Local Government Ombudsman Screws Up

Arguably not strictly down to NCC this but it is in connection with an NCC benefits decision so I think it is of interest.

Ask anybody who's had contact with them and they will tell you that the Local Government Ombudsman is a bag of shit. Even within the preposterously restricted boundaries they manage to set themselves for looking into complaints against councils they have a reputation for at best toothlessness and at worst outright bias. A true 'Watchpoodle' if you will.

It also turns out they are capable of being legally incompetent. On one of my random browsing sessions I found this decision on some complaints about Housing Benefit and DHP issues.

As far as the restricted boundaries I mention above are concerned, this paragraph on the DHP aspect sums it up nicely -

"The decision was based on the merits of the case. I am satisfied the Council carried out the correct process in deciding not to award a second DHP. It is not my role to comment on the merits of the decision itself."

Essentially, the Ombudsman is saying that as long as the procedure was followed, the fact that you may have been refused a DHP because of your penchant for wearing loud shirts in built up areas is none of their business. Yeah, you try explaining that too an ordinary Joe/Josie.

However more concerning is how the Ombudsman dealt with a complaint that NCC had wrongly suspended his benefit on two occasions. It kind of relates to those boundaries again -

"I did not investigate the complaint. Mr B complained that Mr B’s housing benefit was suspended on two occasions. He had the right to appeal to the social entitlement appeal tribunal over these decisions. I consider it would have been reasonable for him to exercise that right."

Oh dear. Can I refer m'learned friend to para 5 of the schedule to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regs

"5. No appeal shall lie against a decision under Part III of these Regulations of a relevant authority relating to–

(a) suspension of a payment of benefit or of a reduction;

..."

So, the Ombudsman refused to investigate an aspect of a complaint on the grounds that the complainant had a course of redress that he didn't, in fact, have at his disposal at all. That is a fundamental legal error and is totally unacceptable.

One wonders if this position was argued by NCC or whether the Ombudsman came up with it her/himself. If the former then NCC's HB staff need to have a word with themselves too (no change there) but either way, the Ombudsman's treatment of this complaint is way below standard.

NCC Breaches Code of Practice on Publicity - Again

Ok, so I actually rather liked this breach but I suppose we have to accept sauce for the goose etc.

I did mention briefly that NCC ran its own petition against the bedroom tax earlier this year. I signed it and recommended that you did too. However it disappeared off the website rather suddenly without explanation.

Turns out the petition was referred to the council's auditors and they have now decided that it breached the code of practice for local authority publicity. Presumably it failed the 'objectivity' test.

Despite the fact that I was and am foursquare behind the campaign against the bedroom tax and would support contributions from any quarter, with our objective heads on we have to note that NCC has form on this. It seems that certain sectors of the council have still not quite taken it in that NCC and the Labour Party are not one and the same. It's fine for councillors to shout from the rooftops about the injustice of the bedroom tax and I hope they do but it seems that it's not so fine to use council resources to do so.

Please Fill In Our Survey About What We've Already Told You To Think

This is another post about NCC's attitude to street drinking, although hopefully a bit shorter.

A couple of weeks ago NCC issued a short survey on its website about street drinking. I'm not sure how long it will be up there so I'll be using screengrabs to illustrate my points below.

Here's a shot of the introductory page. As far as I'm aware this is the only route into the survey unless someone sends you a direct link (click for bigness)

And now here's the survey they want you to fill in (again, clicky)

So, question 1 asks you how much of a problem street drinkers are, right after telling you -

"People drinking on the streets can lead to antisocial behaviour and other problems in our communities...

Problems such as littering, noise and public indecency can be made worse by the disorderly conduct of those under the influence of alcohol."

Question 2 asks what problems are connected with street drinking right after... well, you get the idea.

The next questions do ask specifically what issues you've faced in your area in the last 12 months. After ticking lots of boxes what are people going to do when, on thinking about it, their only contact with street drinkers was seeing a bloke walking up the road with a tinny on, otherwise completely minding his own business?

Such a massively leading introduction is as compromising as asking blatantly leading questions in the survey itself. The result is that the results will virtually no credibility at all.

I bet you they still use it to back up the DPPO though.

Open Spaces Everywhere but Not a Spot to Drink

Disclosure; I like a drink. In fact I'm having a drink while writing this now. I went to the 'Robin Hood Beer Festival' and enjoyed heavily hopped strong ales (unfined ones only, I can out beersnob CAMRA). I drink at home, in my garden, in pubs, round friends' houses but I can't honestly remember the last time I drank in an outdoor public place. Of course, the fact that I can't remember it...

