A Public Scandal

[brassed off monkey]

The big question that needs to be answered by HBC is why, when an audit into the management & administration system of Manor Residents which Cllr Wilcox mangages was thought neccessary.

Was a Grant of £680,000 pounds given to Who Care (N/E) which has Cllrs Wilcox & Cranney as the 2 Directors ?

I also believe that Cllr C Akers Belcher was, until a few weeks ago a Board Member of Who Cares (N/E) ?

Even more worrying is the fact that given the information that has come to light about the shambolic state of the Accounting procedures at MR under cllr Wilcox, why are HBC considering giving another £340,000 pounds to Who Cares (N/E) ?

Incidentally anyone can make a complaint to the police if they believe something of an illegal nature is taking place, the more people that complain as individuals, the more likely it is the police will look into the goings on at MR

But if you consider the misplacing of 50 gallons of Whitewash & Half a Dozen 6"Brushes illegal..... it isn`t.... its just the norm in dealings with HBC

[intheloop]

It was actually Stuart drummond who ordered the audit enquiry into MRA and look wat happened to him he didn't last long nd they votes him out, it just goes to show which councillors have the power in this town

[tankerville]

Someone I know telephoned Cleveland Police yesterday asking if they intended to make any charge against those implicated in this whole sorry mess.

After 'eventually' speaking to an officer in charge the said officer hung the phone up on him.

The general view was no one at M.R.A. have committed an offence so Cleveland Police will do nothing.

The law is there to protect some and it would seem others. Silly me I thought it was ALL.

[steveL]

"That states a "person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person fails to comply with an obligation imposed on them in respect of the disclosure of pecuniary interests on taking office ".

Bit of a loophole there, I think - deliberate or otherwise.

[Noseyp]

The council are not considering giving WCNE £340,000!

The council have given WCNE £170,000 and have put the other £170,000 (final 6 months of the project) out to formal tended.

There won't be enough time for anyone new to do anything meaningful so the favourites must be the current incumbents and the councillors will be able to deflect any suggestions of corruption onto officers tasked by them to get value for money.

Does anyone actually know someone (without ties to the Labour Group, or jumbled Wilcox, Harriman, Cranney crowd) who has had their lives improved by this million pound service?

[brassed off monkey]

Jeezzz it is getting to the stage when anything is believeable about what is going on in HBC, how far up the tree does this lot go, no wonder they want to keep things under wraps

£1,000,0000 for what exactly  just who is it that benefits from the Who Cares organisation how much as directors do Cranney & Wilcox make per year out of it 

There`s an awful lot of questions, unfortunately no one wants to give us the answers well true ones

[rabbit]

I had a google on the Localism Act website, and the language does cover the regulations if  a councillor (after entering office) does have a pecuniary interest in a subject. In this event he/she must declare that interest etc etc.

The final get out of gaol card seems to be covered in section 33 (Dispensations) which to me, suggests that they can do what they like!

Localism Bill:

30 Disclosure of pecuniary interests on taking office


1) A member or co-opted member of a relevant authority must, before the end of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person becomes a member or co-opted member of the authority, notify the authority's monitoring officer of any disclosable pecuniary interests which the person has at the time when the notification is given


31Pecuniary interests in matters considered at meetings or by a single member

(1)Subsections (2) to (4) apply if a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority—

(a)is present at a meeting of the authority or of any committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority,

(b)has a disclosable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered, or being considered, at the meeting, and

(c)is aware that the condition in paragraph (b) is met.

(2)If the interest is not entered in the authority's register, the member or co-opted member must disclose the interest to the meeting, but this is subject to section 32(3).

(3)If the interest is not entered in the authority's register and is not the subject of a pending notification, the member or co-opted member must notify the authority's monitoring officer of the interest before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the disclosure.

(4)The member or co-opted member may not—

(a)participate, or participate further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting, or

(b)participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting,
but this is subject to section 33.


(7)If the interest is not entered in the authority's register and is not the subject of a pending notification, the member must notify the authority's monitoring officer of the interest before the end of 28 days beginning with the date when the member becomes aware that the condition in subsection (6)(b) is met in relation to the matter.


(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person—

(a)fails to comply with an obligation imposed on the person by section 30(1) or 31(2), (3) or (7),

(b)participates in any discussion or vote in contravention of section 31(4), or

(c)takes any steps in contravention of section 31(.


33Dispensations from section 31(4)


(n.b. I have put some of the text into bold format)

(1).A relevant authority may, on a written request made to the proper officer of the authority by a member or co-opted member of the authority, grant a dispensation relieving the member or co-opted member from either or both of the restrictions in section 31(4) in cases described in the dispensation.

