INVESTIGATION INTO STANDARDS OF CONDUCT UNDER THE LOCALISM ACT 2011
COUNCILLOR MAHBOOB HUSSAIN
INDEX TO CORE BUNDLE
No Document Date Pagination New from main Pagination
. bundle - top right
, bottom of page right of
. page COMPLAINTS 1. Extractfrom the 11/2016 lOa, lOg- 1-4 Arrangements for Dealing lOi with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 201 1 [internal pp 1 and 7-9 only] 2. Complaint Form- 03/06/2016 1-10 5-14 Allegations of Breaches of Code of Conduct for Members completed by Jan Britton re: Mahboob
Page 1 of 5 Hussain
3. Statement of Jan Britton — 09/11/2016 Statement 15-22 Interview 04/10/2016 bundle 1-8 4. Final Report of an 20/02/2017 lOak-lObw 23-61 Investigation in Accordance with the Arrangements for dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 PUBLIC CONVENIENCES 5. Statement of David 01/11/2016 Statement 62-65
WiIIetts — Interview bundle 9- 13/10/2016 12 6. Statement of Mitchell 03/11/2016 Statement 66-71 Spencer— Interview bundle 13- 25/10/2016 18 7. Statement of Kerry Jones 23/11/2016 Statement 72-77
— Interview 01/11/2016 bundle 19-
._____ 24 8. Letter from Central 18/07/2011 522-524 78-80
Property Line — Abdul Naeem re: Public Toilets 9. Briefing Note to David 15/08/2011 526-527 81-82 Willetts re Public Conveniences in Sandwell 10 E-mails between Abdul of 16/12/2011 536-537 83-84 Central Property Line and 12/12/2011 Mitchell Spencer re: 07/11/2011 Public Conveniences 11 E-mails between Abdul, 12/01/2012 542-545 85-88 Central Property Line and Mitchell Spencer: Public Conveniences 12 Letter from Sandwell 30/01/2012 546-548 89-91 MBC, M Spencer, I
Page 2 of 5 Property Review Assistant to Central Property Line re: Public
Convenience Sites - Sandwell 13 Letter to A Naeem, 02/03/2012 551-552 92-93 Central Property Line from Sandwell MBC, M Spencer, Property Review Assistant 14 Emails between David 02/03/2012 553-556 94-97 Willetts and Matthew Lynch re Public Conveniences 15 E-mails between Mitchell 09/03/2012 557 98 Spencer and Central 08/03/2012 Property Line re: Public Conveniences 16 Email between Mitchell 19/04/2012 573-574 99-1 00 Spencer to Scott Winning 18/04/2012 re: Former Public 13/04/2012 Conveniences 17 Emails between David 24/04/2012 578-579 101-102 Willetts and Mitchell 20/04/2012 Spencer re: Former
Public Conveniences — Valuation Request 18 Report from DVS Property 23/05/2012 591-599 103-111 Specialists to S Kellas/ A Jones Sandwell MBC re: Valuation of redundant conveniences 19 E-mails between Scott 25/05/2012 602-603 112-113 Winning and Mitchell 24/05/2012 Spencer re: Public Conveniences 20 E-mails between Scott 07/06/2012 604 114
Page 3 of 5 Winning and Mitchell 31/05/2012 Spencer and Abdul, Central Property Line re: Public Conveniences 21 Extract from Agreement— 22/06/2012 See left 115-124 Sandwell MBC and Abdul Naeem Quyam [pp 620, 622, 623, 625, 628, 630, 632, 635, 637 and 639 only] 22 Extract from Report & 12/2015 See left 125-1 29
Valuation — Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co (Savills) [pp 662, 667, 669 and 692-693 only] PARKING TICKETS 23 Statement of Steve Boffy 25/10/2016 Statement 130-1 32
— Interview 13/10/2016 bundle 25- 27
24 Statement of Kira Fleck — 01/11/2016 Statement 133-1 36 Interview 17/10/2016 bundle 28- 31 25 Penalty Charge Notice undated 806 137
(PCN) — Procedure for dealing when a ticket is issued. 26 Table of payments [817 2001-2015 See left 138 only] 27 Parking Ticket (penalty 08/07/2012 821 139 charge) 14:26pm (PCN No SD51595702)
28 Notice Details — 08/07/2012 822 140 SD5I 595702 29 Notice history and Various 823-827 141 -1 45
correspondence — SD51 595702 30 Letter to Azeem Hafeez f 18/08/2015 874-875 146-147
Page 4 of 5 from Irfan Choudry, Service Manager Highways re: Notice of Intention 31 E-mails between between 17/10/2012 845-847 148-1 50 Irfan Choudry and Kira 16/10/2012 Fleck
32 Notice Details — 15/07/2013 848-851 151-1 54 SD5I 929943
33 Notice History — N Begum Various See left 155-1 64 [858-863 and 868-871 only] COUNCILLOR HUSSAIN INTERVIEWS 34 Record of Interview with 26/09/2016 32-52 165-1 85 Councillor Hussain 35 Additional questions to 17/01/2017 52a-52h 186-193 Councillor Hussain
Page 5 of 5 S M Sandwell J Metropolitan Borough Council Arrangements for dealing with standards allegations under the Localism Act 2011 Context
These “Arrangements” set out how you may make a complaint that an elected or co-opted member of this authority has failed to comply with the authority’s Code of Conduct, and sets out how the authority will deal with allegations of a failure to comply with the authority’s Code of Conduct. There is a separate procedure for dealing with Whistleblowing complaints Under the Localism Act 2011, the Council must have in place “arrangements” under which allegations that a member or co-opted member of the authority, or of a Committee or Sub-committee of the authority, has failed to comply with that authority’s member Code of Conduct can be investigated and decisions made on such allegations. Such arrangements must provide for the authority to appoint at least one Independent Person, whose views must be sought by the authority before it takes a decision on an allegation which it has decided shall be investigated, and whose views can be sought by the authority at any other stage, or by a member against whom an allegation has been made. 2 The Code of Conduct The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for members, which is available for inspection on the authority’s website and on request from the Sandwell Council House, Oldbury. 3 Making a complaint
If you wish to make a complaint, please write or email to — The Monitoring Officer Sandwell Council House Oldbury 869 3DE Or
Philipi tart~sandwell.gov.uk
[ILO; UNCLASSIFiED) November 2016 Approved at Councfl 17/1/2017 ) ~ a
8.2 Local Hearing
If the Monitoring Officer considers that local resolution is not appropriate, or the member concerned is not prepared to undertake the suggested resolution, then the Monitoring Officer will report the Investigating Officer’s report to a Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee which will conduct a local hearing before deciding whether the member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and, if so, whether to take any action in respect of the member. The local hearing will normally take place within six weeks of the decision to proceed to a local hearing being made.
