This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/davehillblog/2013/feb/18/earls-court-project-deloitte-investigation-hammersmith-and-fulham-council
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Earls Court: the Deloitte detective mystery | Earls Court: the Deloitte detective mystery |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Last Thursday, Conservative Hammersmith and Fulham councillors decided there is no need to further probe claims that people working for the borough made improper, possibly illegal, promises to residents of two housing estates it wants to sell off and see knocked down. Were they right? | Last Thursday, Conservative Hammersmith and Fulham councillors decided there is no need to further probe claims that people working for the borough made improper, possibly illegal, promises to residents of two housing estates it wants to sell off and see knocked down. Were they right? |
| The decision was based on the findings of an investigation by Deloitte, commissioned by Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) chief executive Derek Myers. This followed a dossier being handed to the police last September containing material which sought to substantiate claims that some residents of the two estates - the West Kensington and the adjoining Gibbs Green - have been told they'd receive priority allocation of new homes in nearby Seagrave Road - the site of the first new homes that will be built to replace the ones they presently live in - if they backed the inclusion of the estates in the wider Earls Court redevelopment project, effectively endorsing their demolition. | The decision was based on the findings of an investigation by Deloitte, commissioned by Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) chief executive Derek Myers. This followed a dossier being handed to the police last September containing material which sought to substantiate claims that some residents of the two estates - the West Kensington and the adjoining Gibbs Green - have been told they'd receive priority allocation of new homes in nearby Seagrave Road - the site of the first new homes that will be built to replace the ones they presently live in - if they backed the inclusion of the estates in the wider Earls Court redevelopment project, effectively endorsing their demolition. |
| The dossier, which remains on the Met's desk, details claims, also separately made by Labour group leader Stephen Cowan, that an "early movers list" (or "VIP list") of tenants to be given preferential treatment exists. But in his report to the relevant committee, Myers wrote: | The dossier, which remains on the Met's desk, details claims, also separately made by Labour group leader Stephen Cowan, that an "early movers list" (or "VIP list") of tenants to be given preferential treatment exists. But in his report to the relevant committee, Myers wrote: |
| Deloitte have not identified any evidence to support the allegation of the existence of an Early Movers List, VIP list or priority listing by any other name. | Deloitte have not identified any evidence to support the allegation of the existence of an Early Movers List, VIP list or priority listing by any other name. |
| He recommended that councillors recognise Deloitte's work as "sufficient," and that "there is no case for further inquiries at public expense." The committee's four Tory councillors agreed - its two Labour members did not - and the council issued a press release headlined, "no evidence of Earls Court early movers list." | He recommended that councillors recognise Deloitte's work as "sufficient," and that "there is no case for further inquiries at public expense." The committee's four Tory councillors agreed - its two Labour members did not - and the council issued a press release headlined, "no evidence of Earls Court early movers list." |
| To me, this looks premature. The Deloitte report, which can be read in redacted form from page eight here, directly below Myers's interpretation of its findings, explores some very interesting material. | To me, this looks premature. The Deloitte report, which can be read in redacted form from page eight here, directly below Myers's interpretation of its findings, explores some very interesting material. |
| The investigators interviewed a number of people, several of whom I can identify despite their names or initials being blanked out. They include a past and a present member of the steering group of residents set up and funded by the council after the two estates' tenants and residents associations came out against the scheme, and four now former officials of the council who were closely involved with the steering group and with the formal consultation of residents. The investigators also give close consideration to three sets of residents' names that came to their attention. | The investigators interviewed a number of people, several of whom I can identify despite their names or initials being blanked out. They include a past and a present member of the steering group of residents set up and funded by the council after the two estates' tenants and residents associations came out against the scheme, and four now former officials of the council who were closely involved with the steering group and with the formal consultation of residents. The investigators also give close consideration to three sets of residents' names that came to their attention. |
| One set comprises, in the report's words (paragraph 4.2a), "Handwritten notes...setting out the names of approximately 40 individuals said to be residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates." This was compiled by a steering group member. The notes, which record addresses as well as names, is headed "Tenants who wish to move to Seagrave Rd site if development goes ahead" (5.15). | One set comprises, in the report's words (paragraph 4.2a), "Handwritten notes...setting out the names of approximately 40 individuals said to be residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates." This was compiled by a steering group member. The notes, which record addresses as well as names, is headed "Tenants who wish to move to Seagrave Rd site if development goes ahead" (5.15). |
| A second set of names is gathered on "an Access database held by the Council which records a tick in a field marked 'Seagrave Road' against 38 individuals said to be residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates" (4.2b). The Deloitte investigators write that, "We were informed...that this [field] was updated largely on the basis of [the] handwritten notes..." (5.20). | A second set of names is gathered on "an Access database held by the Council which records a tick in a field marked 'Seagrave Road' against 38 individuals said to be residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates" (4.2b). The Deloitte investigators write that, "We were informed...that this [field] was updated largely on the basis of [the] handwritten notes..." (5.20). |
