Parking Fines    Issues inside the Centre    2010 Quest Report    FOI Complaints

The Council owned and LC/Harpers managed Riverside Leisure Centre opened with funding help from the National Lottery. It is also sometimes called Riverside Swimming Centre but it includes a gym, aerobics studio, steam room and crèche. 

Getting information out of Norwich City Council about the performance of the contract has not been easy and today (12.2.11) I sent three complaints about their failures to meet Freedom of Information Act requirements. I will post the Council’s reply to these, but based on past experience of Norwich they may take a while. Details of the FOI complaints are posted below.

 Parking Fines for Users Not Aware of Time Limits

So what is known about the centre, the views of its customers and the performance of LC/Harpers Fitness at Norwich’s Riverside Leisure Centre?

Going by what’s on the Internet, the biggest issue for the public and running from at least 2007 has been fines for over-staying in the car park.  E.g. see www.norwichonline.co.uk/allreviews/8004/

 The comment from LC/Harpers in April 2010 was, “Our car park at Riverside Leisure Centre is managed by an external company, G24. If one of our customers has received a car parking fine, our policy requires us to refer them to G24, which will deal with the enquiry.” www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_parking_fine_row_1_489094  

And who employed G24 and specified the contract? Did anyone other than G24 benefit from the swingeing fines? One legitimate centre user was fined £190 before he realised the time limit existed.

 The parking issue continuing for so long suggests that warning signs were inadequate over time. They appear to have been discussed at a Contract Meetings in June last year, the minutes of which include, “It was noted that the writing is very small and the signs quite high up so very difficult to read especially for disabled users.  The large sign on entry to the car park is also in need of updating.” www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/49407/response/148471/attach/html/9/100610%20amended.doc.html  

 One of the documents received suggested that Parking was less of an issue by September 2010. “...there have been very few issues around regarding the car park since MET took over.” www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/49407/response/148471/attach/html/12/100910%20amended.doc.html   I am interested to know if parking has continued to be an issue. vilefirm2 "at" btinternet.com. 

 Issues inside the Centre

 Minutes of Contract Meetings between the Council and LC show a fair few accidents. I am not able to say whether the number is unusually high or not. But perhaps the numbers reported were not always the whole story. Look at this extract from the minutes for June 2010.

“The mystery shopper report raised a health and safety concern.  The person carrying out the visit reported slipped on poolside and although being asked if they were alright, the incident was not recorded.  PW addressed this with his staff immediately he received the report.  It has also been recorded in his staff meeting notes and the importance of recording incidents will continue to be emphasised on an ongoing basis”

 The May 2010 minutes noted the following issues.

•  Lockers still to be finished in the upstairs changing
• 1 hairdryer out
• 2 showers out
• Ladies toilet in changing village is in poor state
• Disabled men's toilet has a broken flush
• Flagpole holders awaiting repair
• Tiles in shower areas showing bad staining
• Broken mirror in studio

 The July minutes noted,

“A site visit took place on 07.07.10; brief summary of issues:

•  Build up of staining in showers
• Heavy staining in toilet bowls
• 4 treadmills out of order
• 3 vending machines out of order
• Spa out of order
• 1 shower in the men's upstairs changing not working
• Flagpole holder awaiting repair
• Broken lights in car park
• Outside entrance paving requires cleaning”

 One might understand one or two machines breaking being out of order, but four treadmills and three vending machines on the same day?

 And from the August meeting, which show the Council representatives threatening penalties for "unacceptable delays".

Operational - an interim site meeting was held following an unusually high number of complaints to discuss the main point of concern. Brief summary of the issues:

Shower temperature cool or cold - this has been the major issue for complaints and problems have been arising since April. Action has been taken and this is now fixed.

Spa - again this has been in and out of use for a while followed by a long period when it was totally closed. This has now fixed and in use.

Air flow and air conditioning -this was looked along with the water temperature problem and now appears to be ok.

Overflow from men's urinal in changing village - an unsightly bucket is being used on a regular basis to prevent overflow onto the floor when pipes become blocked due to lime scale.

Vending - the coffee machine is still causing problems and often out of order.

Considered for most urgent action at this point are:

Damaged floor tile in entrance

Broken lights and missing section of drain cover in car park

Repair leak into downstairs family change, ceiling originating in upstairs male changing

 These issues were picked up and reflected in the site condition survey and action plan, as stated in item 7. MH reported that penalty clauses as per the contract will be considered if unacceptable delays in repairs continue.

 The September meeting noted that Vending Machines reliability was still an issues and “... the broken gully in the car park has now become a health and safety risk.  It was agreed this would be fixed as a matter of urgency.”

 The “missing section of drain cover in car park” was listed as urgent by the August meeting. It is not clear if this is the same issue as the broken gully, but it seems likely when other issues continue over time.  

Quest Report  Full report at www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/49407/response/150241/attach/2/Quest%20Report%20Dec%202010.pdf

The December 2010 Quest inspection was scaled down compared to others I have seen reports for. It appears not to have included a Mystery Visit; if so, then no spot checks to verify that what was seen on the notified date of inspection is reliable.  

One summary finding is that “Cleanliness has improved considerably since my previous visits” What we can safely deduce is that on at least two other occasions cleaning was not satisfactory.