(2)A relevant authority may grant a dispensation under this section only if, after having had regard to all relevant circumstances, the authority—

(a)considers that without the dispensation the number of persons prohibited by section 31(4) from participating in any particular business would be so great a proportion of the body transacting the business as to impede the transaction of the business,

(b)considers that without the dispensation the representation of different political groups on the body transacting any particular business would be so upset as to alter the likely outcome of any vote relating to the business,

(c)considers that granting the dispensation is in the interests of persons living in the authority's area,

(d)if it is an authority to which Part 1A of the Local Government Act 2000 applies and is operating executive arrangements, considers that without the dispensation each member of the authority's executive would be prohibited by section 31(4) from participating in any particular business to be transacted by the authority's executive, or

(e)considers that it is otherwise appropriate to grant a dispensation.

(3)A dispensation under this section must specify the period for which it has effect, and the period specified may not exceed four years.

(4)Section 31(4) does not apply in relation to anything done for the purpose of deciding whether to grant a dispensation under this section.

[fred c]

It`s a strange world when a local councillor can have a quiet word in the ear of a local bobby & he then makes it his business to knock on the door of a member of the public.

Yet when a member of the public requests senior members of the council to ask the police to investigate the decidedly suspicious goings on at MR, they don`t want to know.

[stokoe]

Tell me after a lot of digging and hard work from a lot of people on this site.

is out going to happen to this bent lot?

or are you all wasting your time,hope not.

[steveL]

QUOTE: "The council are not considering giving WCNE £340,000!

The council have given WCNE £170,000 and have put the other £170,000 (final 6 months of the project) out to formal tended.

There won't be enough time for anyone new to do anything meaningful so the favourites must be the current incumbents and the councillors will be able to deflect any suggestions of corruption onto officers tasked by them to get value for money.


It's a good point really because, to a large degree, the horse has already bolted on this one. The Connected Care contract only has a further six months to run till next March and it's unlikely that any other organisation is going to be interested in taking up the reins for just six months. The Cabinet may have decided to put the 3rd year out to tender but HBC has been so dragged its feet in enacting this that the first six month's funding for that 3rd year seems to have already been passed over to MR/Who Cares(NE) making something of a nonsense of that Cabinet decision.

So HBC is faced with either continuing to fund an organisation which it already knows is devoid of even the most basic of financial management or of closing the Connected Care programme six months early.
It clearly believes that the customary spin of 'procedures have already been put in place to prevent this sort of thing ever happening again' will do the trick but how absurd is this, if it even happens at all, when applied to the last six months of a 3 year contract when 2¹/₂ years have already gone by.

It may seem to some that the Audit has come towards the end of the contract when the damage has already been done but the real scandal is that many of the 'serious concerns' about the financial management of MR were already known about when the contract was first awarded to Who Cares(NE). So much so that a raft of conditions were imposed on the contract, most of which were never followed through.

Whatever the results of the recent audit, the real question is all about the circumstances by which  MR/Who Cares(NE) were ever given the contract in the first place.

We've been told that Ged Hall himself refused to sign the infamous Year 2 accounts for MR yet he still went ahead and recommended that the contract should go to Who Cares(NE) to the exclusion of all others. That in itself requires some explanation.

The fact that few of the conditions applied to the contract were actually followed through also requires some serious explanation.

Add on to this the fact that HBC has been here before with the Phoenix Centre and I would say that HBC itself is now in deep s**t with a referral to the LGA now the least of what is about to happen.

It may be frustrating for people who, after reading about all of this, are left wondering why no one appears to be interested in holding people to account but it will happen. This genie isn't going to go back into the bottle.

One last point. The draft audit was published on 16th April this year. The records on the Companies House website show that Cllr Christopher Akers-Belcher, Leader of Hartlepool Borough Council, resigned as a Director of Who Cares (NE) on the 25 April 2013 - just 9 days later.

Last week, he claimed in The Mail that he hadn't seen the report.

Lies flow freely these days.

[jaffa]

well it appears wilcox of MR will not learn she must be stupid to think ppl will put up with her bull crap, yet another employee has stood up against her and others to come , allegedly 1 of her employees was physically attacked !!!!!!!!!

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

One of the comments at the foot of the Mail's 'Daming Report' article mentions the Serious Fraud Office

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/fraud/taxonomy-of-fraud.aspx - the link at the bottom of the page is well worth reading.


Any thoughts?

[Fight4whatsright]

Wilcox to be in paper again tomorrow for her actions towards previous employees. When will this stop so innocent hard working people are not treated in such an appalling way. They are made to think they are nothing and put under huge stress after speaking up. Well to all those who are feeling the wrath of manor residents. Keep your head held high and fight till the end until justice is served. 

[jaffa]

The police fraud department should be called into MRA, Customs & excise should also be called in to MRA ppl are paying over odds taxcontributions yet  none has been paid to Inland Revenue , makes u wonder when Wilcox daughter is walking around with a £4.000.00 rolex watch on her wrist what mammy bought for her birthday!!!!!!

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Haven't they heard of recorded delivery?


http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/community/under-fire-manor-residents-association-faces-three-new-legal-battles-against-former-employees-1-5755144