One of the items LCW obtained from Harrow Council  under Freedom of Information in June 2006 was a set of minutes of a "High Level Review Meeting" between the council and LC on 12.5.05. The minutes show the meeting  lasted 90 minutes and it was attended by Cllr Bill Stephenson, Anna Robinson, (Director of Strategy Urban Living), Clifton Jackson, (Council Sports Strategy and Partnership Manager), Jo Nash (LC London Regional Director), Christine Coppack (LC London Regional Operations Manager) and Andy Smithard (an LC Manager). 

In March of 2005 the Audit Commission had inspected leisure and culture services in Harrow. Item 2 of the High Level minutes referring to this inspection reads:

Developing an effective partnership and relationship

An e-mail received form the Cultural Inspection Auditors was distributed regarding the performance of the Users Focus Group and Leisure Connection Staff Meeting. The Auditors were shocked at the feedback received at the interviews and decided to take a view that this was not fair and un biased (sic) representation and to disregard the all comments made. " (sic) 

The Auditors concluded that the partnership/relationship is not being realised to it is (sic) full potential.

The Council is concerned about how Leisure Connection communicates and consults, particularly with customers on pricing changes, complaints and general improvement in customer service.

If the Audit Commission had behaved in the way the minutes suggest, this would raise questions about the impartiality of the inspection. I therefore made on 20.6.06 an FOI request  to the Audit Commission via their website. 

The Audit Commission replied on 14.7.06. They sent the output of the two focus groups and an email sent to Harrow Council on March 9th, referring to the two focus groups and summarising the data. The full letter, staff and user focus group summaries and email can be seen below. The email, which appears to be the one referred to in the minutes, contradicts the description in the minutes. It makes no comment on the focus group output but merely summarises it. In the email for users output there are two positive bullet points and three negative and for staff there are three of each. There is nothing in the email that suggests auditors were shocked or found the feedback unbiased or not representative. Nowhere does it say that the information will be discounted. 

Given the bizarre discrepancies I sent an email to the Audit Commission seeking further information. The reply was not very helpful. I was told that I had the relevant documents and as the Audit Commission had no others it was "not in a position to be able to confirm or deny the claim in the minutes."

Until this inconsistency is cleared up, which one would hope is feasible if LC, Harrow Council and the Audit Commission honestly put their heads together, the public have reason to feel uneasy about  the independence and fairness of the Audit Commission, at least in Harrow.  It is puzzling that, at least publicly, the Audit Commission has done nothing to require Harrow Council and LC to explain minutes that portray the Commission in a very unfavourable way.  PB

FOI Request to the Audit Commission made 20.6.06

Re: Harrow Cultural Inspection July 2005

 I have obtained a copy of the minutes of the "High Level Review Meeting between London Borough of Harrow and Leisure Connection" held on 12 May 2005. These refer to an email from the Cultural Inspection Auditors "...regarding the performance of the Users Focus Group and Leisure Connection Staff Meeting. The auditors were shocked at the feedback received at the interviews and decided to take a view that this was not a fair and un-biased representation and to disregard all the comments made." I am making a Freedom Of Information request for the email referred to and the records of the meetings with the Users Focus Group and Leisure Connection Staff. If there are any records of the rationale used by the Auditors for not using the views, I also wish to see these. I have no objection to names or other possible identifying details being amended to preserve anonymity.

 Audit Commission Letter 14.7.06

Email from Audit Commission to Harrow Council 9.3.06

From:  Name deleted by Audit Commission       To: Name deleted

Date:     Wed, Mar 9, 2005 7:04 am       Subject:       Feedback from Sport & Leisure Focus Groups

 Dear  Name deleted 

As promised yesterday, here is some brief feedback from the two sessions held yesterday. Please could I ask that this remains confidential for now. 

Users 

They certainly had a lot to say

Most of the discussion was about Harrow Leisure Centre

Happy with most aspects of the facility

Unhappy with sports development provision by Council

Very unhappy with lack of dialogue from and with the Council

Very, very unhappy at decision to stop the plans for indoor leisure centre / seems as if a lot of work has gone into this and the LTA are fully signed up / a lot of frustration here

 Not convinced as to worth of Cultural Strategy Forum

Some not even aware of who to speak to in the Council re sports issues

See a lot of potential in further developing Harrow Leisure Centre and Bannister site

 Lot of support for plans for new 50 metre pool

Unhappy with Council’s approach to strategy formulation / not inclusive

 Seem happy on most things with Leisure Connections

 Operational Staff

Very positive overall

Proud of Harrow Leisure Centre and its popularity

Feel that could provide more on the site if allowed to expand

Feel restricted by lack of other facilities / quality, age also a problem at Hatch End

Feel that sports development provision is disjointed and would prefer to take this over

Feel that contract is restrictive

Programming is an issue that needs looking at re balance between club and casual use 

Hope this is of use.

