Good of Stephen Timms to be there, but this is really a council matter. Many people think the recently introduced £20 bulk waste collection charge has already made the problem worse.
Will any councillors turn up and talk to residents directly?
Tag Archives: newham
Evasion and avoidance
15 AprA leading campaigner against the use of LOBO loans by local councils has accused Newham of operating a deliberate policy of delay and frustration in relation to Freedom of Information requests.
Joel Benjamin submitted a request to the council back in early February asking for details of financial disclosure forms submitted by Sir Robin Wales:
Dear Newham Borough Council,
- Please confirm if Robin Wales submitted a Members Financial Interest Disclosure form and/or party transaction disclosure for each of the years he was a councillor 1995 – 2016
- Please provide copies of Robin Wales’ Disclosure Forms for the 1995-2016 period and related ‘party transaction disclosures’ (which are related but not identical to the disclosure of interests forms members complete) which are required to be completed every year by the elected members.
- Please confirm the number of occasions upon which it was recorded Robin Wales withdrew from a Newham meeting, declaring a conflict of interest?
- Please confirm the dates upon which Newham Council has audited Members Disclosure forms and ‘party transaction disclosures’ between 1995-2016 to ensure member compliance.
- Please confirm on how many occasions, 1995-2016, Newham members have been cautioned, disciplined or otherwise sanctioned for failing to fill out a disclosure log, or for failing to disclose personal financial interests and potential conflicts?
Yours faithfully,
etc.
At the same time he submitted an identical request relating to councillor Lester Hudson, the cabinet lead for finance and chair of the audit board.
Despite reminders, these requests remain unanswered. This prompted a request for internal review (my emphasis added):
I am writing to request an internal review of Newham Borough Council’s handling of my FOI request ‘Disclosure of Newham Register of Elected Members Interest Forms – Robin Wales’.
I note that a formal response from Newham Council to this FOIA request is now approaching 20 days overdue, and is set against a backdrop of unexplained delays, refused requests and opaque decision making, which increasingly casts Newham Council as a FOIA non-compliant outlier for local authorities contacted for information regarding LOBO loans.
Mayor of Newham Robin Wales has staunchly defended the use of LOBO loans by Newham Council, which have been shown to cost Council taxpayers a £10m interest premium over the past decade, to say nothing of the LOBOs taken out by Housing Associations indirectly under Newham control.
It is therefore important to establish if conflict of interest forms have been formally lodged by Robin Wales and monitored by Newham Council and its auditors PwC for the period 2002 – 2011 when £653m of LOBO loan borrowing was negotiated.
A review was also requested, in the same terms, of the unanswered questions about Cllr Hudson.
And again today, in relation to another FOI request, another request for internal review (my emphasis added):
I am writing to request an internal review of Newham Borough Council’s handling of my FOI request ‘Correspondence regarding Newham 2014/15 account objections re: LOBO Loans’.
I note that a response to this FOIA request is now 2 weeks overdue, and joins 3 additional requests left unanswered by Newham Council, whose FOIA policy is clearly to defer, delay, frustrate in the hope that requesters will not bother with an internal review and subsequent ICO referral.
Given failure to answer these FOIA requests is clearly part of a deliberate Newham policy and pattern, I will be referring the entire suite of unanswered FOIA requests to the ICO, and will let them determine the appropriate course of action to ensure that Newham Council administration acts in the public interest and the FOI officer observes the appropriate legal guidance timeframes.
I know from my own experience that Newham has no regard for the law when it comes to freedom of information, and no respect for the public who are simply exercising their right to know what is being done in their name. They will delay, refuse or simply ignore any request that might result in political embarrassment for Sir Robin or his circle of friends. It is long past time that the Information Commissioners Office intervened.
Fair’s fare for Maryland
11 Apr
Local campaigners and Forest Gate North councillor Seyi Akiwowo are calling on the mayor of London and the managing director of TfL to re-zone Maryland station.