The Monitoring Officer will conduct a “pre-hearing process”, requiring the member to give his/her response to the Investigating Officer’s report, in order to identify what is likely to be agreed and what is likely to be in contention at the hearing, and the Chair of the Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee may issue directions as to the manner in which the hearing will be conducted. If the matter to be heard is particularly complex, consideration may be given, by the Monitoring Officer and the Chair of the Committee, to have the hearing in front of the full Standards Committee rather than a sub-committee.
At the hearing, the Investigating Officer will present his/her report, call such witnesses as he/she considers necessary and make representations to substantiate his/her conclusion that the member has failed to comply with the Member Code of Conduct. For this purpose, the Investigating Officer may ask you as the complainant to attend and give evidence to the Sub Committee. The member will then have an opportunity to give his/her evidence, to call witnesses and to make representations to the Sub Committee as to why he/she considers that he/she did not fail to comply with the Member Code of Conduct.
If the Sub-Committee, with the benefit of any advice from the Independent Person, conclude that the member did not fail to comply with the Member Code of Conduct, they may dismiss the complaint. If the Sub-Committee concludes that the member did fail to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Chair will inform the member of this finding and the Sub-Committee will then consider what action, if any, the Sub-Committee should take as a result of the member’s failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.
[ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 )03 3 In doing this, the Sub-Committee will give the member an opportunity to make representations to the Sub-Committee and will consult the Independent Person.
9 What action can the Sub Committee of the Standards Committee take where a member has failed to comply with the Member Code of Conduct?
The Council has delegated to the Standards Committee such of its powers to take action in respect of individual members as may be necessary to promote and maintain high standards of conduct. Accordingly a Sub-Committee, on behalf of the Standards Committee, will publish the breach of the code of conduct and the sanction imposed on the member’s profile on the Council’s website for a period of time to be determined by the Sub Committee, which is to be no less than the time required for compliance with any sanction. If a member fails to comply with a sanction in the timescale set, the information will remain on the profile until compliance is achieved. The Sub Committee will also report its findings to Council for information.
The Standards Committee may —
9.1 Recommend to the member’s Group Leader (or in the case of un grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub Committees of the Council;
9.2 Recommend to the Leader of the Council that the member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;
9.3 Instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training for the member;
9.4 Recommend to Council to remove from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority;
9.5 Withdraw facilities provided to the member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access;
9.6 Exclude the member from the Council’s offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings.
[ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 ic Take such steps as appropriate, reasonable and proportionate to the particular conduct that amounted to the breach of the code of conduct.
The Standards Committee has no power to suspend or disqualify the member or to withdraw members’ or special responsibility allowances.
10 What happens at the end of the hearing?
At the end of the hearing, the Chair will state the decision of the Sub Committee as to whether the member failed to comply with the Member Code of Conduct and as to any actions which the Sub-Committee resolves to take.
As soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, the Monitoring Officer shall prepare a formal decision notice in consultation with the Chair of the Sub-Committee, and send a copy to you, to the member and make that decision notice available for public inspection and report the decision to the next convenient meeting of the Council.
If the member complies with the sanction imposed by the Standards Committee, within the timescale set, the Monitoring Officer will report the matter to the Standards Committee for information. If the member fails to comply with the sanction within the timescale set, the matter will be referred to the Standards Committee and Full Council for information.
11 Who are the Standards Committee?
The Standards Committee is appointed each year by the Council. Details of the current membership of the Committee can be found on the Council’s web site on the Committee Management Information System.
The Independent Person(s) is/are invited to attend all meetings of the Standards Committee and his/her/their views are sought and taken into consideration before a Sub Committee of the Standards Committee takes any decision on consideration of an investigation report on whether the member’s conduct constitutes a failure to comply with the Member Code of Conduct and as to any action to be taken following a finding of failure to comply with the Member Code of Conduct.
12 Who is the Independent Person?
The Independent Person is a person who has applied for the post following advertisement of a vacancy for the post, and is appointed by a positive vote from a majority of all the members of Council. [tLO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 JO) S
COMPLAINT FORM Allegation of Breach(es) of Code of Conduct for Members (Please read the Arrangements for Dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 as attached before completing this Form).
Your details
1. Please provide us with your name and contact details. Anonymous complaints may be investigated if they indicate a potentially exceptionally serious or significant matter and the complaint is accompanied by sufficient documentary or other supportive evidence.
