in training there is no such thing as an emergency at council.
And yes the red tape is
a pain but the law requires all expenditure to be agreed and approved
by full council. I would like to dispute this delegated authority
especially now it does not state emergency
I believe it has been
applied so that like in 2014 – 2015 a cllr can spend as they please
and when challenged they can respond with the clerk has delegated
powers to approve the expenditure.
The clerk was original
given £500 delegated powers after a tree fell down but since that
date
it has been used to
approve anything without going to full council and now this is
increased to £1000 I question why we actually need a Councillors?
I can provide
photocopies of the following invoices I am objecting to
Objection 1
The
following objection I raised last year to early.
Voucher
Number 33
Personnel
Advice and Solutions Ltd. £240.00
A
contract was organised by former Cllr Alf Dewis without authority or
consent of the council
this
contract was cancelled by full council once they became aware of this
unlawful conduct.
Although
the contract which cost the council was organised and agreed by Mr
Dewis he obtained
a
signature from the chairman at the time Jayne Woodcock. It is my
belief Mrs Woodcock signed
this
contract under duress.
Objection 2
Voucher
Number ???
Shoesmiths
£1,527.36
This
payment was not approved by full council, the filed paid invoice
does
not have a cheque number or any other details written on it.
No
work order
Objection 3
Voucher
Number 89
Andy
Peaple Catering Services £1051.60
This
invoice increased over 5% and is £551.60 over the clerks delegated
power
at the time the expense was paid.
Financial
regulations state if a contract quoted for is increased by more than
5%
then the contract must be returned to full council for approval
Equipment
Hire £146.00
Staffing
Cost £120.00
Extra
Juice and Coke and Glasses £35
The
additional costs add up to more than 5% of the original sum agreed by
council.
Objection 4
Voucher
97
Paul
Ford Tree Surgery £1656.00
This
invoice has one example of why the Clerk was given delegated powers
£380
+ VAT is described as emergancy tree work.
The
remainder is not and and should have been approved by full council.
There
is no work order
Objections 5 & 6
Vouchers
106 and 121
Setfords
solicitors £432.00 & £192.00
Both
these invoices relate to the same project advice given for a proposed
lease
of land from the Woodland Trust matter ref 071/11
The
council was going to obtain the lease and sublet to Brooke Hill
Academy this
fell
through when the Clerk said I had to keep a secret and the beneficiary
of a covenant
should
not know what was planned the town council asked to Woodland Trust if
the
beneficiary
found out could they walk away from any lease agreement. I blogged
this and
contacted
the Woodland Trust and they pulled out. As the full council did not
approve this expenditure and the invoices appear to have been split
to keep below the clerk £500 limited
I
do not believe the tax payer should have paid these costs perhaps
they should have been
passed
onto the Academy who were to be the sole beneficiaries of something
former Cllr Alf Dewis was attempting to gain for them.
Objections 7 and 8
Voucher
117
Plantscape
Limited £8688.00
The
local government act requires all payments over £5000 to be
presented to full council for approval.
There
was no contract in place at the time of payment 18th
June 2015
There
was no contract in place in 2014 and the clerk did that time bring
the invoice to council for approval .
The
minutes show a trial contract was agreed in 2012 for one year only.
I
asked the Clerk why he did not seek a new contract and approval from
the council and he
responded
I don't know.
This
payment has no work and does not comply with any of the councils
financial regulations
or
procedures.
The
Clerk has said at a meeting he can not remember my conversation about
this and the next
invoice,
this is nonsense I asked him to bring the invoices to council so
there was not an issue he chose to ignor my request.
Voucher
192
Plantscape
Ltd £6,960.00
The
clerk sent a email to all Councillors seeking consent to pay this
invoice, ignoring the law
that
requires all payments over £5000 to be presented to the full council
for approval.
I
have asked all members including our current Chairman Adam Lowe if
they responded
to
the Clerks email, giving him consent to pay the invoice, unlawfully
conducting council business via email. No one has responded. Cllr
Adam Lowe has told me he does not have to answer the question why I
cant say. I can say I told the clerk he should seek consent from the
full council
he
claimed the invoice would be due by the time of the next meeting I
suggested he call plantscape he ignored my request and produced a
cheque which was signed by Cllr Howard and former Cllr Mills. No work
order was produced.
Objection 9
Voucher
Number 157
The
Royal British Legion £50
The
local government act states the precept can not be spent on
supporting charities
in
this case the chairman at the time Mr Dewis purchased two tickets.
The
file contains a very strange invoice to support this expenditure and
no work order
The
invoice is a advertisement for the event.