Maryland is the only station in the Stratford area not to have been re-zoned to 2/3 in January. Asa result residents, many of whom are on low incomes, could end up paying over £200 more this year to use their local station compared to those living elsewhere in the area.
The campaigners have launched an online petition and they say:
Newham continues to be one of the most deprived areas of the country with household incomes among the lowest in London and while the 100,000 weekly users of the eight re-zoned stations in the Stratford and Newtown ward now benefit from cheaper travel, those living in Maryland do not. We believe this is unfair and we are asking the Mayor and Commissioner of TfL to include Maryland station in zone 2/3.
As a major transport hub Stratford station can get dangerously busy at peak times and with future residential and commercial development, including the exciting Olympicopolis scheme, set to bring thousands more people to the area the problem of overcrowding will only get worse. Maryland station is less than 10 minutes walk from Stratford, meaning it can help alleviate issues with passenger numbers, but will only do so if it offers a real and cost-effective alternative for those living and working in the east side of Stratford.
A station on the eagerly anticipated ‘Elizabeth Line’, Maryland will soon benefit from a £3m ‘facelift’ as part of Crossrail works, improving the station and its surroundings while helping give a much-needed boost to the regeneration of the area. To capitalise on this, residents and businesses must be able to use the station and cheaper zone 2/3 fares should help boost passenger numbers, offsetting potentially reduced TfL revenue, which in itself would be a very small part of the overall re-zoning initiative
Lyn Brown MP has already given her support and we are looking to Newham Council to include this as one of their priorities in 2016/17. We have also written to the London Mayoral and the City and East London Assembly candidates for their backing.
By supporting this petition you are helping the hard working individuals, families and businesses who want to use their local station without being penalised for doing so.
I’ve signed the petition and would urge readers to do the same.
Standards and Noor
1 MarNewham council’s standards committee is meeting tonight (Tuesday 1 March) to consider the Monitoring Officer’s report on a complaint made against Councillor Ahmed Noor (Plaistow South).
The complaint was made by the council’s own Chief Executive and relates largely to Cllr Noor’s activities as a private landlord. Two independent reports were commissioned, one from Mazars, a firm “who undertake audit investigations” and another from CH & I Associates, “an experienced investigator of members’ conduct issues.” This second Report has been published with the committee papers, but the first has been withheld.
Although the Report ends up taking a generous view of the distinction between Councillor Noor’s private and public lives it does provide a detailed timeline of events related to 238 Romford Road. And it doesn’t shy way from cataloguing an alarming number of other cases where his conduct has been less than exemplary. This includes his following the examples set by Sir Robin and Councillor Ian Corbett in refusing to cooperate with any of the investigations.
The Report says that “on 16 July 2013″ Ahmed Noor leased the property at 238 Romford Road to a charity, CMN Reachout Ltd. That date must be a typo, as the remainder of the timeline makes no sense if it’s correct. I suspect they mean 2012. The lease was for commercial purposes but Noor gave consent for it to be used “as a hostel / residence to care for people in need” if CMN obtained the necessary permissions from the council. In early 2013 ten housing benefit claims were identified as being paid to people living at 238 Romford Road and CMN was named as the landlord in all of the applications. The council’s planning enforcement team visited the property on 6 March 2013 and concluded that it was likely that it was being used as an HMO without permission.
On 25th March Noor contacted the council to say he had evicted CMN for breaching the lease. CMN told that council on 5 April 2013 that it still technically occupied the property and would continue to do so until their lease expired. They added that Noor had locked them out and boarded the property up. The site visit by council officers confirmed this.
In June 2013 CMN successfully challenged their eviction. The court believed that Noor knew what his property was being used for before the council took enforcement action. CMN were allowed back into 238 Romford Road, but were told that a new enforcement investigation had been opened and would remain active. There would be periodic visits to ensure it was not being used for residential purposes without planning permission.