Notes of User Focus Group 8.3.06   ~ Harrow Sport and Leisure Service Users

S trengths  

         Excellent range of facilities in Harrow Leisure Centre.

         Great location.

         Great transport links.

         Ability to hold major events — e.g. National Trampolining Championship.

         Leisure Connection have been innovators.

         Clubs are not even advertised, but take-up rates are huge.

         There are waiting lists for club membership.

         Ethnic minority participation in certain clubs in high.

         Good club links with independent schools (e.g. swimming and badminton).

         Leisure Connection communicate well with users.

         Harrow Arts Centre is good — very popular and in a central location.

         Good service provided by libraries.

  Weaknesses

           Only one main centre in Harrow.

         Growing demand for club sports which can’t be satisfied.

Badminton: price is a hindrance to expanding participation. It is recognised that Leisure Connection need to    maximise income  so priority is given to adults in evenings (peak times). There are no sports development targets set by the Council to redress this.

         Cost of school use is also prohibitive for badminton (caretakers paid time and a half).

         Leisure Centre is not used to its maximum potential. It could be a centre of excellence but it isn’t at the moment.

         Trampolining not conducive to income generation. The contractor can make more money from using it for other things.

         Getting sufficient space and time in the facility programme is difficult.

 Issues around maintenance of equipment — the facility is losing money as a result — equipment not being cared for    adequately. This              is linked to staff turnover and training issues.

         Don’t need such extensive car parking.

         Council doesn’t engage with users at all at the ground level.

         Not everyone has heard of the Cultural Strategy Forum.

         Cultural Strategy Forum = all nice words, but no action.

         The Council uses external people to write strategies — e.g. tennis strategy — rather than consulting with local people.

         Council don’t develop what they have.

         Sports development is embarrassing.

         Council is too top-heavy and bureaucratic.

         There is a feeling that the results of previous inspections have not really been addressed or owned.

         “We don’t know what the Council does; they don’t tell us.”

         Lack of awareness of contacts within the Council.

         High staff turnover in Leisure Connections = lack of stability and lack of succession planning.

         Swimming club hold galas in neighbouring Ealing, as it is cheaper. (Ealing is also run by Leisure Connection).

         Income share contract allows the Council to exercise pricing control.

         No youth centre provision.  

         Stakeholders not convinced around skills and expertise of council staff and capacity to deliver

Other Issues

  Harrow Leisure Centre could be a centre of excellence for many sports (e.g. plans for 50m pool — yet to be submitted to Council)

 Indoor tennis centre — seven years’ work has gone into this. One of LTA’s top four priorities with £750k committed by them. £0.5m committed by Leisure Connection. 2,000 people petitioned in support. There is lots of potential here, particularly around breaking down traditional cultural barriers (only white people play tennis). Council put in a £5m project which has been thrown out. It could, however, be done much cheaper (e.g. bubble roofs I lightweight structures). Council didn’t see strategic local need for this, but LTA did. Council have no idea how to manage projects like this —didn’t ask for Leisure Connection’s input, even though they have significant expertise. Strategic Leisure didn’t speak to LTA about strategic need when there clearly is one, e.g. contribution to shared priorities (obesity, lifelong learning and so on). The Council and all parties involved need to work together to develop a low-cost solution. LTA are getting very frustrated. The Council could lose £1 .25m investment if swift action is not taken.

       Council missing massive opportunity for development of Harrow Leisure Centre.

 

       There is a fear that housing needs will use up all vacant land.

 

       Popularity is based on word of mouth.

 

       Other Councils appear to be more pro-active re sports development, e.g. a lot more interaction with clubs.

 

       There is a lot of potential for developing latent land at Bannister.

 

       Politicians shouldn’t be in charge of strategy, as they have too many vested interests.

 

       Council are not strategic — distracted by forthcoming election.

 

        Overall frustration that there is so much potential here but no focus of activity.

         Council missing massive opportunity for development of Harrow Leisure Centre.

         There is a fear that housing needs will use up all vacant land.

         Popularity is based on word of mouth.

         Other Councils appear to be more pro-active re sports development, e.g. a lot more interaction with clubs.

         There is a lot of potential for developing latent land at Bannister.

         Politicians shouldn’t be in charge of strategy, as they have too many vested interests.

