Compensation for losing car allowance to those not entitled to recieve it.

Dear Cheltenham Borough Council,

Please provide details of the meeting(s) which recommended and
approved that in addition to paying compensation to staff in
receipt of car allowance where their car was not in use as a result
of either mechanical defect or the employees absence through
illness, which is a condition set out in the green book, they
should also be paid compensation for losing that allowance because
they failed to meet the conditions for payment.

I understand that the meetings were not open to the public but
would like full details of the dates, attendees and decisions made
together with the minutes that were available to the public.

Yours faithfully,

George Readman.

Dear Cheltenham Borough Council,

This reply does not answer my question asking who, "recommended and
approved that in addition to paying compensation to staff in
receipt of car allowance where their car was not in use as a result
of either mechanical defect or the employees absence through
illness, which is a condition set out in the green book, they
should also be paid compensation for losing that allowance because
they failed to meet the conditions for payment".

It may, to some extent, point to who initiated the change process
but I am still waiting to learn how and when was it approved by
Council?

You have simply told me that a meeting took place with five senior
staff members who had some discussion about car user allowances
particularly on the review or re-rating of other members of staff.

There is nothing to show what authority was used to alter the
provisions of the Nationally agreed Conditions of Service for local
government employees, and it is now also clear that despite claims
made by the Cabinet member for Finance that there was no Union
representative or elected Member of the Council present.

I do not believe that it can be right for a few members of staff to
meet and change nationally agreed Conditions of Employment and I
cannot fail to notice that some, probably most, if not all of the
five were in receipt of the allowance and would benefit from the
change. That cannot possibly be right and it is most certainly not
the way safeguard the public purse.

Nor can it ever be right to pay compensation for anyone losing
something which he or she is no longer entitled to receive.

I am still waiting to learn when, and how this change, which had an
impact on the budget was approved by Council?

Please look again at your response and If you are not able or ready
to provide answers to my questions forward it to the Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

G H Readman

Dear Karen,

Thank you for your email. I'm afraid it doesn't take us far towards
getting answers to the outstanding questions.

In response to my questions 'who initiated the change process',
'how and when it was approved by Council' -you simply
say that " Staff and Support Services Committee approved the
revised policy on 10 March 2008 as part of single status
which initiated the process. "

I have to tell you that I can find no such proposal on the agenda
for the 10 March meeting, and in the minutes of that
meeting the item referring to Single Status reads;

13. Single Status
The Committee was reminded that following nationally negotiated
agreement between the local government employers and the trade
unions
in 1997 local government was committed to implementing single
status.
The authority has been negotiating with the unions on the basis of
comprehensive proposals to introduce new and equality proved pay
structures. The Assistant Director Human Resources and
Organisational
Development updated the committee on progress to date regarding
implementation of single status. .
Resolved i) that the proposals for pay protection the pay
and grading structure as agreed with the trade
unions in principle and the terms and conditions
and employment be approved.
ii) that the Chief Executive be authorised to agree
with the trade unions any minor revisions to the
grading structure/new terms and conditions of
employment where such revisions are
necessary to provide clarity or efficacy.

Will you please point out just where the information which you
claim to be there can be found. I am still waiting to find out
exactly who initiated the proposal to change the policy and provide
compensation for those found not to meet the criteria, when any
committee approved the change and when it was approved by Council.

Moving on to the Car user allowances you say that annual checks
were carried out at the end of each financial year but follow that
up by saying that The policy was implemented in September 2009 and
was reviewed after 12 months on 19 October 2010. Do you mean that
annual checks were carried out at the end of each financial year up
to the end of March 2009 and the annual checks now are carried out
in September or October.? I asked for the details of previous
reviews to see whether the annual changes had been as dramatic as
last year but have only sent 2010/11 and 2011/12. Are such tables
available for previous years? The briefing note suggests that
annual reviews had not been taking place although it is a
requirement stated in the policy.