Council officers made an unannounced visit on 3 March 2015 but were refused access. After contacting CMN a further visit was arranged for 23 April. The Report continues (paragraphs 5.7 to 5.13):
On 23 April 2015 representatives of CMN met with planning enforcement officers outside 238 Romford Road and told them that Councillor Noor had wrongly evicted them for a second time. They also expressed concern that the property was being used by new tenants as a residence, something that the Council had not allowed them to do. It was pointed out that Councillor Noor, as a member of the Council, looked like he was getting preferential treatment. Officers were again refused access to the property; one person they spoke to though confirmed that they were living at 238 Romford Road and that they had a tenancy agreement with Councillor Noor. Officers informed the representatives of CMN that they would have to seek their own legal advice with regards their lease dispute.
Officers were eventually able to obtain access to the property later the following day after contacting Councillor Noor directly; he in turn told those in the property to allow the inspection. The visit identfied that the property was being used as a large HMO without consent. At least two residents told officers that their landlord was Councillor Noor, with one resident confirming that he knew nobody else in the building. Officers also identfied a number of associated safety hazards, which were particularly concerning given that there were clearly children living in the property. During the visit officers spoke to a [name redacted] who said that he had a tenancy agreement with Councillor Noor to run a business from the property; [name redacted] claimed that the people living in the property were his friends.
On 27 April 2015 the Council served a planning enforcement notice to a number of parties associated with 238 Romford Road, including Councillor Noor. The alleged breach of planning control was that the material use of a house had been changed to an HMO without planning permission. Councillor Noor was required to cease the use of the property as an HMO and remove all associated fixtures and fittings by 27 August 2015.
On 28 April 2015 solicitors representing Councillor Noor contacted the Council to confirm that CMN were no longer tenants at the property and that the current leaseholder was [name redacted]. The solicitors said that the Council’s intervention demonstrated that [name redacted] was in breach of his leaseholder agreement; as a result Councillor Noor had notified his tenant that he had 28 days to cease use of the premises as an HMO. His solicitors stressed that Councillor Noor was committed to assisting the planning enforcement team.
Following notification from Councillor Noor that the property now complied with the enforcement notice, a further site visit was undertaken on 13 May 2015 with the Police in attendance. The inspection team found that the property was still being used as an HMO. The visiting officer spoke to a woman who confirmed that she still lived in the property. She told the officer that her landlord would only accept cash payments and would not provide her with an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement; as such she could not claim housing benefit. Another tenant said to the Police Sergeant that their rent was collected in cash by a third party on behalf of Councillor Noor.
Further to this visit a Newham Council Law Enforcement Officer was passing 238 Romford Road shortly after midnight and saw contents from the property being loaded onto a van. Further investigation indicated that everybody living in the property had been made to leave. The following morning the Lead Officer on Joint Housing Operations visited the property and was able to confirm that the premises were vacant. On 20 May 2015 Councillor Noor’s solicitors wrote to confirm that the property was now empty.
Subsequently officers from the Private Rented Sector housing indicated that there was sufficient evidence to consider prosecuting Councillor Noor for operating a “cash in hand’ HMO. In addition the Council considered further investigations to establish why no business rates have been paid at the property since August 2009. It is not clear from the papers, or indeed relevant to my own considerations or for the Standards Advisory Committee, whether these matters were progressed.
Having dealt with matters on Romford Road the Report tackles some of the other properties owned (in whole or in part) by Ahmed Noor.
At 218 Green Street and 9 Plashet Grove extensions were built without planning permission. In both cases the building works are “now lawful by virtue of time.”
Further investigation has found that the first floor of [9 Plashet Grove] is being used as an extension of the shop, rather than for residential use (as was believed by the Council). As a result the Council are considering referring the matter to HMRC so that the Valuation Office can take a view as to whether business rates should now be payable and potentially backdated.
When officers visited 46 Windsor Road, which is in the Woodgrange Conservation Area, to serve an enforcement notice in relation to 238 Romford Road, they noticed that the front garden turf had been replaced by artificial grass. As no planning permission had been sought a further pre-enforcement notice was served.