| The third set of names is the steering group e-mailing list of - at the time the investigators looked at it - 83 addresses of estate residents. The steering group itself, remember, was co-operating with the plans of the council and developer Capco for the estates to be demolished and "regenerated" in the form of new, replacement homes within the wider Earls Court project area. | The third set of names is the steering group e-mailing list of - at the time the investigators looked at it - 83 addresses of estate residents. The steering group itself, remember, was co-operating with the plans of the council and developer Capco for the estates to be demolished and "regenerated" in the form of new, replacement homes within the wider Earls Court project area. |
| The Deloitte team looked at overlap between the sets of names. They found that 29 of 40 in the handwritten notes were also among the 38 names with a Seagrave Road tick next to their names on the council's Access database (5.2). They discovered that 25 of that 38 had expressed support for the estates' inclusion in the wider Earls Court project area - i.e their demolition - when responding to the council's consultation (4.4f). They found that 37 of of the 83 names on the steering group e-mailing list had done the same (4.4h). | The Deloitte team looked at overlap between the sets of names. They found that 29 of 40 in the handwritten notes were also among the 38 names with a Seagrave Road tick next to their names on the council's Access database (5.2). They discovered that 25 of that 38 had expressed support for the estates' inclusion in the wider Earls Court project area - i.e their demolition - when responding to the council's consultation (4.4f). They found that 37 of of the 83 names on the steering group e-mailing list had done the same (4.4h). |
| But though noting a claim that about half the names on the e-mailing list were actually members of the tenants and residents' associations', which remain firmly opposing the estates' demolition, the investigators consider that the handwritten notes and names on the council database along with other evidence they gathered are "broadly consistent" with explanations they were given that the notes and database were compiled only in order to record expressions of interest in moving to Seagrave Road, and that no promises that they actually would move there were made. | But though noting a claim that about half the names on the e-mailing list were actually members of the tenants and residents' associations', which remain firmly opposing the estates' demolition, the investigators consider that the handwritten notes and names on the council database along with other evidence they gathered are "broadly consistent" with explanations they were given that the notes and database were compiled only in order to record expressions of interest in moving to Seagrave Road, and that no promises that they actually would move there were made. |
| Deloitte's overall conclusion (4.1) is as follows: | Deloitte's overall conclusion (4.1) is as follows: |
Based on the work we have undertaken, we have not identified any evidence to support the allegation of the existence of an Early Movers List ("EML"), VIP list, or priority listing by any other name. However, we acknowledge that, based on the interviews conducted, there may have been a perception that one existed and that more could have been done to dispel this. | Based on the work we have undertaken, we have not identified any evidence to support the allegation of the existence of an Early Movers List ("EML"), VIP list, or priority listing by any other name. However, we acknowledge that, based on the interviews conducted, there may have been a perception that one existed and that more could have been done to dispel this. |
| On the basis of the report those four Tory councillors have declared the matter closed, in line with Myers's recommendation. It seems to me, however, that the report raises at least as many questions as it scope allows it to answer - questions that matter a great deal. How, for example, might the "perception" that an early movers or VIP list existed have arisen? If residents expressed backing for the scheme because of a mistaken belief that doing so would secure their inclusion on such a list, who was responsible for such a belief being formed? Any resident labouring under such a misapprehension deserves an explanation at the very least. | On the basis of the report those four Tory councillors have declared the matter closed, in line with Myers's recommendation. It seems to me, however, that the report raises at least as many questions as it scope allows it to answer - questions that matter a great deal. How, for example, might the "perception" that an early movers or VIP list existed have arisen? If residents expressed backing for the scheme because of a mistaken belief that doing so would secure their inclusion on such a list, who was responsible for such a belief being formed? Any resident labouring under such a misapprehension deserves an explanation at the very least. |
| The Deloitte team says it's found no evidence supporting claims that an early movers or VIP list exists, "based on the work we have undertaken." But what about the work it didn't undertake yet might have had the council asked it to continue? What further evidence might have been unearthed relating to the existence or otherwise of any early movers or VIP list and, indeed, the possibly damaging perception, mistaken or otherwise, of its existence? | The Deloitte team says it's found no evidence supporting claims that an early movers or VIP list exists, "based on the work we have undertaken." But what about the work it didn't undertake yet might have had the council asked it to continue? What further evidence might have been unearthed relating to the existence or otherwise of any early movers or VIP list and, indeed, the possibly damaging perception, mistaken or otherwise, of its existence? |