So anyway, today I'm writing about Designated Public Places Orders because NCC has embarked on the first steps of establishing one across the entire city and I don't think I like it. There already are small DPPOs in various parts of the city but, to paraphrase Niemoller, when they came for Hyson Green I did nothing. And when they came for me, I thought I'd better write a blogpost.

Oh yes, I should explain what a DPPO is. Broadly speaking, if a local authority thinks that boozy ne'er do wells are making a nuisance of themselves in a particular area, it can make an order making that area as a Designated Public Place. Once it is in place, this gives the police, PCSOs and CPOs the right to order anyone drinking alcohol in the designated area to stop doing so and to hand over any alcohol they might have with them. If you refuse either without 'reasonable excuse', you are guilty of a criminal offence. It's not the actual drinking that matters but the refusing to stop and give it up that lands you in trouble. One last thing to note is that whether a DPPO is made or not, police have separate powers to stop underage drinkers and confiscate their alcohol.

My first thought was that this would hardly be popular with nice middle class voters who like to pop down the Arboretum with a picnic and a crisp Chardonnay. But no, JoCo's introductory report explains that it's not about them -

"Any powers arising from an Order are not intended to disrupt peaceful activities, for example families or groups having a picnic and consuming alcohol in the Proposed Area, but are solely intended for use as a control measure for the consumption of alcohol in public places by those who cause anti-social behaviour..." 

So the rozzers have discretion, they can pick and choose who they march up to and demand surrender of some of their property. That's completely reasonable don't you think? I mean what could possibly go wrong? I'm sure that black people will be treated with EXACTLY the same level of discretion as they receive when our wonderful police execute their stop and search powers for example. As for CPOs...

What's also interesting, and not a little ironic, is that at the same full council meeting a motion praising 'well run' pubs as community assets, lamenting the loss of local pubs, bigging up the beer festival and local breweries and continuing the battle against the sale of 'strong alcohol' and other 'irresponsible drinking' stuff was passed.

Ok, in isolation there really isn't a word in that motion that I would disagree with but, looking at the wider picture, including DPPOs, it gives the impression of a mixed message. It also has a nasty taste of the double standards. I'll come back to this in a sec.

One of the things I slightly object to is this rather romantic notion of the great traditional British boozer. I'm sorry but it's 95% bollocks. A hell of a lot of pubs are simply meat markets, pre-fight gatherings or hopelessly garish theme parks. Let me tell you about one 'local' 'community' pub.

When I first moved into my current address I thought I'd check out the local scenery. Food shopping was the priority but as I walked round the corner, barely 300 yards from my home, I came across a pub. That's handy, I thought, an actual 'local'. On getting a bit closer, for some reason I started thinking that actually, I probably wouldn't be going in that particular pub after all. There was something about it. And I never did.

About 15 months after this a young chap had his brains blown out in the car park. Turns out this particular pub was unofficially under the control of Nottingham's favourite Robin Hoods the Gunns and somebody they didn't like overreacted to a perceived sleight. You'll have read about the consequences. The pub was called the Sporting Chance and is one of those 'neighbourhood pubs' that have closed down. In this case bulldozed and a housing estate built over it.

The point I'm trying to make here is that pubs as drinking venues aren't always great. I know the motion specifies 'well run' pubs but clearly nobody thought the Chance was badly run because it was still trading quite happily until what happened. I know for a fact it wasn't the only pub the Gunns held sway over either.

The other point is that, even after spending the evening in a 'well run' pub, you don't suddenly sober up once you walk out the door. It's not the where that matters, it's the 'how much' and the 'what sort of person are you when drunk'. Drinking in an excellent pub does not guarantee an absence of anti-social behaviour, as anybody making their way through Slab Square late at night will tell you.

As for the 'strong alcohol' objection, most of the beers I drank at the NCC sponsored beer festival were in the range of 6-7% and utterly fantastic they were too. Both Brewdog and newcomer the Ned Ludd sell beers with a strength in excess of 10%. But as these venues are the preferred destinations of the Sherwood 'Laddie Daddies' who have a lot of money to spend in the City Centre presumably none of that matters.