Noor has owned or held a financial interest in 75 Derby Road and 77a Derby Road since September 2004. These properties sit on the same site but have two different entries on the Land Register. They are – or are intended to be – warehouses.
On October 2007 a planning enforcement case was opened in relation to the property following complaints that the empty warehouses had people living in them. An inspection on 12 November 2007 found that the entire building was being used for residential purposes, with a number of wooden cubicles and boarded off areas being discovered. Councillor Noor maintained that he did not know anything about it as he had not visited the property for several months. It was noted that the door had not been forced and that Councillor Noor had used his original key to gain access; Councillor Noor suggested that his builders had a key and that it was likely it had been copied many times.
A further site visit three days later confirmed that Councillor Noor had taken steps to remove the cubicles and most of the possessions in the house,though some furniture did remain. The planning enforcement officar was satisfied that any breach had ceased.
In March 2012 ownership of the two properties was transferred to a charity, although Ahmed Noor registered and retained a charge over both. Two months later a planning enforcement case was opened and a notice was issued to Noor as the new owners had not yet registered their details with the Land Registry. Paragraph 5.26 provides a jaw-dropping revelation:
On 15 June 2012 Councillor Noor contacted the planning enforcement team to stress that he was no longer the owner of either property. Notes taken by the planning officer indicate that during the call … Noor claimed to be a councillor (at this time he was not a councillor) and close to Robin Wales the Mayor of Newham. As a result of the call a temporary stop notice was served.
Since then the charity has submitted two planning applications for the properties, both of which have been unsuccessful. Nonetheless some work appears to have been done and an enforcement case has been opened. The report notes that 77a Derby Road is not registered for either council tax or business rates.
After his election in May 2014 Councillor Noor filed a register of interests form that declared only his ownership of 46 Windsor Road. In September 2014 he updated it with a number of other properties, but his financial interest in 77a Derby Road has never been declared.
There are obviously a number of matters of significant concern here, which the Report handily summarises (paragraph 6.3):
As the owner of 238 Romford Road I would have expected Councillor Noor to have knowledge of the activities undertaken at the address (indeed the evidence from ‘tenants’ within the property suggests that Councillor Noor was fully aware). The property is/has been used as a hostel (in 2013) and an HMO (in 2015). purposes for which planning permission or licenses have not been granted. Councillor Noor is expected to have knowledge that such pemiissions were required and therefore he knowingly operated in breach of the Council’s regulations.
The accommodation provided at 238 Romford Road appears to have been of a very poor quality and raised a number of health and safety concerns for those living there. Those residing there claimed that Councillor Noor denied them tenancy agreements; instead they had to provide him (via third party) with cash payments for rent. Further there is evidence that Councillor Noor has evicted tenants without proper process.
Building work was carried out at a number of Councillor Noor’s properties without the appropriate licences and permissions being sought, resulting in some cases in Council monies being spent on investigation and legal action.
There appears to be significant doubt as to whether Councillor Noor has correctly registered his various properties for Business and/or Council Tax.
Councillor Noor seems to have wrongfully claimed to be a councillor while also stressing his association with the Mayor when talking to a planning enforcement officer in 2012.
Councillor Noor has failed to register all of his properties when called on to do so following his election. Further when he updated his register of interests in September 2014 he failed to include his financial interest in 77a Derby Road.
So what is to be done about all of this? As it turns out, not a lot.
A councillor is only subject to the provisions of the Code of Conduct when s/ he is acting in her/his official capacity and the Report finds that most of Cllr Noor’s activities in the complaint took place before he was elected in May 2014. So Noor cannot be held to account by the standards committee for anything he is alleged to have done before then. As the report notes, tartly:
…you have to actually be a councillor (rather than simply claiming to be one) for the Code to apply.