| Perhaps such further work could have included finding out exactly why the council did rather little to publicly challenge that an EML or VIP list existed (5.62). Or why a presentation slide shown at a steering group meeting on 12 January 2012 to discuss arrangements for moving residents out of the estates - an account of which I published last year - included as a criteria "accommodate those who have expressed an interest in Seagrave Road" (4.6). The Deloitte investigators write that these words "could be taken, at face value," as suggesting a "commitment to an EML." So who wrote the words for this slide and why? What purpose does that person consider those words to have served? | Perhaps such further work could have included finding out exactly why the council did rather little to publicly challenge that an EML or VIP list existed (5.62). Or why a presentation slide shown at a steering group meeting on 12 January 2012 to discuss arrangements for moving residents out of the estates - an account of which I published last year - included as a criteria "accommodate those who have expressed an interest in Seagrave Road" (4.6). The Deloitte investigators write that these words "could be taken, at face value," as suggesting a "commitment to an EML." So who wrote the words for this slide and why? What purpose does that person consider those words to have served? |
| Labour councillors have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the report. Stephen Cowan has damned it as "predictable," and "inconsistent and inadequate," characterised by "Inspector Clouseau-style ineptness," but also raising "more sinister concerns," which he intends to pursue. "Sadly, I believe Deloitte's approach has done little more than add a gloss to the whitewash the council appears to have been engaged in." One of Labour councillors on the committee that considered the report has raised some specific concerns, such as why emails within the housing department weren't looked at, and why the non-existence of minutes of relevant meetings wasn't thought suspicious. | Labour councillors have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the report. Stephen Cowan has damned it as "predictable," and "inconsistent and inadequate," characterised by "Inspector Clouseau-style ineptness," but also raising "more sinister concerns," which he intends to pursue. "Sadly, I believe Deloitte's approach has done little more than add a gloss to the whitewash the council appears to have been engaged in." One of Labour councillors on the committee that considered the report has raised some specific concerns, such as why emails within the housing department weren't looked at, and why the non-existence of minutes of relevant meetings wasn't thought suspicious. |
| Other opponents of the council's plans look on the report more favourably, though. In their eyes, despite its main conclusions, it provides ample grounds for the council to have asked Deloitte to undertake a second phase of work. The report itself addresses this possibility on its final page (page 37), and in doing so makes a point that I find mildly puzzling. | Other opponents of the council's plans look on the report more favourably, though. In their eyes, despite its main conclusions, it provides ample grounds for the council to have asked Deloitte to undertake a second phase of work. The report itself addresses this possibility on its final page (page 37), and in doing so makes a point that I find mildly puzzling. |
| It says that a "key determinant" in any progression to a phase two would be being given the names and contact details of the residents whose anonymous statements about their experiences appear in the dossier that led to the inquiry being commissioned in the first place. "In the event that these are not forthcoming, any further work may be deemed unnecessary," says the report. Then it says that if these details were provided, "Phase 2 will include seeking to interview these individuals." It adds: "In addition, consideration will be given to whether other residents are approached." | It says that a "key determinant" in any progression to a phase two would be being given the names and contact details of the residents whose anonymous statements about their experiences appear in the dossier that led to the inquiry being commissioned in the first place. "In the event that these are not forthcoming, any further work may be deemed unnecessary," says the report. Then it says that if these details were provided, "Phase 2 will include seeking to interview these individuals." It adds: "In addition, consideration will be given to whether other residents are approached." |
| Why would the identities of those residents whose accounts appear in the dossier need to be revealed in order for Deloitte to probe more deeply into this affair? What about names and details that the Deloitte investigators already know? Were any of the 40 tenants who appear in the handwritten notes, the 38 on the council database with a Seagrave Road tick - in particular the 25 of them who supported the council's plans in the consultation - promised priority access to new homes in Seagrave Road, or left with that perception? If so, do they believe they promised it in return for expressing support for the estates being included in the Earls Court project area, whether in their responses to the consultation or in any other way? If any of those residents believe they were made such promises, who was responsible for that and why did they do it? | Why would the identities of those residents whose accounts appear in the dossier need to be revealed in order for Deloitte to probe more deeply into this affair? What about names and details that the Deloitte investigators already know? Were any of the 40 tenants who appear in the handwritten notes, the 38 on the council database with a Seagrave Road tick - in particular the 25 of them who supported the council's plans in the consultation - promised priority access to new homes in Seagrave Road, or left with that perception? If so, do they believe they promised it in return for expressing support for the estates being included in the Earls Court project area, whether in their responses to the consultation or in any other way? If any of those residents believe they were made such promises, who was responsible for that and why did they do it? |
| These question, it seems to me, lead naturally to another one - a question so bellowingly obvious I feel obliged to abandon the temperate tone of this article so far and reach for some loud capital letters. | These question, it seems to me, lead naturally to another one - a question so bellowingly obvious I feel obliged to abandon the temperate tone of this article so far and reach for some loud capital letters. |
| WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE GO AND ASK THEM? | WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE GO AND ASK THEM? |
| Hammersmith and Fulham's chief executive and those Tory councillors on the audit, pensions and standards committee have decided that Deloitte won't be given the option of doing this. Maybe someone else will take on the job. |