Correspondence with Councillor Jones

Councillor Jones is a member of Brent's Executive, Lead Member for Environment & Planning, and her ward is Willesden Green. I think she has backtracked from an undertaking to provide information. Judge for yourself. PB

From: Paul Burns   To: Councillor Lesley Jones
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 
Subject: Willesden Leisure Centre Contract

Dear Councillor Jones, Thank you for attending the Barn Hill Residents Association tonight and for presenting your card so that I can send you further information about my query.

I believe that you were one of the Councillors who at a Special Meeting of the Executive on 8 August 2003 appointed Linteum / Leisure Connection as the preferred bidder for the contract to rebuild and run Willesden Leisure Centre. I do not know which councillors were present at the meeting in November of last year that confirmed the contract but I would like this information. (The contract was not confirmed in November, my mistake. PB)

I have complained about problems at Vale Farm Leisure Centre to the council since May 2001 and details of some of the correspondence can be seen on the Leisure Connection Watch website, along with other information from other areas that must realise serious concerns about Leisure Connection. 

Brent's Chief Executive has upheld two stage three complaints from me about Leisure Connection failings at Vale Farm yet still the problems there persist. The first stage three complaint reply from the Chief Executive was written a week before preferred bidder status was announced. I had lodged several more complaints about Vale Farm before the contract was confirmed.

Well before the Willesden contract was announced I had informed Brent Council of difficulties that Leisure Connection had in other boroughs, in particular how the company had lost a contract in Cheltenham for repeated failings. Many items of my correspondence about problems at Vale Farm were copied to Cllrs Van Colle, John and O'Sullivan.

I wish to know:

1. Were the Councillors who last year assigned the consortium that included Leisure Connection preferred bidder status for Willesden Leisure Centre and those councillors that later confirmed the contract informed of the history of problems at Vale Farm, the lost Cheltenham contract, and the upheld stage 3 complaint or the fact that one was being considered? If so, how was this information presented and by whom?

2. If officers from other departments, such as legal, finance and contract letting / management, were involved in preparing the tender, were they informed by the Leisure officers or the Chief Executive of the issues with Leisure Connection at Vale Farm and Cheltenham?

3. Was there any attempt to use the new Willesden contract to gain assurances from Leisure Connection that standards at Vale Farm would improve? If so, were specific assurances given and how were they to be monitored? What were the specific assurances? And were they monitored or any actions taken?

4. Did anyone from the council contact Cheltenham or other local authorities to find out about their experience of Leisure Connection.

You may be interested to know that in Flintshire the council is reported to have ditched a consortium involving Leisure Connection after initially granting it preferred bidder status, in part because of Leisure Connection's reputation from Cheltenham. It seems peculiar that a council with no direct experience of Leisure Connection could take such a decision while one that knew first hand gave the contract. ... (see Lost Contracts)

I look forward to your reply.

Paul Burns 

From: Lesley Jones  To: Paul Burns
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 
Subject: Re: Willesden Leisure Centre Contract

Dear Mr Burns

As an executive member, I was present at the August and November meeting you
refer to.

I will be seeing the Director of Environmental Services this afternoon and will ask for a response to your points. I will get back to you on these as soon as I can.

Lesley Jones 

From: Lesley Jones  To: Paul Burns
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 
Subject: Re: Willesden Leisure Centre Contract

 Dear Mr Burns

Thanks you for your e-mail re the Willesden Sports Centre PFI. I was, as you say, one of the Members at the Executive last August that appointed a consortium including Leisure Connection as the preferred bidder for the
project.

You refer to a meeting last November and wish to be informed which Members were present. I am not clear to which meeting your refer. If you could clarify which meeting is referred to, I can provide the details of which Members were present. Minutes of Executive meetings are available on the Brent web site and councillors in attendance are included. These can be found at: http://www.brent.gov.uk/democracy.nsf

With respect to your questions re the awarding of the contract, I am aware that you have recently contacted the Audit Commission asking them these questions. Rather than confuse the situation, I therefore think it is best
if at this stage if you receive a response directly from them.

