Dear Sir or Madam,

In the 2007 / 2008 Annual Audit Letter from the Audit Commission to
Trafford through its appointed auditor it states:

'36 In summer 2007, a claim was made against Trafford Council under
the Sex Discrimination Act by one of its councillors, a former
Mayor. The Court upheld aspects of the claim relating to the
Mayors’ travel arrangements and ordered the Council to pay damages
of £7,000. Coupled with the costs of £102,000, the Council has
incurred expenditure of £109,000 as a result of this court case.

37 In my view, this does not represent value for money for the
people of Trafford. It is disappointing to see a situation where a
council has to defend its actions in Court rather than resolve by
local negotiation.

38 As the appointed auditor for Trafford Council, I have considered
whether the Council could have handled the dispute differently in
such a manner as to avoid the court case, and the consequent
expenditure.

39 It is clear to me that the Council made mistakes and that some
aspects of the Council’s travel arrangements for the Mayor broke
the law. However I make no further comment on the legal case as
this has already been dealt with by the Court and I see no useful
purpose in covering the same ground.

40 If mistakes had not been made, there would have been no court
case and no consequent expenditure. These mistakes having been made
I have focused my attention on whether or not the Council could
have handled subsequent events differently in such a manner as to
avoid the court case, and the consequent expenditure.

41 Having considered the events in some detail, I am not minded to
take further formal audit action. I have taken into account the
fact that there is expenditure relating to the court claim in both
financial years 2006/07 and 2007/08.

42 The Council should ensure that arrangements are in place to
minimise the risk of such disputes arising, and to resolve any
future disagreements locally without the need to have recourse to
the courts. '

The Trafford Council in 2007 / 2008 have now refused to meet the
Local Government Ombudsman's recommendations on four occasions. It
has been identified that this was to protect the political parties
on the Council. A petition has been launched by one of those
affected seeking justice from the Prime Minister
(http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/justiceforcar...).

Firstly, are the staff of the Audit Commission excluded from
signing a petition to the Prime Minister despite being aware that
the Trafford Council habitually break the law for party political
purposes. Will the Audit Commission request its staff and members
to sign the petition in the light of its formal audit report for
the Trafford Council.

Secondly, is it the intention of the Audit Commission to seek,
apply and use a 'new' Trafford indicator that identifies that the
Secretary of State needs to assume control of the Trafford Council,
and other similar Council's.

Thirdly, Trafford identified that they had secured a change in
Ombudsman in about December 2006. This was affirmed by the
Commission for Local Administration in England ['CLAE'] in February
2007 is it the intention of the Audit Commission to ensure that
there is not a conflict of interest in its examination of Council's
subject to a local settlement and or formal report identifying
maladministration causing injustice by a Council issued by a member
of the CLAE in their role as Ombudsman.

Fourthly, will the Audit Commission through its District Auditor be
identifying to the Trafford Council that rejection by the Trafford
Council of the LGO's recommendation three times does not represent
value for money for the residents of Trafford.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

Thank you for your request for information dated 8 August 2008. However,
your email does not meet the criteria for a request under the Freedom of
Information Act as it does not ask for access to recorded information.
If you would like me to treat this as a request for information under
the Freedom of Information Act, please revise your request so that it
asks for recorded information and it will then be processed under our
Freedom of Information procedure.

However, I am able to respond to your enquiry about whether staff from
the Audit Commission are excluded from signing a petition. I can confirm
that the senior members of the Audit Commission's staff are prevented
from taking part in political activity, such as canvassing, which
relates directly to the functions of local government bodies in general
or to a particular local government body.

I hope that this response is helpful and I can confirm that the Audit
Commission has not withheld any information in respect of your request.
However, if you are unhappy with this response, you can submit a
complaint under the Audit Commission's Access to Information Complaints
Procedure, a copy of which is attached.

Regards

Leah

Leah Sparks

Senior Manager, Audit Regulation

Audit Policy and Practice

show quoted sections