To bring it all back here, my view is that NCC's attitude to alcohol is that there is a right way to do it and an undesirable way. Middle class people sipping a crisp white in the park or lads after football practice quaffing craft ales in an oak beamed saloon is fine. Anything else means trouble. This distinction particularly applies if you dare to drink outside a controlled indoor environment. I believe that we are talking serious sledgehammer and nut territory here.

Is the 'undesirable way' always so bad? Just because you happen to be a group of young people in the park, maybe playing frisbee or something and *horrors* audibly enjoying yourselves, does that justify the CPO marching over and nicking all your booze? Everywhere in the city? Cos I bet that's what will happen. And from the opposite viewpoint, what about the family with the picnic, is normalising drinking in front of young children always ok? Why are they apparently exempt?

I cannot help suspecting that those who fall foul of DPPO orders will be of certain social, maybe racial groups. There appears to be no checks or balances on the police or CPO use of discretion beyond the 'reasonable excuse' proviso, which none of the NCC documents seem to mention. And you will be faced with the option of a fixed penalty notice or going before those noted liberals the Magistrates Court to argue that, although you were just quietly reading a book in the park with a bottle of Strongbow, the fact that you were bothering nobody is a 'reasonable excuse' not to hand over some of your property to the police. If you don't convince them you get an even bigger fine. Best of luck if you do find yourself in this position.

Like I say, sledgehammer and nut, like pretty much all of the 'Anti-Social Behaviour' agenda. This is especially true of the 'whole city' aspect of the plans. Interestingly, the main justification for the citywide thing is -

"Unless the powers are adopted across the whole city, there is a high likelihood the problems experienced will continue and are likely to continue to be pushed from areas covered by a DPPO into neighbouring areas across the City..."

What do you think neighbouring local authorities think about the possibility of displacement of city drinkers to their areas? Presumably they will be 'consulted'.

It's not good enough is it? I'm open to the idea that DPPOs are potentially a good idea in some local areas, mostly temporarily. as one of the tools to deal with a particular problem. But setting one up across the entire city smacks of a more authoritarian agenda, one where NCC cannot be bothered to deal with difficult problems so picks an easy solution off the shelf. They need to stop doing that.

Like A Bad Penny...

If we thought we'd heard the last of Hassan Ahmed, whilst snooping around the interwebs I found out that he has now been appointed a Director of the Renewal Trust.

The Renewal Trust is a charity with the purpose of carrying out good works in St Anns and Sneinton. However, its board includes three senior City Councillors including JoCo (inevitably) and Jane Todd also appears to be involved.

One of the things it does is run a couple of business centres, one of which, the John Folman Business Centre, houses the Nottingham Labour Party. Cllr Toby Neal, Labour's Chief Whip at NCC, also appears to work there as a part-time administrator.

Cosy then. The gang's all here.

Let's make no bones about this, Ahmed is dodgy*. And as Cllrs Collins, Williams and Mellen, not to mention Jane Todd, were all in front seat positions to see what was going on you have to wonder what the hell they are doing appointing him to the board of a registered charity.

*After I wrote that article, CEHRNN did in fact close down and the District Auditor recommended that Ahmed should be referred to NCC's Standards Committee for the second time for his games with the Future Jobs Fund. That seems to have died a death though.

Canning Circus Creative Hub; The Next Radford Unity Complex?

Stumbled across a petition asking for support for the Canning Circus Creative Hub the other day, I'd recommend that you sign it.

The Hub is, in its own words

'... a hub for creative individuals and organisations, taking our name from the area of Nottingham in which we are based.

We are a collective of creative companies who work together to share resources and ideas. We represent a shared movement, intended to promote, inspire and create work we’re all proud to put our name to.'

They are based in buildings on Wollaton St which they rent from the City Council. The regular readers of this blog may already be able to guess the way this is going.

Yes, despite happily toiling away for nigh on 30 years, the council has asked them to leave. They have a press release which gives some background. As yet, NCC has just asked them to 'leave quietly' as opposed to serving a formal notice quit.

I've been in contact with a couple of people based at the Hub. Their feeling is that the situation has arisen due the City Council's failure to maintain the range of buildings it owns on Wollaton St, of which the Hub is only part, leaving them on the verge of being condemned. They have an 'amusing' story of NCC contractors bungling the fitting of fire doors so badly they had to redo it themselves. Redevelopment is clearly on the agenda, almost certainly via the private sector, but the Hub's residents were apparently the last to be told.