Objection 10
Voucher
Number 146
Wickstead
£610.00
There
is no work order for this payment and it is £110 over the £500
limit given to the clerk
this
payment was not presented to full council for approval.
Objection 11
Voucher
number 161
Wallgate
£966.00
The
Clerk has entered into a renewal of a service contract without the
consent of full council
the
invoice to is £496 over his delegated authority for this period.
Objection 12
Voucher
Number 177
Streets
Accountants £420
This
invoice was for extra work not agreed by full council this increased
amount exceeds
5%
of the original agreed sum and according to the councils financial
regulations.
Objection 13
Voucher
Number 203
Redwood
Pryor £861.36
This
invoice is £361.36 above the clerks delegated authority for this
period.
I
am also concerned that this firm is meant to have conducted regular
internal audits throughout this period from the itemisation of this
invoice and another I find most the time was spent in discussion with
the Clerk, 8 hours on this one invoice.
It
is my understanding an appointed internal auditor should be impartial
and I question the need to pay so much for meetings with the clerk.
There
is no work order.
Objection 14
Voucher
number 219
Catmose
College £60
The
invoice is a letter this did not come to full council for approval.
The
local government act states no individual resident can benefit from
the
precept.
The
college named a student who would receive the £60 prize.
On
the day of the prize giving I asked what the student had received, I
was told a £15
voucher.
I
wrote to the college and asked why the student did not receive the
full £60 they responded
stating
they felt the prize was to large and gave the student the same as
others.
There
is no work order for this payment.
Objection 15
Voucher
number 234
Oakham
Town Partnership £1000
This
payment did not come to full council for the required approval.
There
is no work order.
Cllr
Adam objected to this being funded from the promotions budget which
he has some
control
over, but he signed the cheque with Cllr Stubbs.
The
invoice states the Town Partnership Ltd address as care of Oakham
Town Council
They
are not based in our office and are independent of the council.
Objection 16
Voucher
Number 268
Setford
Solicitors £575.00
This
was paid after a email request not an invoice the amount paid is
highlighted on a copy
of
the email.
The
council agreed to go ahead with engaging Setford Solicitors for
advice to recover rent due
from
a former tenant.
The
amount paid is £75 above the clerks delegated authority for this
period.
There
is no work order.
Objection 17
Voucher
10
Gary
Berridge Oakham Anglian Society £????? possibly £1000
The
amount is not recorded in the invoice file.
The
invoice is part one of the grant application which shows now figure.
The
cheque was signed by Stan Stubbs and Vince Howard
Vince
Howard declared an interest at the meeting this grant was approved
I
assume it was oversight when he signed the cheque.
Also
I object to taxpayers money being spent on £700 of fish for a
private members
Angling
Society.
There
is no work order.
Objection 18
Voucher
Number 365
ABF
Soldiers Charity
The
amount paid is not stated in the invoice file
the
invoice is the invitation.
I
think this payment has since been returned to council via another
member.
They
returned £50
The
Local government does not permit the spending of the precept
supporting charity.
It
is for the sole benefit of the taxpayer of the parish.
Objection 19
Voucher
number 96
Stamford
Town Council
No
amount paid is declared in the invoice file.
There
is a cheque number on the invite to a charity event
There
is no work order.
The
invitation makes it very clear the money received supports charities
outside the parish of Oakham.
The
Local government does not permit the spending of the precept
supporting charity.
It
is for the sole benefit of the taxpayer of the parish.
Objections 20
Voucher
numbers 23 and 70
Voucher
23
A
letter acknowledging a payment, dated 12th
April 2015
The
letter requests an outstanding amount of £19.20 for outstanding
search fees
the
council had paid on account £100 and the total amount spent on
searches was
£119.20
This
appears to be paid using cheque number 103741.
Voucher
70
On
the 27th
May 2015 the council received another letter from Setford Solicitors
requesting
the £19.20 again along with a land registry fee for £40
A
total of £59.20 was paid using cheque number 103770
The
council has paid £19.20 twice.
I
wonder why they pay anything that is just mentioned in a email or
letter
from
the firm. If they produced invoices for all their work then perhaps
these
sort of mistakes would not happen, I pointed out a larger payment
in
objection 16 which also did not have an official invoice. I have not
gone
back any further than 2015 to see if this has happened before.
Objections for
procedure failings
I wish to object to the
following payments, because from June 2015 I was told all payments
would only be made if a work order was created in accordance with the
advice received from Street Accountants. I was told there would be
no repeat of what happened in 2014 -2015 unfortunately the evidence I
have seen show this is not true.