Yours sincerely   Lesley Jones  

From: Paul Burns  To: Lesley Jones
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 
Cc: newswembley@trinitysouth.co.uk
Subject: RE: Willesden Leisure Centre Contract

Dear Councillor Jones, thank you for your email of yesterday, which I find surprising ... 

You have also just written: " With respect to your questions re the awarding of the contract, I am aware that you have recently contacted the Audit Commission asking them these questions. Rather than confuse the situation, I therefore think it is best if at this stage if you receive a response directly from them."

I do not expect to receive an answer from the Audit Commission, My email to them (see below) says, "I understand that it is unlikely that you can report to me directly on these matters." Even if the Audit Commission was to brief me on their findings, this does not preclude you from obtaining answers and sharing these with me.

My email to the Auditor on May 14 was copied to Brent's Chief Executive The Council has therefore had four weeks to consider how to answer the issues raised. If there is a straightforward answer how would this lead to confusion? Both the Audit Commission and I want to know if things were not handled properly or not.  Surely confusion would only arise if we were given accounts that conflicted?

May I remind you that at a large public meeting on May 26 you undertook to seek answers to my question about how the contract for the new Willesden Leisure Centre was awarded to a consortium that included a company that has repeatedly failed to provide decent services at Vale Farm. You confirmed your intention by email the next day. I find the explanations you have offered for not doing this are far from convincing.

I ask that you reconsider and honour the undertaking you made.

From: Paul Burns   To: Huw Meredith [Audit Commission]
Cc: Gareth Daniel [Brent Chief Executive]
Subject: RE: Brent Inspection of Sports and Leisure

Dear Huw, thank you for your reply and assurance that the Audit Commission will consider Vale Farm user views.

There is another matter relating to Brent leisure that I feel requires scrutiny. I understand that it is unlikely that you can report to me directly on these matters but as they relate to value for money and good management I believe they fall within the scope of the Audit Commission.

I refer to Leisure Connection being part of the consortium selected by Brent Council to develop and run the new Willesden Sports Centre. I don't know much about Leisure Connection's management to date at Willesden but for four years I have been complaining to the Council about squalid conditions due to poor or no cleaning, safety issues, fluctuating temperatures, late opening, facilities not set up and staff shortages.

Brent's Chief Executive has upheld two stage three complaints from me about Leisure Connection failings at Vale Farm yet still the problems there persist. The first stage three complaint reply from the Chief Executive was written a week before preferred bidder status was announced. I had lodged several more complaints about Vale Farm before the contract was confirmed.

Well before the Willesden contract was announced I had informed Brent Council of difficulties that Leisure Connection had in other boroughs, in particular how the company had lost a contract in Cheltenham for repeated failings.

I wish the inspection to consider:

1. Were the Councillors who last year assigned the consortium that included Leisure Connection preferred bidder status for Willesden Leisure Centre and later confirmed the contract informed of the history of problems at Vale Farm, the lost Cheltenham contract, and the upheld stage 3 complaint or the fact that one was being considered?

2. If officers from other departments, such as legal, finance and contract letting / management, were involved in preparing the tender, were they informed by the Leisure officers or the Chief Executive of the issues with Leisure Connection at Vale Farm and Cheltenham?

3. Was there any attempt to use the new Willesden contract to gain assurances from Leisure Connection that standards at Vale Farm would improve? If so, were specific assurances given and how were they to be monitored? And were they monitored or any actions taken?

You may be interested to know that in Flintshire the council is reported to have ditched a consortium involving Leisure Connection after initially granting it preferred bidder status, in part because of Leisure Connection's reputation from Cheltenham. It seems peculiar that a council with no direct experience of Leisure Connection could take such a decision while one that knew first hand gave the contract... (see Lost Contracts)

Paul Burns

Further emails from Councillor Jones were received on 13.6.04 but did not answer the questions I had asked her and the Audit Commission. The nearest but not very near she came to it was:  "The contract process is determined by EU regulations and/or the Council's own Standing Orders. Standing Orders relating to contracts can be found in the pdf document attached (from section 83)." 

The Standing Orders say what should be done but not how . My interpretation of them is that they would allow if not require officers to design a tender process that would make it more difficult for a company with a poor record of delivering services to win a contract. PB