Title: Mr First name: Jan Last name: Button Address: Sandwell Council House Oldbury
Contact telephone: 0121 569 3500 Email address: [email protected] SIgnature: - F
I Date of complaint 3r4 ~
Your address and contact details will not usually be released unless necessary or to deal with your complaint. The following people may see this Form:
a The Independent Person a Members of the sub-committee of the Standards Committee The Monitoring Officer of the authority and appropriate officers supporting the Monitoring Officer. A summary of your complaint may also be shared, with the Member(s) you are complaining against If you have serious concerns about your name and a sun~manj, or details of your complaint being released, please complete SectIon 8 of this Form and you may also discuss your reasons or concerns with the Council’s Monitoring Oflicer.
ILl I b
2. Are you:
D A member of the public ci An elected or co-opted Member of the Council U A Member of Parliament X Chief Executive or other Council employee, contractx~r or agent of the Council. U A Monitoring Officer U Other (Please specify)
3. Equality Monitoring Form - Please complete the Form attached at the back.
4. Please provide us with the name of the Member(s) you believe have breached the Code of Conduct for Members of the Council:
5. Please explain In this section (art /fl têsheeta) what the Member is alleged to have done that you believe breaches the Code of Condu& If you are complaining about more than one Member you should clearly explain what each Individual person has done that you believe breaches the Code of Conduct You should also supply dates, documentary evidence arid details of any witnesses that you believe would substantiate the alleged breach(es)
It is lmpo~j~~ that you provide all the information you wish to have taken into account by the Monitoring Officer. For example:
You should be specific, wherever possible, about exactly what you are alleging the Member said or did. For instance, instead of writing That the member insulted you, you should state what it was they said or CAd to insult you. You should provide the dates of the alleged inciden~ wherever possible. if you cannot provide exact dates it Is Important to give a general timeframe. You should confirm whether there are any witnesses to the alleged conduct and provide their names and contact details if possible. You ~houfd provide any relevant background lnfomiat~lon or other nievant dccumentar1 ~‘Adence to support your allegation(s)
I PROTECj]
Ia 7
“ If your allegation(s) relate td behaviour or conduct that occurred some time ago clearly explain why your complaint was not made earlier.
I Please provide us with the details of your complaint Please identify, if possible, Which part of the Members Code of Conduct you consider has not been complied with.
Please see below
I make a referral to the monitoring officer and the Standards Committee that Councillor Hussein has breached the general principles of the members code of conduct and the Nolan Principles as follows, Selflessness
* Honesty and Integrity • Using his position to secure an advantage
The General Principles of Conduct (the Nolan Principles) identified by the Committee of Standards in Public Life In its First Report as applying to all holders of public office, including not least members of local authorities. These important and fundamental principles include selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability openness, honesty, leadership by example and upholding the law.
“Selflessness” means “selflessness”, i.e. that members should serve only the pubic interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
“Honesty’ and “Integrity” mean “honesty’ and “integrity” La. that Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integthy may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all Occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.
In addition to this Coundilor Hussain has used his position to secure an advantage.
The alleged breaches arise from the following circumstances
liLt: PROT~Cq I
(1)The sale by the Council of redundant public toilets; and (2) The handling of Parking Tickets
THE TOILET BLOCKS
1. The case in relation to the toilet blocks is that Councillor Hussein
breached the requirerne~~~ of the Code relating to selflessness integrity and honesty. The events in question took place over a period from
around July 2011 to August 2012.
2. On 22 June 2012 the Council entered into a contract to sell three former public toilets. The contract was entered into with .4—. The contract was completed. On 13 August 2012 was registered as the purchaser.
4 3. a is ‘Neil known to Councillor Hussein. The association includes family associations and occasional visits to Councilior
Hussein’s home. ~t is likely that Councillor Hussain drew the public toilets purchase opportunity tat attention.
4. Councjflor Hussein was frwolved in the sate and did not declare his A Connection to
11: PROTEcT] 5. The sale was far below the District Valuers (23 May 2012)
valuation (and without there being any auction or tender/seaip,j bid
process).
6. The degree to which Councjljcjr Hussain involved himself in the
detail of the sale and the level of control which he exercised over
Council officers crossecj far over the line between legitimate member
oversight and the day-to..day operation of the Council’s property services function.
7. Councijlor Hussein (jointly with others) pressed the sale despite the fact that he appears to have known that the sale price (~35,aoo) was far below the District Value?s valuation (~13o~ooo)
8. in the version of the Code (which applied at the time that the
Council entered into the toilet block contract and therefore for some of the material period) the relevant Standards are in Part I (General
Principles of Conduct):
& In carrjing out their duties in exercising the function,~ of their
Authority or otherwise acting as a Member, Members will be
awec(ed to observe the following general principles of conduct
identifiad by the Committee Ofl Standards in Public Life in its FThSt
ITL!. PROTECfl Report as applying to holders of public office. These principles will
be taken into considerafton when any allegation is received of
breaches of the provisions of the Coda
Selflessness Holders ofpublic office should take decisions solely in terms of the
public lnteresL They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themseIves under any financial or other obligation to outside Individuals or crganisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any
conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest”
9. The same Nolan principles were included in the Previous version of the Coda, which was the applicable Code for much of the material period.
1L1 PROrECT1 I’
PARKING TICKETS
10. The case against Councillor Hussein in respect of the parking tickets is that he used his position to secure an advantage for others and breached the obligations of selflessness, integrity and honesty. The events in question took place on or around 26 September 2012, 16
October 2012 and 8 May 2014 (i.e:after the July 2012 Code had been adopted). 11. Counciflor Hussain used his position to secure an advantage for others, and breached the obligations of selflessness, integrity and honesty, also apply with respect to parking tickets issued to Councflior
Hussein’s wife and to one of his sons. Coundilior Hussein appears to have used his office to secure that tickets were cancelled (his wife) or reduced (his son).