         Council are not strategic — distracted by forthcoming election.

         Overall frustration that there is so much potential here but no focus of activity.

Notes of LC Staff Focus Group 8.3.06 ~  Harrow Sport and Leisure Operational  Staff

Strengths

           Wide variety of sports catered for / not many other centres provide as much

         Facility is very popular

         Cater for all age ranges (e.g. Youth group I OAP bingo / crèche)

         Also cater for special needs groups

         Unique to the area! attract people from elsewhere / 15-20 minutes drive

         Good bus and train links / easy to get to from central London

         All schools in borough use HLC as don’t have own facilities

         Hatch End Pool also provide additional club use and school sessions / programmes are complementary to HLC

  Weaknesses 

         Not enough room to cater for all needs

         Signage is poor

         No facility in south of borough I council needs to make a strategic decision re how to tackle this

         Can’t do ladies only sessions in pooi as overlooked by gym and café

 Some issues re maintenance I looking at contract variation to allow LCX to take this over / Council currently do the repairs but are often slow to do so

Sports development work is disjointed I needs a clear focus I should base more work at HLC I LCX have expertise of proving these services elsewhere

         LCX already deliver sports programmes for different groups and there is lot of potential for much closer working with Council

         Sports development not monitored effectively / should be looked at as possible contract variation

  User Experience

         Often complain about maintenance / can often take time to get resolved through Council / LCX could do it much faster

         People want private sector service for public sector prices re raising expectations and competing provision

         Very low ratio of complaints compared to throughout

Maintenance is an issue for the public. This is currently within the Council’s remit. Customers become frustrated when they report a problem, then find the same problem when they return the following week. Operational staff feel that small-scale maintenance would be better done in-house.

            Levels of complaints are low, as a proportion of the 15,000 people per week who use the leisure centre.

  The public appear happy with the fact that the leisure centre staff can put people in touch with clubs, e.g. martial arts, which complement the activities   offered by the leisure centre itself.

 A good investment would be a sauna and spa. The centre’s closest rival is Fitness First. There is a need to offer the same package of facilities, in order to compete. People expect a private club level of service, but at a reduced price.

  The introduction of the Leisure Card has upset people outside the borough. Other concessions have been cut as a result. OAPs used to get free swimming, so lots of older people used to travel in from outside the borough.

  Gym subscribers are happy with pricing levels; the centre is cheaper than anywhere else. Costs are on a par with other boroughs.

            Staff believe that the main improvement to date, from the perspective of users, has been the cleanliness of the building.

            Staff believe that there is a need for a facility in the south of the borough.

  Clubs are protected within the contract. This has been picked up previously. The club use limits public evening swimming to one day per week.

  Staff believe that the centre could benefit from having another pool on site. It would be good to have one umbrella swimming club to manage club use of the pool facilities

            Staff see no evidence of customer forums for residents.

            Younger staff who live in the borough feel that there is not enough for young people to do in Harrow.

  The skate park is seen as a problem, as it is not controlled. People come into the leisure centre asking for first aid. The park is busy, but it is used primarily from young people from outside the borough. Staff feel that it should not be fenced in, as skaters feel enclosed. If it was more open, there would be a greater perception of ownership, and less graffiti.

            An all-weather I astroturf facility would benefit the borough.

            Staff believe that Strategic Leisure’s views are dated.

  Staff feel that Housing, not Cultural Services, is the main priority for the Council, and not enough attention is given to sport.  

Staff Involvement

            Have weekly management meetings I discuss issues I take on board and take action

 Have daily huddles’ I keep all staff involved on a daily basis I quick update as to what’s happening that day, key site issues, etc I also written on white   board for everyone to see  

Improvements

Sauna and spa is missing I would be a good improvement / this affects people’s membership choice as this is provided elsewhere

Leisure card has upset a tot of people from elsewhere who would previously have got free swims

Clubs seem to be protected in contract / not so much provision for casual use I programme could be improved to accommodate both

Some plans for new pool on site of old outdoor pool (see other notes) which would improve access to water space and time in programme

Publicity is a big issue I Council do not do enough to promote awareness of facilities and activities

Not enough for young people to do / no diversionary activities

Byron Park — not run by LCX but they gave first aid when needed / needs to be managed properly / mostly used by kids from elsewhere / could be opened up and make users / locals care more about it / lot of potential for all weather surface in different location in park

Email To Audit Commission Seeking Further Information 15.7.06

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your letter of 14 July and the enclosed documents. Having studied them and the minutes that prompted my request to the Audit Commission I am so baffled that I feel the need to ask for clarification and assurances from the Audit Commission. I am copying to Clifton Jackson of Harrow Council and Christine Coppack of Leisure Connection and welcome any light they can throw on this. I am also copying to Chris Mote. Leader of Harrow Council for information. 

