Scrutinise ‘Big Boys’

Published: 16 July, 2010

• BEING among those the Tribune rightly described as “shocked” as we listened to the long list of millions of pounds of council financial irregularities reported to the audit committee, I am more than shocked at one deliberate exclusion from the report’s work.

That is because we were all told it had been decided not to investigate any of “the Big Boys”, those large contractors responsible for usually the heaviest of bills and, unfortunately, also many workmanship complaints about which Islington Leaseholders Association receives pleas for help.  

No proper reason for that decision was given.

As I commented to the audit committee, investigating only the small suppliers will most likely only uncover the smaller value irregularities. 

Given that more than £230,000 spent on scaffolding in one project was found to be unaccountable when leaseholders took the matter to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, it is even more surprising that “the Big Boys” have not been included in the investigation.
 


Without extending the investigation to include major contractors, the inquiry is but a feather in the wind.

Doesn’t the council leave itself open to cries of discrimination from those small suppliers singled out for scrutiny? 
Thanks to the Tribune for the coverage.

Please, councillors, get the investigation properly opened and widened to cover “the Big Boys” who often give Big Bills and many big headaches.

KAY NEWSOM
Director, Islington Leaseholders Association

• THE findings of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) investigation (The millions ‘mislaid in sloppy’ admin, July 2) and the subsequent blasé reactions from the PwC spokeswoman are quite terrifying for Islington taxpayers. 

All councillors, council employees and their overpaid heads of department are ultimately responsible for “mislaying” even the smallest amounts of public budgets, let alone £5.4million.

Their remuneration is supposed to be aligned to their “qualifications”, in which case these errors should never have occurred, or at least been discovered sooner than seven months later. 

The fact that even the “overpayments” have still to be identified and corrected is a further worry, specifically because of the inadequate itemised information leaseholders manage to obtain, after numerous letters, regarding work that may have been charged two or three times or for work not done at all.

The remark by the PwC spokeswoman that “£55,000 isn’t that much money”, which  represented only 10 invoices (from 30 suppliers), might indicate that if the other 470 suppliers resulted in similar discoveries the overpayments could easily reach £1million or more.

To an auditor working for PwC, £55,000 or more might not be much but for many long-term Islington tenants these over-inflated bills have led to either increases in individual service charges or leaseholders being forced to sign up to long-term, 10-year repayment plans.

Some have unwillingly had to sell their homes in order to pay, and others have used all their savings to keep their homes (but are left with no reserves for the next round of large bills due in five to seven years’ time).

For years, the Federation of Islington Tenants’ Associations and leaseholders have been arguing over the “overcharging” that many contractors have been doing with impunity.

Yet none of the councillors and Homes for Islington board members, or the consultants, experts, surveyors, liaison officers on their payroll, was willing to take up these issues.

It was far easier to send out inaccurate invoices, followed by threatening letters, in the hope that the majority of tenants and leaseholders would pay up because they had insufficient evidence to prove their case.

With a newly elected council, it is hoped all budgets and payments will be strictly monitored to avoid any further similar situations occurring and to implement true “full transparency of itemised contractors’ invoices”, which will then be forwarded with leaseholder invoices so any errors and omissions can be found immediately. 

Of course, in the meantime the council must give assurance that full, audited checks on the other 470 suppliers will be completed immediately, so all past overcharges can be repaid without any further delays.

HELEN CAGNONI
Islington Leaseholders Association director