The relevant standards are the general principles set out above in
respect of the toilet blocks ~nd, in addition, paragraph 12(3) of Part VI (Rules of Conduct) whith provides that:
fiLl: ~ROTEcTJ “12. Members shall in particular observe the following rules when acting as a Member or co-opted Member of the Authority and Members are informed that you: f. .4 (3) Do not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage”.
Only complete this next section if you are requesting that your identity is kept confidential
3. In the interests of fairness and natural justice, we believe Members who are complained about have a rlghtto know who has made the complaint. We also believe they have aught to be provided with a summary of the complaint. We are unlikely to withhold your identity or the details of your complaint unless there are exceptional circUmstance that Indicate that this should be done.
If your request for confidentiality is not granted by the Monitoring Officer we will usually allow you the option of withdrawing your complaint.
However, it Is important to understand that in certain exceptional circumstances where the matter complained about Is very serious, we can pzoceed to deal with your complaint if it is in the public interest to do so and we may disclose your personal and complaint details even if you have expressly asked us not to do so.
Please provide us with details of why you believe we should withhofrj your name andlor the details of your complaint
N)A
iLl: PROTECT] 8’ Additional Information
7. ComplaInts must be subnijttsd in writing. This includes fax and electronic submissions. Please use fliTs Form to submit your complaint
8. In line with the requireme~ of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000, we can make reasonable adJustsne,~ to assist you if. you have a disability that prevents you from making your complaint In writing. We can also help if • English is not your first language.
9. If you need any support In completing this form, please contact the Monitoring Officer as soon as possible.
Once a complaint relating to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Members has been received by the Monitoring Officer, it will be considered in accordance with the arrangemait the Council has in place for dealing with standarris allegations under the Localism Act 2011, a copy of which is attached. You should note that the remeei~s available to the Council where a member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct are very limited and there are no legal powers to Suspend or disqualify a member.
!Li: 9 N
Sandweil Metropolitan Borough Council Equality Monitoring Form Information for Monitoring Purposes Only ethnIc Classification Catego~e~ to be used by Sandweil MefronolIta~ Borough;
WhIte X British o Irish 0 Any other White background (please write In)
2. MIxed o White and Black Caribbean o White and Black African O White arid Asian 0 Any other mixed background (please write in)
3. AsIan or Asian British 0 IndIan E] 31kb 0 Pakjstanj o Bangladeshi o Any other Asian background (please write in)
4. Black or Slack British o Caribbean o African 0 Any other Black background (please write In)
5. Other ethnic group O Chinese o ‘i’emeni I] Any other (please write in) _I ~ t rjflo..n (2).joe
flU: PROTEC]] o ‘S
Statement of Jan Britton
a P rice ~Leg People Present: Julia Lynch - Solicitor
This statement consisting of 8 pages is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that I may be required to give evidence should a hearing be held. I also understand that this statement may be used in all procedures related to this matter and other connected matters. I am aware that a copy of this statement may be disclosed to others as part of these and related proceedings. I am the above named person and understand that I have been asked to provide this statement in relation to allegations made against Councillor Mahboob Hussain.
I am Jan Britton, Chief Executive of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council.
I submitted a standards complaint to the Monitoring Officer which includes an allegation that Councillor Mahboob Hus~ain has breached the Code of COnduct for Members.
At the beginning of this process, before the Wragge report and the QC opinion and my complaint, there were allegations being made about conduct within the Council. Some people were named and some were not. Allegations regarding land sales and parking tickets were being loosely discussed and then things started to appear on social media, including the Sandwell Skidder blog and ~Nest Midlands Police visited our offices to request files for their investigation. This is how it all started.
I agreed with the then Leader of the Council, Councillor Darren Cooper, that we should embark on an audit investigation to look into the allegations and to reach some conclusions on what had happened, The allegations themselves were being coked into, riot specific individuals.
11L2. PROIECTI 1~
expected as it soon emerged that it was a complicated matter, looking at files that went back a number of years. Also, evidence that Was gathered from individuals seemed to be contradictory
When we received the Wragges report it was clear to me that there was information within it that meant that we had to act. It Was unthinkable not to do anything with it. Because of some of the issues within the report and the comments made by the author, Mark Greenburgh, I recommended to the then Leader of the Council that we should put the report and all of the corresponding evidence to a QC for a second opinion and for legal advice on the action we should take on the report. This is what we did.
From May of this year, the action we have taken has been a result of that advice from the QC. Part of his advice was that there should be a Standards referral in relation to the actions of Councillor Hussain, focusing on two aspects: the sale of the toilets and the cancellation of parking tickets as these were very clear issues, well evidenced and based mostly upon documents that had been gathered rather than witness evidence.
After some reflection, i decided that the QC’s advice in relation to standards appeared to be sound; it had good reason for focusing on those two aspects.
That is why I made the referral to the Monitoring Officer, It is not a usual practice, but it is not totally unusual for a Chief Executive to make such a referral. I see my role as the Chief Executive as the standards referrer of the last resort. Based upon my statutory role, if my Judgment is that a referral should be made and no one else has made it, I am obliged to do so.
The QC did provide a standards referral note which included advice on making the referral which was a follow on document to his original advice. I followed that advice and made a referral based upon it. The priority was to ensure that the evidence could be tracked back through the QC’s opinion, the Wragge report and the documentary evidence.
The advice from the QC said that there were clear breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members in relation to the sale of the toilets. For me, the issue is transparency. The Code of Conduct places a clear duty of transparency and a positive duty on the members and it is my view that Councjllor Hussein failed in his duty of transparency and failed to make relevant declarations of interest He Failed to rle±reh~5inv~,emcfltwjththb and he FaHed to
HLL PROTECT] 1,
~cillorserving member, he knew his obligations, in my view this makesH ussathein isbreachesa Ion g clearer.