Broadly speaking, the businesses at the Hub are very happy with how things are going as they are. None of them are interested in expanding and none of them want to move, particularly if it means being dispersed around the City. None of them receive any grant funding. The impression I get is that the Hub is more than just the sum of its parts but is very much an interdependent community. Such things are hard to translate into cold business language and, as such, tends to get ignored.

As a backdrop to this we have the Radford Unity Complex debacle where NCC wasted gobs of cash trying to hand the building for a cut-price to an arts organisation called Nottingham Studios, completely disregarding the needs, not to mention the legal tenancy rights, of the community groups who were already using it. When that fell apart NS were handed another set of buildings to become 'Primary', ironically just round the corner on Seely Rd. We also have the planned 'Creative Quarter' in the Lace Market, whose 'ambassador' has apparently cited CCCH as a major inspiration.

Unfortunately, the CQ doesn't reach as far as Canning Circus so CCCH cannot access any of the mountain of funding from the City Deal if they want to stay where they are. Some of the residents have looked into relocating to the CQ but feel the properties on offer aren't suitable. And of course, everyone wants to keep their artistic community together which may not be possible if they do move.

As sort of an aside, CQ has launched a loan scheme to assist companies with the costs of relocating there. Now CQ is a separate body to NCC but they are clearly working closely together. Seasoned council watchers therefore may not be over surprised that the company who got the gig managing the loan scheme is First Enterprise, one of whose directors is one of NCCLols' very old friends, former councillor Hassan Ahmed. They were also mentioned as benefiting from the dodgy Future Jobs Fund allocations that Ahmed presided over. So I'm sure that's all completely above board then.

So, with all this past and future money flying around it seems somewhat unfair that at the first sign of panic about the state of their building, NCC's first reaction is to ask them to leave. Since then Cllr Nick McDonald has been quoted in the Post saying that 'no decisions have been made'. However that isn't really very reassuring because, technically speaking, 'no decisions had been made' when Nottingham Studios were invited to buy the RUC building from under the feet of its tenants. At least CCCH seems to have got a bit more warning than the RUC groups did.

We'll be watching this one closely.

Not Quite a 'No-Evictions' Policy

According to 'Inside Housing' magazine, Nottingham City Homes and a number of Housing Associations have come up with a protocol for dealing with people subjected to the Bedroom Tax. The only provider to announce themselves so far is Asra HA but there is no extra information provided.

It should be emphasised that this is not a 'no-evictions' policy so it falls way short of what campaigners are asking for. Instead, it is intended to set up an agreement with the tenant and the landlord whereby, as long as the tenant is engaging with debt advice agencies and has applied for a Discretionary Housing Payment eviction proceedings will not go ahead. The fact that there will be renewed impetus for tenants to apply for DHPs is a plus at least. Mind you a side effect will probably that those in private renting will be told to go and whistle but, hey, nothing new there.


It's a start but there are still many gaps to fall through. Unfortunately, debt advisers cannot actually perform miracles. Most of the effectiveness of debt advice is identifying debts which are lower priority than the rent, e.g. non-secured loans, catalogues and the like and negotiating lower repayments freeing up cash to go on the rent. However, if you haven't got other debts then opportunities for freeing up income are limited. If a single person under 25 on Jobseekers' has to find £10/wk bedroom tax you're only going to have £46/wk left to live on. That's what's known as a challenge.

And to an old cynic like me who's been to countless meetings and watched agreement after protocol fall by the wayside it is difficult to raise too much hope. People will still be unreasonably refused DHPs, there will be issues of awareness among housing staff and of course, there will be people who are simply unable to find the money. But, as I say, it's a start.

Of course, what we need is for Labour to make a firm commitment to repeal the bedroom tax. This will give campaigners a stronger bast to argue for a true non-evictions policy as any pain will only be temporary. As yet, Labour is shying away from promising anything. The fact that Labour NCC is refusing to entertain the possibility of no evictions may suggest they have inside knowledge of what the party's plans are in this area.

Curse of NCCLOLs?

Just found this little web snippett.

It concerns someone called Helen Spencer who used to be Director of Customer Services for Nottingham City Council. She was the Director of the service area that included Housing Benefits and Welfare Rights when I was working there and when I resigned.

She was the one who heard my complaint against Lisa 'Lying Fat Arse' Black. She said that Lisa's decisions that I had 'harassed' people were 'well reasoned'. As such she whitewashed over the gaping cracks and made it impossible for me to return to work.