The whole arrangement seems far too casual. You refer to the new
policy but while it makes reference to National Conditions it
doesn't carry any sort of date to show when it became effective or
the reason / authority for update.

You make a point of telling me that the auditor has dealt with my
questions. I have indeed asked him to look into these questions
both on the way in which the allowances have been made and the way
in which the policy has been changed but he has not provided me
with the answers. He may have said he was satisfied but that
explains nothing. You also quote him as saying;

"The council has decided to apply the same transitional
arrangements for the withdrawal or reduction of allowances for
those staff whose car allowance payments have changed. The green
book provides basic national provisions but it also explicitly
allows local authorities discretion to modify these through local
negotiation".
If he has been able to see evidence of proper negotiation then you
should have no difficulty in providing it to me. Where am I to find
it? A Council decision must be properly recorded somewhere.

I find it difficult to understand why you say "I can confirm that
the decisions did not effect any of the executive board members who
had all already been advised that their car allowances would cease
at the end of the financial year."
They were indeed affected by the decision as their allowances were
stopped or changed as a result of the review. They were amongst
those found to not satisfy the criteria but would have continued to
get the allowance until April when they would start to get
Compensation as a result of the decision to change the rules. They
had been recieving the allowance well before the change, and since
the criteria remained the same just what was it that meant they
were no longer qualified to recieve it.?

I am obliged by law, as a taxpayer, to help meet the cost of these
decisions and I expect to be able to see exactly where and how my
money is being spent. I fully understand that some employees should
be reimbursed for necessary business travel but I also fully
understand that Allowances, of any sort, are ONLY justified when
the criteria for paying the allowance is fully satisfied. We now
have a this ludicrous situation, probably unique, where I am called
on to pay someone compensation for not receiving an allowance to
which he or she is not entitled, and I want to know exactly how
this has been put into place and exactly who agreed it.
Representatives that we have put in place to represent us have a
duty to protect our interests and we must be able to see for
ourselves that they are doing that.

You will gather that I am not satisfied that you have answered my
questions. I am not clear on what you mean by a right to appeal if
this is intended to be taken as the review but if that is what is
needed to get the answers then I ask you to treat this as such. Do
whatever you have to do to get the answers I have been attempting
to get for quite a long time. My patience is running out.

Yours faithfully,

G H Readman

Dear Cheltenham Borough Council,

I am still waiting for the response to my request dated 31st
October to which you responded on the same day allocating a
reference number FOI 1786 with a promise that I could expect a
reply within 20 working days.

Yours faithfully,

G H Readman

Dear Cheltenham Borough Council,
I am still waiting for the promised reply

Yours faithfully,

G H Readman

Dear Cheltenham Borough Council,

Your reply did not include the “e-mail, highlighted in red, the
information the council holds in response to your FOI request” so,
for completeness, it is copied here..
     In response to my questions 'who initiated the change
process',
RESPONSE
In 1997 the Government said that all authorities had to comply with
single status.  Details of this will be publicly available via a
google search of the internet.   In 2002 the council appointed a
new Assistant Director - Human Resources and one of the role's main
responsibilities was to manage the council's approach to single
status. 
The Council allocated £10,000 for the implementation of Single
Status in budget Council on 15 February 2002.  A link to the
minutes is below - see page 14:
https://democracy.cheltenham.gov.uk/Data...
The Council considered and agreed a revised constitution on 22
April 2002, including terms of reference for S&SSC (Staff and
Support Services Committee) which would have responsibility for
personnel/staffing matters.  A link to the report is below - see
appendix 1 on page 14:
https://democracy.cheltenham.gov.uk/Data...(Proposed%20Amendments).pdf
Please find below a link to the minutes of the Council meeting on
22 April 2002, see pages 321 and 323:
https://democracy.cheltenham.gov.uk/Data...
S&SS considered a report dated 20 November 2003 on 4 December 2003
(report looks like it was deferred to the 4 December 2003 meeting)
and delegated responsibility to the Board of Directors for the
implementation of single status.  A link to the report is below:
<<20111221143233539.tif>>

Please find an extract from an exempt minute for S&SSC held on 4
December 2003:
<<20111221144958927.tif>>

You say this is all the information you have but, after repeated
requests, you have not been able to provide anything to show that
the change to the car user policy, part othe National Conditions of
Service for Local Government employees, was ever approved by, or
even offered for approval to the Council.