In addition, early on in the process of the Wragge~jpvestigation the key question was the extent to which Councillor Hussain knew of CPL. Councillor Hussain made it very clear to me that he was not related to him and barelvjcnew
him. It later transpired that they are not family relations but — 14’S’
______Coq~cillor Hussain’ss she is and, - was a visitor to Councilfor Hussain’s home at least occasionally. I felt that I had been misled and this heightened my concern about transparency and the duty of the members to be open and forthright.
I was not aware that there had been any family feud relating to A . After the Wragges report was completedACouncillor Hussain may have said to me that he hadn’t spoken to for ages, but I treated such statements with care because I felt I had been misled.
Previously to all of this, I had a good working relationship with Councillor Hussain. The meetings I had with him during the Wragge investigation were difficult. I felt myself to be under immense pressure. I knew he wanted the whole affair to be dropped; the then Leader was supporting the process, but only reluctantly, he asked me on a number of occasions after the police investigation had concluded, whether we needed to continue the Wragge investigation. I tried to explain to Councillor Hussain that he should speak to Wragges about what he was telling me, I didn’t want to be maneuvered into conducting a parallel investigation, I always said ‘make sure you tell Wragges’ and I explained that Wragges were acting on behalf of the Council. The then Leader asked me to meet with Councillor Hussain, in hindsight, maybe I shouldn’t have.
The first meeting with Councillor Hussain was fairly easy but as it got closer to the Maxwellization process and the delivery of the Wragge report, they got progressively harder as Councillor Hussain was starting to see some conclusions being reached. The meetings were always civil but they felt very tense and pressured. Councilor Hussain talked a lot about loyalty and friendship and I frequently felt that he was trying to imply that I owed him a loyalty beyond my role as Chief Executive.
I told him thaw he had been transparent from the start about his relationship J~ this wouH not have esca~ated into what it has. The Wragge
[1L2. PROTEGTI Ii
he had accepted it, put his hands up at the start, then the route through which the issue was dealt with may have been different. I said transparency would have made it all much more manageable.
I met with Councillor Hussain because he asked to meet. I was reluctant to do so but the then Leader asked that I should. No records were kept of the meetings, neither side asked for them to be recorded. The then Leader attended some of the meetings, but most were with just myself and Councillor Hussain. I viewed my role as offering advice to Councillor Hussain as to how to engage with Wragges, not to open a separate enquiry.
I have seen the email from dated 6th May 2016, it was sent to me. It was passed to the QC for him to consider. it arrived after the Wragges report but before the QC advice, It was relevant for the QC. My feeling was, when I read it, that it doesn’t address the key issue of the Wragge review, it doesn’t say he didn’t know Councillor Hussain. Had there been a feud, surely he would have mentioned it. While I was keen that the QC saw this email, my fundamental view about the failure to be transp rent did not change. I do not recall seeing a police statement made by or something which looks like a police statement. I may have done, I cannot be sure. I may have read it at some stage not realising what it was. I have read a lot of documents in the course of this matter.
When I sent the email on the 13°’ April 2016 to Nick Bubalo and Neeraj Sharma about the toilets, I knew very little at the time about the proposed sales. I had a working understanding that we were selling the toilets; I had no knowledge of the process and no knowledge of the potential buyers. At that time we were selling a number of redundant buildings.
I received an email from Councillor Eling and I forwarded it on to Nick to alert him to Councillor Eling’s concerns. I asked Nick to look into it and provide feedback, a verbal report, I had no view that anything untoward was happening. I probably write a dozen such emails every week.
My understanding was that the Bearwood toilet was then removed from the sale as the view was taken that they were not surplus and the sale of the other three toilets went ahead. I had no further involvement in it. I had referred it to the Director who was responsible for that service area, Nick Bubalo. Nick reported back to Councillor Eling. No one knew at this time that there was any r&aUonsh~p between coun rHuss~nan~t~e purchaser.
{~L2. PROT~crj 1) 1,
Normally most members will ask about and are briefed about matters relating to their ward or relating to any role that they have within the Council. It is not entirely unheard of for them to ask about things that are happening in other wards.
The Wragge report states that Councillor Hussain was asking about borough wide property issues and in a considerable level of detail.
Officers would normally deal with matters that were delegated to them under delegated authority, although sometimes it would be sensible to brief the relevant cabinet member about it.
At a Cabinet and management away day we did ask members and officers to move along land sales and disposals as quickly as possible as there were delays in different service areas. There was a general agreement between cabinet and management that the disposal of assets should be moved along when we have surplus assets which are a costs liability and could bring in income. Instructions were given to legal and property to move them along. It was discussed at many joint meetings. This issue came to the fore sometime in 2011, one of the clear issues we had to address was that the Council owned hundreds of unproductive pieces of land that were out of use, we were looking to the future.
Councillor Hussain was the relevant member and he had a role in the process, he had a wide agenda, but we did not put it on him to move things along personally or in a way that was inappropriate for an elected Councillor Everybody had a role in this, officers, cabinet members alike.
Had the sale of these toilets gone ahead in accordance with the rules of the Council, we would have all been happy with it. It was the lack of transparency between Councilfor Hussain and the buyer of the toilets that created the issue.
In relation to the parking tickets, I Felt that ~re was a difficult relationship between Councillor Hussain and My view was based on my experiences, what I was told by Councillor Hussain at the time and partly due to the fact that Councillor Hussain was Personally identified with changes to reimbursement of officer mileage claims in 2012. I was told that — was one of the top 3 people within the council who claimed the most mileage On reflection I am unaware as to how much~ knew of Councillor Hussains
11L2 PROIECII to
personally, but at the time of the Wragge investigation i was concerned to ensure that any history between Councillor Hussain and ~ did not influence the investigation.