Let me first give you the full text relating to the Audit Commission's email from the minutes cited in my request. The minutes are headed: "High Level Review Meeting between London Borough of Harrow and Leisure Connection 12th May 2005". Attendees listed were Councillor Bill Stephenson, Anna Robinson, Clifton Jackson, Jo Nash, Christine Coppack, and Andy Smithard.

"2. Developing an effective partnership and relationship. An email received from the Cultural Inspection Auditors was distributed regarding the performance of the Users Focus Group and Leisure Connection Staff Meeting. The auditors were shocked at the feedback received at the interviews and decided to take a view that this was not a fair and un-biased representation and to disregard all the comments made. The auditors concluded that the partnership/relationship is not being realised to its full potential."

The email that you have sent me, dated 9 March 2006, does not fit with what is recorded in the minutes. Far from being shocking and biased, users are "Happy with most aspects of the facility" and Operational Staff are "Very Positive Overall". The notes that you have sent me for the two focus groups seem to warrant these assessments.

Given the peculiar and unsatisfactory discrepancy between what I have been sent and the minutes description I ask that the Audit Commission:

1) Acknowledges there is a significant inconsistency between what you have sent me and the way the minutes have described the auditors reactions and assessment of the feedback.

2) Confirm or deny the claim in the minutes that " The auditors were shocked at the feedback received at the interviews and decided to take a view that this was not a fair and un-biased representation and to disregard all the comments made."

3) If it is not possible to comment on this specific allegation, please state the general policy or practice of the Audit Commission in reporting view of users and staff when these are overwhelmingly negative. In particular, would the Audit Commission consider disregarding completely the views of a focus group and if so, in what circumstances?

4) Confirm that the email and two sets of notes sent to me sent to me are unedited other that for reason of preserving anonymity

5) Confirm that there are no other documents held by the Audit Commission that might help to explain the discrepancy between what I have been sent and the claims made about it in the minutes

Paul Burns

Reply from Audit Commission on 21.7.06 to Request for Further Information

From: Phil ....    Sent: 21 July 2006 To: Paul Burns
Cc: Two Audit Commission staff
Subject: RE: FOI request rfi 384 Re harrow Council Inspection

Dear Mr Burns, Thank you for your email of 15 July 2006. I shall respond to each of your queries in turn:

1) Significant inconsistency between what you have sent me and the way the minutes have described the auditors' reactions and assessment of the
feedback:

The Audit Commission was not represented at the high level review  meeting between Harrow Council and their leisure contractor and so I
cannot comment on the content of the minutes. The inspectors' email of 9 March 2006 relating to feedback is the only email the Commission has in
its possession in respect of this matter.

2) Confirm or deny the claim in the minutes that "The auditors were shocked at the feedback received at the interviews and decided to take a
view that this was not a fair and un-biased representation and to disregard all the comments made":

As the Commission has no other documentation relating to this issue, I am not in a position to be able to confirm or deny the claim in the
minutes.

3) If it is not possible to comment on this specific allegation, please state the general policy or practice of the Audit Commission in reporting view of users and staff when these are overwhelmingly negative. In particular, would the Audit Commission consider disregarding completely the views of a focus group and if so, in what circumstances?

The methodology for undertaking service inspections of this kind involves inspectors making a series of judgements based on published key lines of enquiry or criteria for judgement. Inspections involve the processing of a wealth of evidence from interviews, focus groups, document reviews, observations of meetings and reality checks/mystery shopping. In arriving at a judgement inspectors seek to triangulate evidence - in other words verify it from a number of different sources, rather than relying on one. Inspection reports include a summary of the key issues against the Commission's key lines of enquiry, rather than a
full account of all the comments and other evidence received. Focus groups are used to obtain the views of groups such as staff and users and to supplement existing sources of information, for example, results of user satisfaction surveys undertaken by the organisation. 

4) Confirm that the email and two sets of notes sent to me are unedited other than for reason of preserving anonymity:

I can confirm that the only change to these documents has been removal of names of individuals.

5)  Confirm that there are no other documents held by the Audit Commission that might help to explain the discrepancy between what I have been sent and the claims made about it in the minutes.

I can confirm that there are no other documents held by the Audit Commission that relate to the discrepancy to which you refer.

Regards,  Phil...