The auditor did reject my request for a “public interest report” on
the abuse of the car user policy. Included in his reply to me, he
said, “Indeed there is evidence that some staff, (notably within
the senior leadership team) have this year effectively waived their
right to receive car allowances of a higher amount in recognition
of the imperative for financial savings.” which shows how much he
was mislead.

The review in (according the Auditor) the autumn of 2010, appears
to be the only one carried out although the policy requires it to
be done annually, determined that only 40 (half) of those receiving
the essential user rate met the criteria, but despite that we find
that over seventy (including most, if not all the senior leadership
team”) were still being paid the full “essential user” rate in June
2011.

With regard to your gratuitous invitation....You will gather from
the above that I do fully understand and that I will continue to
follow this through.

Yours faithfully,

G H Readman

Dear Cheltenham Borough Council,

You say that you have provided information and that you have
nothing further to add. If we look at what you have said
…..........
The Council has already advised you that:
“In 2002 the council appointed a new Assistant Director - Human
Resources and one of the role's main responsibilities was to manage
the council's approach to single status.

The Council allocated £10,000 for the implementation of Single
Status in budget Council on 15 February 2002.

1. The Council has obviously approved of all budgets and has been
approving additional funding for the Single Status Reserve fund
over the years. Budget papers "Statements of Reserves" show that
the Single status reserve fluctuated and considerably higher
amounts were fed into it. On 31st March it stood at £1,156,647. At
31st March it was £14,247 and with £3,000 spent this year it is
forecast to be £10,647 on 31st March 2012.

The Council considered and agreed a revised constitution on 22
April 2002, including terms of reference for S&SSC (Staff and
Support Services Committee) which would have responsibility for
personnel/staffing matters.

2. They would be required to follow the rules set out in the Green
Book which sets out...in Part 2...
Key national provisions which are for application by all local
authorities to all employees covered by the NJC. They are basic
provisions which constitute a standard throughout the UK.
And....Part 3
Other national provisions which may be modified by local
negotiation. The party proposing change must state in writing
what changes are sought and why

S&SS considered a report dated 20 November 2003 on 4 December 2003
(report looks like it was deferred to the 4 December 2003 meeting)
and delegated responsibility to the Board of Directors for the
implementation of single status.

This means that Full Council approved the budget, including the
funding
for single status. Full Council approved the terms of reference for
S&SSC
and therefore single status did not need to be considered further
by Full
Council, S&SSC already had delegated authority from Full Council.
S&SSC
delegated authority to make changes to the terms and conditions,
including
the Car User Allowance policy, to the Board of Directors therefore
Full
Council did not need to deal with this further.
3. It is not clear which Budget you are referring to but at the
Council meeting held in JUNE 2011 Councillor Webster produced a
report which included “The policy was also reviewed and allowed for
any officers having their allowance reduced or removed would be
entitled to a transition period – 3 months at current allowance, 3
months at half allowance. This transition period has also impacted
on the forecast saving, reducing it by around £15,000.”

4. Those delegations, made eight years ago, to deal with the
National agreement to bring in Single Status at neutral cost do not
make provision for a Board of Directors to change the rules in a
way from which most, if not all of them, would directly derive
financial benefit, and would adversely affect the Budget forecast
savings. Your 31st October reply says that Staff and Support
Services Committee approved the revised policy on 10 March 2008 and
the single status exercise was completed and made effect at 1st
September 2008.

Yours faithfully,

G H Readman