Q Also, it is my view that Councillor Hussain and - had an unhealthy, unhappy working relationship when Coundilllor Hussain was the cabinet member for that service area. When I was head of highways in 20Q~and 2009 there was a sense that it would not be a good idea to put before Councillor Hussain. Although I do not have specific knowledge of the events or history that might have created this antagonistic relationship, beyond the issue of mileage claims which I have already explained and came later.
When I was consulted by Mark Greenburgh in the course of producing the Wragge report and when I met the QC, I pushed them on the parking issue, I made it clear that I felt there was a difficult working relationship to ensure they were aware of it and ensure that it was properly considered, They said that personal relationships were in effect not relevant to the issue. They said that the written records of Councillor Hussain’s actions were unequivocal.
Councillor Hussain did make comments about people being out to get him or words to that effect, I can’t recall him telling me about a difficult relationship with but he may have done, a lot of things were said in these meetings, they were very stressful and I don’t recall everything, he did say that he felt that the parking team was out to get him.
In relation to the change of the mileage claims, I think he was the relevant cabinet member at the time. It was widely known he was an advocate of the scheme, but he was not the only one who supported it. As the cabinet member he would have presented the scheme for it to be approved. I do not know whether would have been aware of this.
That said given the comments that were made by Councillor Hussain I erred on the side of caution and wanted the point raised that there may be personal animosity from f I , I wanted to make sure that the issue had been properly considered by Wragges and the QC. I did not for one minute think that the parking issues had not occurred but I thought it may have a bearing on it. When the QC came back with his unequivocal advice, I was then satisfied that it had been properly addressed. He dismissed the concern as ‘Nragges had already done, saying that the record of CoLincillor Hussains actions was u n eq Ui ‘io cal.
1IL2~ PRQTF(; rI I do not think that Councillor Hussain’s involvement in the parking tickets set out in the complaint was appropriate.
I have advised members that they can assist constituents with advice on the process of contesting a parking ticket and the appeal process and they may act on their behalf where that person has difficulty doing it themselves. But to do so for yourself or your family without going through the due process seems clearly an abuse of the role of member and contrary to the Code of Conduct.
I am of the view that and Councillor Hussain had a long standing working relationship going back a number of years, prior to these particular tickets. When Councillor Hussain suggested to me that I should speak t about the issues raised over these tickets, he told me that he had already done so, therefore, I was of the view that the prospect of getting independent evidence from was unlikely. The QC said the same.
I am not aware that any Councillor has sent any aggressive emails to the parking team. Councillor Hussain did allege to me that Councillors had sought to cancel tickets and I therefore asked a senior officer to look at the records and search for any inappropriate cancelling of parking tickets. The search went back 5 years. I made this request around September 2015. I was warned that the database was not perfect and the search may not pick up all incidents, but in the timescale that we looked at I found no evidence of parking tickets systematically being caqcelled at the request of member~.
If Qthers had done so, it would not excuse the behavior of Councillor Hussain, but, I felt it necessary to check for any abuse of the system. The search came back with no evidence of abuse.
More recently, I dealt with a Freedom of Information request from Councillor Hussain’s solicitors about the same issue and the same information was found. C I think that. — in her statement to the Police may have inferred that more than one Councillor had interfered with parking tickets. I have seen no evidence of this.
Mark Greenburgh did not tell me in a phone conversation that parking tickets were nothing to worry about. This would be contrary to the findings in the report. I ~9.f llJP~UL ephone Con aton ~4LPLeenborough did ~ay
11L2 PROTECT) a
something along the lines that had it been one incident and had the member concerned admitted and apologized for their actions it would be a relatively minor matter, but in this case there are more than one occasions and Councillor Hussajn has not accepted that his actions were inappropriate.
Sign e & Witnessed Dated
1!L2. PROTECpi K) n
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Report of an Investigation in Accordance with the Arrangements for Dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 In the case of Councillor Mahboob Hussain
INVESTIGATION REPORT CONTENTS
Report Author: SMBC Legal Services
Report Date: draft report sent to parties 18th January 2017. Final Report submitted to Monitoring Officer 2O~~ February 2017 ITEM DESCRIPTION
1 Background
2 Summary of Allegations
3 Investigation Procedure
4 Relevant Legislation and Protocols
5 Official Capacity/Scope of the Code
6 Relevant Case Law
7 Human Rights
8 Arrangements for Dealing with Standards Allegations
9 Investigation Outcome -
10 Allegations
[1L2: PROTECTI -
)O ~k 1 1 Conclusions
Report of an Investigation in Accordance with the Arrangements for Dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 In the case of Councillor Mahboob Hussain
I .Backqround
1 .1 Following an audit investigation into property irregularities, a report completed by Wragge, Graham and Co and a legal opinion from James Goudie QC it was recognised by the Chief Executive that there were matters which warranted a referral to the Monitoring Officer.
1.2 The Monitoring Officer received a complaint from the Chief Executive on 3rd June 2016 and following consultation with the Independent Persons she determined that the allegations should be investigated in a formal investigation under the procedures required by the Localism Act 2011. The investigation team consisted of Officers from Legal Services. The Monitoring Officer wrote to Councillor Hussain on l4~’ June 2016 and informed him that an investigation would take place
1.3 Councillor Hussain disputed the independence of the council officers investigating the complaint. On balance the council were satisfied that the officers had sufficient independence. The investigators role is to collate and present all of the relevant evidence. They are not decision makers. Councillor Hussain was notified of this decision and proceeded to co-operate with the investigation.
[1L2: PROTECT]
icn~ 1.4 Councillor Hussain had an opportunity to consult the Independent Persons.