 The summary of less positive findings is:

• Photographs are not being used to define all cleaning standards
• Safe systems of work are not in place for all activities at the Centre
• The SIS is not used as effectively as it could be and a number of tasks had not been completed within defined timescales
• Procedures for the erecting and dismantling equipment are not on display
• The Verbal Comments Log is not fully understood by all Staff and not used consistently by all Staff
• The Centre does not have a timetable for research
• The Centre does not have a specific Marketing Plan
• The Centre does not have an annual Business Plan
• Staff are not tested formally on their understanding of Centre operations

Some of the more detailed comments are included below. Readers should be aware that Quest tends to use diplomatic (aka as wishy-washy) language. Unfortunately, Quest is not only voluntary but a charges for its work. Thus the leisure centre / company could choose to drop out of future assessments if its feathers get too ruffled. This not the best set up for encouraging the blunt talking that might help to save a life or improve customer experience.

 The Centre has access to the company QMS (Quality Management System) which is very informative. Management are not making effective use of this however and key documents are not in place as a consequence, for example, an Annual Research Calendar. At the MA (Maintenance Assessment) it was noted that Management makes more effective reference to the Company QMS system.

Management indicated that due to the size and complexity of the LCQMS (Leisure Connection QMS) the Centre does not carry out all procedures as required by this system. It may be beneficial to reduce the work required by the LCQMS.  (First part from previous inspection, second part from current).

It may be of benefit to Staff if the procedures for erecting and dismantling equipment were contained in the NOP ( (Normal Operating Procedure, as opposed to Emergency) and displayed at the point of use. Procedures for the erecting and dismantling equipment are not on display.

Management should ensure that safe systems of work are in place for all equipment setup and dismantling and that these are specific to site

The creation of an action plan (for Energy Management) with defined responsibilities would help to ensure that initiatives are addressed particularly if these are incorporated into the Business Plan and appraisal targets. The Centre has an Action Plan although this is not displayed to customers.

An action plan is in place but it was unclear what actions are being taken to reduce energy consumption.

A lack of customer survey information detracts from the Business Plan. Aligning customer and non-user surveys to the objectives in the Business Plan may assist in their accuracy. There is not a systematic approach taken in regard to customer surveys.

Customer surveys are being completed but there did not appear to be a direct link between findings and actions within the Business Plan.

By incorporating the Sports Development Plan into the Business Plan it may be easier to identify national and local initiatives and provide a formal system for reviewing progress on objectives. The community targets are not fully incorporated into the business planning process.

Use is not made of the Quest benchmarking service as a means of improving performance. Use is not made of the Quest benchmarking service as a means of improving performance.

This is currently not being done.

Advantage may be gained by programming specific days for high and deep cleaning into the Centre calendar with a planned check sheet of tasks to be undertaken. The Centre plans high level and deep cleaning.

Developing specific cleaning schedules for both high level and deep cleaning tasks along with detailed safe systems of work may help to further improve the level of cleanliness throughout the site.

It may be of benefit to Staff if the procedures for erecting and dismantling equipment were contained in the NOPand displayed at the point of use. Procedures for the erecting and dismantling equipment are not on display.

Management should ensure that safe systems of work are in place for all equipment setup and dismantling and that these are specific to site.

Management may want to ensure that the risk reduction plan is monitored regularly through use of the SIS and outstanding issues being a standard item on Team meeting agendas. The Service Improvement Plan (SIP) is in use but does not indicate the progress of issues and some date back to the beginning of the year.

The Health and Safety Service Improvement Strategy (SIS) is in use but appears to be only updated after seminars and audits. Adding actions from other sources including risk assessments may assist in reducing risk at the Centre.

Management may want to examine how Contractors are controlled on site. Ensuring Contractors are easily identified would be helpful to Staff and reassuring to customers. It was noted  at the MA that identity badges for Contractors are not consistently issued.

Management indicated that all contractors sign in and are given identity badges.

Management may want to test Staff training and knowledge in the QMS procedures as it was evident during the Assessment that Staff were not certain of how these were applied. Staff are not consistently tested on their knowledge of Centre procedures.

Staff have started to be quizzed on Centre procedures and Health and Safety. Management should consider what action they need to take in the event of a Staff member not being aware of critical safety information. It may be that immediate training is required before they are allowed to resume work.  

To give a flavour of Norwich Council’s prevarication, here is part of the correspondence. The full exchange, documents obtained and complaints lodges can be seen at www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/riverside_leisure_centre_contrac_2  

I requested a copy of the latest Quest report on the Riverside Leisure Centre on 2.12.10.

On 27.1.11, I posted the following to the Council. “In response to my reminder posted on January 10, you wrote, ‘I will write to you again shortly.’ I wish to lodge a formal complaint with the Council that it still has not provided the information requested on 4 December. Please note, I intend to complain to the Information Commissioner if the all the information is not received by Friday 4 February
2011.”

 The Council replied with most of the specified documents on 4.2.11, but did not send the Quest Report because “This document was commissioned by Leisure Connection and is not the property of Norwich City Council. Please contact Leisure Connection to obtain a copy of this report.”

 Unlike a public authority LC/Harpers Fitness is under no obligation to meet such a request and I don’t expect any favours from the company, which I think the Council knew.

I posted the following message to the Council on 4.2.11. “It is clear from the Council's Sport and Leisure Development Plan 2010-11 that Quest reports are integral to Norwich's performance management of leisure contracts. As such, the Council is obliged to meet my request. As I believe the Council should be aware of this, I register a formal complaint about this matter. If I do not receive the Quest report by the end of Friday 11 February, I will take my complaint to the Information Commissioner.”

 And on 11.2.11 the Council replied, “We have contacted Leisure Connection again concerning your request for the Quest report and they have supplied a copy of the report.”