And as far as the things he has subsequently done are concerned, most of them are in relation to his activities as a private landlord rather than as a councillor. The only breach he is guilty of is never registering his interest in 77a Derby Road. But…
Having said that, I do understand how the complainant would have taken the view that Councillor Noor by his conduct might have brought the Council into disrepute. It is difficult to see how the surrounding publicity surrounding Councillor Noor’s conduct could have had anything but a detrimental effect on the reputation of both the Council and its members in general, particularly given recent Council campaigns to improve the behaviour of local landlords. (paragraph 6.16)
There may be little the committee can do to Councillor Noor beyond reprimand him for not declaring 77a Derby Road and warn him as to his future conduct. That said, I would hope his Labour colleagues are less forgiving. I don’t expect he’ll be welcomed back into Group any time soon and the prospect of his name being on the ballot paper again as an official Labour candidate must be extremely remote.
Sadly, there is no ‘recall’ mechanism for councillors. Unless Noor does the decent thing and resigns the residents of Plaistow South are stuck with him until 2018. Which is an outrage: the Report throws into question his fitness for public office.
Where’s Robin – again?
29 Feb
Newham Labour activists (mostly councillors, if you look closely) have been out, pounding the pavements, ahead of May’s London mayoral and assembly elections. And of course they’ve been posting pictures of themselves all over Twitter and Facebook.
But one very prominent local member is conspicuous by his absence.
Where’s Robin?
Leave of absence
23 Feb
Spot the difference
At last night’s full council meeting members agreed to grant an extended leave of absence to long-serving Canning Town councillor Sheila Thomas.
Cllr Thomas hasn’t attended a meeting since last September due to ill health. If last night’s motion hadn’t been passed she’d have been removed from office on 21st March and a by-election called to fill the vacancy.
All very fair and decent. After all, it’s not Sheila Thomas’s fault she’s too poorly to go to meetings.
So why, I wonder, wasn’t the same courtesy extended to Charlene McLean last year when she was unable to attend after giving birth to an extremely premature baby, who required months of intensive care and attention? Cllr McLean believed she was on maternity leave. No-one bothered to tell her she wasn’t or to organise getting her to a meeting. She was expelled from the council. Happily, she regained her seat at the subsequent by-election.
Let’s be charitable and say that Newham Labour has learned its lesson. The alternative explanation is altogether less appealing.
Co-opting the Co-op
21 Jan
The somewhat delayed annual meeting of the Newham Co-operative Party took place earlier this week.
This almost completely dormant body is significant because it is able to appoint delegates to the General Committee and Executive Committee of both constituency Labour parties in the borough.
It gives Sir Robin Wales and his cronies a clear route to controlling the constituency parties without the need to pay any attention to the party affiliate that nominated them or local members.
With signs of growing resistance within the previously ultra-loyal East Ham Labour party and West Ham showing an alarming capacity for independent thought – they nominated Jeremy Corbyn for leader, for heaven’s sake! – this is proving to be a safer route for the mayor as he seeks to maintain his grip on power.
Cllr Clive Furness helpfully turned up on the night with a printed slate of candidates – shown above – in case the hard-of-thinking couldn’t remember who they were supposed to be voting for.
There were 44 “co-operators” present and in the contested elections the Walesite candidates all achieved a remarkably similar 27 votes!
Another four more years
20 Jan
Photo by ghedo on Flickr
Having been prevented from socialising in the run up to Christmas by the application of non-existent ‘rules’ Newham Labour members face yet more misery as the campaign to secure Sir Robin’s nomination for a fifth term gears up: a home visit from the man himself and a member of his executive team.
The unhappy news was delivered in an email on Tuesday. Beneath a massive picture of Sir Robin and a predictable recitation of the administration’s ‘successes’ (Workplace, Every Child a Future Voter, prosecutions of rogue landlords), the shoe dropped:
However, we are facing a huge financial challenge with massive government cuts. I, along with many members of my executive, have been visiting party members to ask what they think our response should be. These visits will continue…
By a not-very-mysterious coincidence, these home visits started in Boleyn ward the weekend after Cllr Charity Fiberesima’s death, when Sir Robin and his mates were spotted running around the ward interrogating party members. Some were so offended they complained to Stephen Timms.