1.5 This report details the results of investigations carried out.
1 .6 By way of background Councillor Hussain was interviewed by Wragge Graham and Co regarding these incidents as part of an audit investigation. The council has annexed a copy of these interviews to this report (please see page 53 of the statement bundle) and used them
to form a background to the interview they conducted with him on 26th September 2016 Councillor Hussain~ along with his representative Mr Simon Goacher of Weightmans Solicitors, was invited to interview to
discuss the allegations on the 26th September 2016 (please see pages 32-52 of the witness statement bundle). Following the interview with Councillor Hussain further witness evidence was taken and three additional questions were put to Councillor Hussain in writing. His replies can be found at pages 52 a of the statement bundle. In addition to this Councillor Hussain presented further evidence to be considered on 17m January 2017 which can be found at page 1378 of bundle 4 of the evidence bundles.
2.Summary of Allegations
2.1 The allegations were detailed in a complaint form sent to the Monitoring Officer dated 3~ June 2016 (please see pages 1-10 of bundle I of the evidence bundles). The investigating team reviewed the complaint form and for clarity broke down the allegations into two specific areas; the handling of parking tickets and involvement in the sale of toilet blocks. [1L2: PROTECT] 2.2 The investigation officers have had to collate a large volume of documentary evidence in relation to the allegations and further evidence has arisen on parking tickets and from Councillor Hussain. The documentary evidence is collated in the 4 evidence bundles.
2.3 The investigators have considered whether witness evidence will be required and provide any assistance in relation to the allegations; although the documentary evidence alone provides sufficient detail of the circumstances, the investigators decided to use the relevant evidence gathered by Wragge Graham and Co from the following witnesses (please see the witness statement bundle under evidence gatherQd by audit and wragge pages 53-):
a
_____ C —
Nick Bubalo
2.4 The investigators also invited those people named above, along with
witnesses who have not yet provided accounts — Jan Britton (the
complainant), and — to attend for a further interview. All statements and transcripts obtained from witnesses are included in the statement bundles.
[1L2: PROTECT)
it~ 1, 2.5 J1Jj11LEEjand r failed to attend for interview. The investigators therefore decided to rely on the evidence already gathered from them which is included in the bundle.
2.6 Investigators were unable to interview Nick Bubalo due to personal circumstances. The investigators therefore decided to rely on the evidence already gather from him, which is included in the bundle.
2.7 Arrangements were a put in place to interview Councillor Hussain on 26th September 2016. The investigators put three further questions to
Councillor Hussain which he responded to on 1 7th January 2017.
2.8 The draft report was concluded by the investigators and considered by the Monitoring Officer and submitted to Councillor Hussain and the
Complainant Chief Executive Jan Britton on 18th January 2017 for comment.
2.9 Both Parties were given the opportunity to comment on the draft report during maxwellisation which concluded on 17°’ February 2017.
3. Investigation Procedure
3.1 The investigation brief was agreed with the Monitoring Officer, who with the exception of guidance on procedural matters has remained independent from the investigation.
3.2 The investigation process involved collating a volume of documentary evidence. This included reviews of emails and other key documents.
[lL2: PROTECTI 3.3 All interviews and requests for documentary evidence have been carried out with the intention of maintaining a high degree of confidentiality.
3.4 This report will be issued directly to the Monitoring Officer.
4. Relevant Legislation and Protocols
4.1 The Members have adopted a Members’ Code of Conduct. This has been regularly reviewed. The most recent code was adopted 6 June 2016.
4.2 These allegations span a number of years; therefore, we have considered the Code that was in place at the time of the incident alleged. Copies of the different Codes are included in the document bundle.
4.3 We have also considered the financial regulations (contained at pages 144-229 of the bundle), the Arrangements for dealing with Standards Allegations (page iOa -IOJ of the bundle of document), the Constitution,
specifically Article 2 The Code of Conduct: Guide for members - May 2007 (pagell-44 of the bundle of documents), Protocol for Member! Employee Relations (page 45-57 of the bundle of documents) Officers’ Code of Conduct (page 58-66 of the bundle) Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy (page 230 of the bundle), Confidential Reporting Code (whistleblowing policy) (page 231 of the bundle) the Parking Enforcement Policy July 2014 (page 398-461 of the bundle), the Parking Enforcement Policy 2013 (page 471 -484 of the bundle) and the guidance from the Standards Board for England (the Standards Board no longer exists but
[1L2: PROTECT) the guidance is useful) on Personal and Prejudicial lnterests(page 67-70 of the bundle).
5. Official Capacity! Scope of the Code
5.1 Section 27(2) of the Localism Act 2011 requires the council to adopt a Code of Conduct “dealing with the conduct that is expected of members when they are acting in that capacity.” The council’s Member Code of Conduct is expressed to set out the standards of conduct that are expected of members when they are acting inthat capacity and applies to members in all aspects of their activities as members. It does not seek to regulate what members do in their purely private and personal lives.
6. Relevant Case Law
6.1 Whether a member is acting in an official capacity, was one of the central issues in Livingstone v APE [2006] EWHC 2533 (page 1-23 of the case law bundle). Collins J held that the then Mayor of London was not acting in an official capacity when responding to being “door stepped” by a journalist when leaving the offices of the Greater London Authority. The case made clear that a distinction is to be drawn between the individual as a Councillor and the individual as an individual and that a Councillor is not a Councillor twenty four hours a day. The case provided helpful guidance on whether the Code applied when a Member does not appear
[1L2: PROTECTI to act as a Member but does misuse their office. Mr Justice Collins made the following comments:
“If the words ‘in performing his functions’ are applied literally, it may be said that such misuse, and other misconduct which is closely linked to his position as such may not be covered. It seems to me that the expression should be construed so as to apply to a member who is using his position in doing or saying whatever is said to amount to misconducL It is obviously impossible for a member who was acting in his official capacity to argue that by acting improperly he was not performing his functions. Such a construction would eh-iasculate the system set up by Parliament”.
