Whitewater Fiasco

Whitewater had the Vale Farm contract before LC. In June 2005 I made a request to Brent Council under Freedom of Information as I had found a reference in a council meeting about a payment to Whitewater Leisure. The sum paid was not recorded. In the the FOI reply from the council received in July 2005  the key paragraph is: 

“I am able to confirm that Whitewater made a claim in excess of £3.26 million plus interest against the London Borough of Brent. I am also able to advise you that final settlement has been paid and that in total the London Borough of Brent paid Whitewater £369499.34” 

Of course it is better to pay £369k rather than over £3 million. But three issues need to be answered. How much did Brent spend on legal fees and management time dealing with the claim?  Legal advice, especially in multi-mullion pound  law suits does not come cheap.  Secondly, it seems unlikely that Whitewater would have invested in its action if there were not grounds for doing so and some chance of success. What did Brent get wrong when it sacked Whitewater? Thirdly, one mistake with a leisure contract may be bad luck. Two mistakes looks like incompetence as important lessons were not learned. The second mistake was the quality of the contract with LC - from Minutes of a Sports Service High Level Monitoring Meeting 7.5.04.

"The performance of Leisure Connections  in the management of the leisure centres is an ongoing issue.  Value for money is not being achieved and previously weak client side management has allowed the contractors to provide a poor service.  The contract itself is poorly specified and is not connected to a proper strategy for sports provision.  Performance can be improved within the current contract but to achieve much improved services the existing contract which expires in 2006 will not be extended and will be re-tendered under a new spec’."  

What is known about Whitewater's performance?  There are newspaper reports from the time. On  17.1.97 The Barnet Times wrote about Vale Farm. It included: "The centres were recently condemned as so bad "that no sensible customer would use them" by consultants appointed by the council."

Circa Leisure, later to merge with Relaxion, to form LC, were give an initial six month contract after Whitewater got the boot. So there should have been plenty of time to learn the lessons, write a comprehensive contract and establish good performance management. Yet centre users and  Brent residents ended up double losers - poor service over years from LC and Brent having to reimburse Whitewater.  

And what did Circa promise when it took over.

New Lease Of Life For Condemned Sports Centres     from Epping Forrest Guardian 31.1.98

"Circa Leisure founder and chairman, Peter Johnson, confirmed it would be bidding to run the services after its initial six month contract is over. We see the Brent centres as having enormous potential and there are teams of staff down there that we would enjoy working with," he said. "There has got to be investment in them to bring them up to the level of service the community is looking for. Our job is to provide what the customer wants."

 There were at least two paragraphs in the  2002 Audit Report on Brent Leisure that suggested what good performance management might entail.

 “82. Data on the number of complaints is unreliable. Sampling records of complaints during our inspection, we did not find the number or nature of complaints were unduly serious. However, only complaints made directly to Brent Council, or which are felt by the contractor to relate to the Council in some way, are monitored by SCFM (The sport and community facilities management unit). The way these are processed and recorded is inconsistent, and the Council does not monitor complaints centrally. The Council needs to take a more pro-active role in monitoring all complaints consistently and using them to inform improvement.”

 “145.  We found that the Service does not have a systematic approach to the collection of management information. The contracts for the leisure and sports centres are monitored internally by the contractor, for their own purposes. The Council carries out random inspections and sampling only when staff are available, but this is not regular or consistent. We found that the Council did not use the contractor's extensive database from its other contracts for comparison. The performance of the contractor is not reported to councillors.” 

In the Audit Commission Inspection Report of August 2004 into Cultural Services in Brent, is the following paragraph: 

“104.  Performance is reported to councillors and senior officers in different ways dependant upon circumstance. For example, the council has identified a raft of key performance indicators, known as its vital signs, which are reported to cabinet monthly. Where services have experienced significant weaknesses in the past, for example sport and leisure, senior managers are meeting with the leader and chief executive bi-monthly to discuss any issues and monitor the sustained improvement in service delivery. General service performance is reported quarterly.” 

However, when I requested under FoI “copies of reports prepared for Brent Council managers, councillors or council meetings that pertain to the performance or performance management of Leisure Connection Limited between 2001 and 2004” the reply from the Head of Sport services on 31.01.05  stated,

 “I apologise for the time it has taken to respond to you but I have been looking back through old records and reports that may have pertained to Leisure Connection’s performance and I have been unable to find any. I have also spoken to staff that have worked in Brent since 2001 and they confirm that they have not produced any formal reports in connection with the performance of Leisure Connection.”