Funnily enough, at my Employment Tribunal, witness after witness were falling over themselves to deny that Black's decisions that I had harrassed people meant that I had actually, you know, harassed people. 'Well reasoned' eh Helen?

Anyway, the above web snippett appears to be Helen Spencer telling the world that NCC had made her redundant. It's dated 8 December 2009, which is about 2 weeks after my Employment Tribunal had ended. The very same Tribunal where Spencer had cheerily defended her and NCC's actions as being beyond reproach.

I wonder how she felt about that when they told her? Maybe she wondered when the decision had been made? Maybe the decision had been made some weeks before but NCC had delayed informing her in case it affected her performance at my Tribunal?

You have to say, schadenfreude doesn't get any tougher than this *stifles giggles*.

So, of the people who fucked me over a significant number of people have lost their jobs, some under a bit of a cloud. Two of the people who made false complaints about me were sacked for gross misconduct, Michael Williams, the Corporate Director at the time retired and was subsequently seriously criticised in the District Auditor's report into the Future Jobs Fund fiasco. And now poor old Helen, only days after she tried to sell me down the river at my Tribunal hearing.

Who's next for the Curse of NCCLOLs?

One Nottingham And Its Voluntary Sector Representatives

While we're on the subject of One Nottingham (see previous post wrt workfare issues) I thought we might have a look at the categories of voluntary sector reps that serve on its board because it's a bit odd.

As mentioned previously the board has a 'faith' representative, a BME representative and a 'general' representative.

Personally I think this is a bit odd. I absolutely agree that an organisation such as One Nottingham should have at least one board member representing BME communities but why is this only as part of the voluntary sector? Don't black people work in banks too?

I also wonder about whether a faiths representative is justified. Yes, I know the majority of people in Nottingham identify with a religion but I suspect only a tiny number of the 44% of Nottingham people identifying as Christian actually bother turning up of a Sunday. I'm sure levels of devotion in other religions is much higher but I suspect there's a lot of overlap between BME and non-Christian faith issues. Maybe combine the two?

That said, a sound justification for having a 'faith' representative is that, like race, it is one of the protected characteristics in discrimination law. However, that opens several worm-cans as One Nottingham appears to have no representation for the other major categories of women (yes, I know it's actually 'sex' but it's generally women who face the discrimination side of things), disability, older/younger people and LGBT communities, other than via the 'general' VCS rep. It's this that concerns me the most and I have no idea what the justification is. Please feel free to write in if you do.

It seems to me that a better way of doing things would be to have board reps representing the above sections of the community, based around the protected characteristics rather than on a particular service sector. Don't get me wrong, a voluntary sector rep is still justified as they are important service providers in the city. However I think it's wrong to assume that the interests of that particular business sector are necessarily the same as the people they serve.

What got me thinking about this is the current elections to the VCS reps on the ON board. While looking into this an aspect of the organisation of the vote for the BME rep concerned me a little and that is the involvement of Nottingham Equal;-

"The BME candidates will be elected by an electorate who have been notified to ON primarily (but not only) by Nottingham Equal."

Why does Nottingham Equal play such an important role? I've written quite a lot about this bunch in the past, largely due to its connections with two of Nottingham's dodgier characters, Hassan Ahmed and Tyron Browne, as well as the coincidental rise of this organisation concurrent with the demise of the former Racial Equality Council, more recently the Council for Equalities and Human Rights Nottm and Notts, which had Ahmed's fingerprints all over it. Browne is, of course still involved with NE. He is/was also involved with PATRA which did quite nicely out of the Future Jobs Fund (Prop. Hassan Ahmed).

I seem to remember that NE 'facillitated' the VCS BME rep election where the Chief Exec of CEHRNN was voted out of the role back in 2010 which left a bad taste in the mouth. Now they appear to effectively be the gatekeeper for the BME rep this time round.

With this latter point in mind it seems quite astonishing that one of NE's own board members, Prof Cecille Wright, is running for the BME rep post on the ON board. Have they never heard the phrase 'perceived conflict of interest'? Prof Wright is also a board member for PATRA too which is quite a coincidence.

So Nottingham Equal seems to have the entire BME sector in Nottingham in lockdown, quite an achievement for an organisation little more than three years old. How much of this is down to Browne's influence cannot be quantified but it's certainly true that NCC, and thus One Nottingham, have a very big motivation to keep him on side. After all, nobody knows better where the housing allocations scandal bodies are buried.