Those members who would rather not wait at home on the off-chance the Dear Leader drops by can go along to a couple of special meetings at East Ham Town Hall and Stratford library. They’ll be able to hear Sir Robin’s ‘current thinking’ before getting the chance – right at the end, no doubt – to have their say.
The meetings are strictly ‘members only’ affairs – no affiliates or registered supporters have been invited, much less the wider public – and those who want to go along must RSVP first to Carl Morris, the full-time local organiser, to let him know which one they’ll be attending. As these are party events and not council business, Labour should be billed for the use of the facilities, though based on past events they probably won’t be.
Finally…
one thing which has become clear through our member visits is that we have not explained sufficiently well just how radical and successful we are as a Council.So, starting this week I will be writing a regular blog – you can find it www.newhamlabour.co.uk/blog. Do please visit and read it.
Read it, but don’t expect to be able to respond. Despite readers being invited to suggest improvements, there’s nowhere to leave comments. As ever in Newham, communication is a one-way process.
No mayor, no Christmas
21 Dec
Labour party members in Manor Park had to cancel their Christmas social at short notice last week because the mayor couldn’t attend.
The ward party chair sent round an apologetic email, explaining that the social couldn’t go ahead because of Labour party “rules”:
I have to inform you, regretfully, that after an emergency meeting, the Manor Park Social Event for next week (17th), has been cancelled.
This is due to three rules: firstly, one of our guests cannot attend. (If our Mayor cannot attend then we cannot proceed with the social). Secondly, branches are not allowed to officially socialize as part of the Labour Party, only CLP. Finally, no guests outside of Newham are allowed to be invited to a Labour Party social event and there was some doubt about the music and choir at a Labour Party event.
This is very disappointing, as it was discussed and agreed at our branch meeting three weeks ago.
However, I have asked the Chair of East Ham CLP if we can have a social event in 2016 for all of East Ham branches and this can go ahead. So we can look forward to this event.
I am very sorry for any inconvenience this cancellation may have caused.
My sincere apologies.
Anyone searching the Labour party rule book will, of course, come away empty-handed. There are no such rules. It is straightforwardly an attempt to control and stop East Ham members meeting up and working together ahead of the trigger ballot to confirm Sir Robin, yet again, as the mayoral candidate. Divide and rule!
The ward chair was instructed to cancel the event, but maybe she should have seen it coming. She is also East Ham’s social secretary and has previously complained to the CLP secretary, Mariam Dawood, about the impossibility of organising activities without access to the full list of party members.
These shenanigans are an interesting contrast to the West Ham party, which has held many events open to all Labour supporters, mostly without the mayor. Some have included non-Newham guests – and even non-Labour people (disclosure: I’ve been to a couple).
Members in East Ham ought to be asking themselves about the motives of the people running their local party. Whose interests are they looking after?
At home he’s a tourist
15 Dec
Somehow it escaped my attention until a few days ago that Cllr Hanif Abdulmuhit had once upon a time been secretary of Newham Liberal Democrats.
That was before he joined Respect, for whom he stood successfully for council in 2006, defeating the incumbent Labour members. He also stood in 2008 as the party’s candidate for the London Assembly seat of City & East.
As Respect disintegrated he reinvented himself again, serving out the remainder of his term as a Labour councillor. He had to sit out the 2010 elections before returning as a thoroughly reconstructed representative of Newham Labour in 2014. He is now mayoral advisor for Building Communities (Adult Care Integration) and community lead for Green Street.
But he obviously never stays in one place too long, so Newham Greens should be on the lookout for his membership application any day now.
(hat-tip to Gary Stevens for the image)
[And in case you were wondering about the title: At home he’s a tourist – Gang of Four]
forestgatedotnet 