All the payments listed
below have no work orders, the cheques were signed various
members who have not noticed that work orders are required to
give them authority to sign the cheque or authorise the electronic
payment. A Councillor who has resigned has told me he did raise this
issue
and stated he would not
sign any cheques if there were no work orders, another told me they
sign and trust, I think that shows some signatures are not carrying
out their expected responsibilities.
Some invoices are not
signed by members in some cases just one member has signed.
Payments produced by
our assistant clerk comply with all procedures and regulations
Voucher Number, Payee
and amount are listed below:
102 Smiths of Derby
£180.00
103 Millenium Computers
£12
104 Johnston Pulishing
£280.44
105 Danwood £122.41
109 AA Cleaning
£1543.20
110 Johnston Publishing
£77.22
114 Victoria Hall
£3840.00
115 Pitney Bowes
£113.68
116 Cory £2249.91
118 Johnston Publishing
£409.92
119 Millenum Computers
120 Jazzmen £300
121 Setfords Solicitors
£192.00
122 RCC £1946.00
123 Pitney Bowes
£218.84
125 Eon £9.43
131 Gates Garden Centre
£87.49
132 Melton Band £300
135 OPUS £52.59
136 Eon £20.43
137 AA Cleaning £1500
138 Clerk and Councils
£12.00
139 RCC £40.00
142 Millenium Computers
£12.00
143 Play Inspection
£354.00
144 PBS £67.70
145 Streets Accountants
£1440.00
150 Eon £34.07
153 Pitney Bowes £56.84
154 Johnston Publishing
£280.00
155 Cory £3179.31
160 Millenium Computers
£73.62
164 Caloo £35,340.00
165 Caloo £12,654.00
166 Bounce Around £500
167 Funkie Funkie
Doodles £125.00
168 SEE Electric
£282.00
170 Johnston Publishing
£357.70
171 Johnston Publishing
£203.22
172 Wrinkle Rock £500
173 Lions Club £250.00
176 PBS Office £122.38
178 Millenium Computers
£12.00
180 Talk Talk £6.64
181 AA Cleaning £1500
182 Cory £2549.91
189 Wickstead £162.00
191 Pitney Bowes
193 Eon £12.55
194 Millenium Computers
£75.24
195 LRALC £60.00
198 PHS Group £86.34
199 PHS Group £361.48
200 Victoria Hall
£3450.00
201 AA Cleaning £1,500
202 Millenium £12.00
204 Wickstead £2,420.42
205 Eon £38.73
207 UK Debt £2,754.06
211 Danwood £128.47
212 Cory £2477.91
215 Pitney Bowes
216 Eon £9.32
217 Youth Brass £400
220 Millenium Computers
£64.72
221 Pitney Bowes
223 PBS Office £67.61
226 OPUS £6.59
230 Millenium Computers
£12.00
232 AA Cleaning £1500
233 Pesonnel Solutions
£360
235 RBS Office £51.64
238 Heidi Kjeldson £110
240 Oakham Art Group
£96.00
241 Pitney Bowes £57.00
249 Millenium Computers
£75.32
250 Eon £9.72
252 Rutland Garden
Centre £91.80
253 SSE Electric
£176.09
254 OPUS Energy £124.27
256 Milenium Computers
£12.00
258 RCC £12.00
259 AA Cleaning
£1500.00
264 Cory £2.297.91
266 Johnston Press
£75.00
267 wickstead £162.00
272 Johnston Press £75
273 Pitney Bowes £57
277 Millenium Computers
278 Severn Trent Water
£19.40
280 Severn Trent Water
£587.84
286 Johnston Pubishing
£174.00
287 Eon £9.87
288 Redwood Prior
£310.68
289 Thomas Fattorini
£618.00
290 PBS Office £228.26
291 Anglian Water
£76.26
292 RCC £2000
294 RCC £500
297 AA Cleaning
299 Rutland Radio
£48.00
300 Eon £38.73
302 Millenium £12.00
306 Cory £114.00
307 Pitney Bowes
£114.00
308 Danwood £190.88
309 PHS Group £361.48
311 Millenium Computers
£60.36
312 Hungry Birds
£219.00
314 Johnston Publishing
£421.92
315 Pitney Bowes
£218.84
319 RCC £3,425.41
320 RCC £5,500
321 Lite £11,718.00
323 OPUS Energy £10.83
325 Oakham Wines £60
326 Personnel Advice
£360
327 AA Cleaning
Services £1,500
336 Pitney Bowes
£260.82
337 Victoria Hall
£337.00