6.2 The Livingstone judgment was considered in detail in Bartlett, Milton Keynes Council [2008] APE 0401 in an appeal from a decision of the local standards committee. In the Case Tribunal’s view, Livingstone should be interpreted to mean that for a councillor to be acting in an official
capacity: -
(a) the councillor should be engaged in business directly related to the council or constituents; or (b) the link between the councillor’s office and the conduct should have a degree of formality.
6.3 In MC v Standards Committee of the London Borough of Richmond [2011] UKUT 232 (AAC) (page 31- 46 of the case law bundle), the tribunal further stated the need for a link between the Councillor’s office and the alleged conduct. The tribunal indicated that merely acting, claiming to act or giving the impression of acting as a Member was [1L2: PROTECTI insufficient for the conduct to be covered by the code. There had to be sufficient material for the tribunal to properly conclude that the member was in fact acting as a representative of the council.
6.4 The case of R v Broadland District Council cx parte Lashley [2001j EWCA Civ 179 (page 47- 54 of the case law bundle) the Court outlines the powers of a Standards Committee.
6.5 R (on the application ofMidlands Co-operative Society Ltd) v Birmingham City Council [2012] EWHC 620 (Admin) (pages 55-79 of the case law bundle) involved a challenge, of two decisions to sell council Land. The Court stated that there was a duty on the public authority to achieve the best price reasonably obtainable. Further, the Court stated “in considering whether a particular price is the best price reasonably obtainable, the best price achievable in the open market is likely to be relevant.”
6.6 Heesom v Public Services Ombudsman for Wales [2014] EWHC 1504 (Admin) (pages 80-113 of the case law bundle) confirms that the correct test to be applied in Standards Cases is the civil standard of proof; on the balance of probabilities. He was found to have breached the Code of Conduct as he had referred to the Adult Social Care Directorate as a shambles and shambolic, he had improperly sought to interfere with the housing allocation decision-making process, failed to show respect and consideration to officers and bullied officers. The Court considered the relationship between members and officers and found that there “is a mutual bond of trust and confidence between elected members and their
officers. . . local government in this country could not sensibly function without it” [1L2: PROTECT]
it fl 6.7 A case decided by the First-Tier Tribunal on an appeal from Bromsgrove Borough Council dealt with a failure to declare a personal interest at two Parish Council meetings where the business discussed was the proposed development of land in the village. The case is Council/orDavidMafthews of Alvechurch Parish Council v Bromsgrove District Council Standards Committee LGS\201 1\0565. (pages 114- 116 of the case law bundle). The personal interest was a relationship that the Councillor had; first cousin once removed.
6.8 The relevant Code of Conduct stated that a councillor had a personal interest when “a decision in re/ation to [the business of the Council] might reasonably be regarded as affecting the wellbeing or financial position of a relevant person to a greater extent that the majority of.. rnother council taxpayers, ratepayers or inhabitants” A relevant person was defined as including a member of the Councillor’s family or a person with whom the Councillor has a close association;
6.9 In this case, the Councijior was found not to have breached the code of conduct. The tribunal stated “had there been a close association then, regardless of whether or not the co-owner was to be regarded as having a family connection with the appellant, there would have been a personal interest’~ Further, it stated “it would be unrealistic and unreasonable for a member ofyour family to be Thterpreted for the purposes of the Code as encompassmg the broader reaches of the extended of the extended family and it would be wrong for a first cousin once removed as coming within the definition.” It went further to say that ‘?f despite, the distance of the family connection, there is nevertheless a close associaHon then the
[1L2: PROTECT] second limb ofparagraph 8 (2) (a) [close association] will come into play and require a declaration of interest.”
7. Human Rights
7.lThroughout the investigation we have remained mindful of the articles contained within the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, the articles set out below.
7.2 Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:
(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a• reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press. and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
7.3 Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:
(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and [1L2: PROTECT]
~O c... ~ family life, his home and his correspondence;
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
7.4 Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of the protection of the reputation or rights of others.
8. Arranqem~n~~ for dealing with Standards AIleqa~j~~~
[1L2: PROTECTJ
)O ~/ 8.1 Pursuant to the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, the council has put in place “arrangements” under which allegations that a member or co opted member of the authority has failed to comply with the authority’s Code of Conduct are dealt with. The council’s “arrangements” are set out in the bundle of documents at pages 1 Oa-1 OJ of evidence bundle 1) 8.2 The Monitoring Officer will decide whether a complaint merits formal investigation. In consultation with the Independent Persons it was determined in this case that the complaint did merit investigation, and as such, the Monitoring Officer appointed Investigating Officers.
9. Investigation Outcome
9.1 There has been a breach of the Member’s Code of Conduct in respect of allegations one and two.
9.2 Further information on each of the allegations is included below.
10. AIlegati~n~
Allegation One 10.1 That Councillor Hussain breached the requirements of the Code relating
to selflessness, integrity and honesty in relation to his role in the sale of
the toilet blocks. The events in question took place over a period from
around July 2011 to August 2012.
[1L2: PRQTECT}
4Itt 10.2 On 22 June 2012 the council entered into a contract to sell three
former public toilets. The contract was entered into with 4
The contract was completed. On 13 August 2012
was registered as the purchaser. 10.3 is well known to Councillor Hussain. The association
includes family associations and occasional visits to Councillor
Hussain’s home. It is entirely possible that Councillor Hussain drew 4 ‘5 the public toilets purchase opportunity to _s attention.
10.4 Councillor Hussain was involved in the sale and did not declare his A connection to
10.5 Thesale was far below the District Valuer’s (23 May 2012)
valuation (and without there being any auction or tender/sealed bid
process).
10.6 The degree to which Councillor Hussain involved himself in the
detail of the sale and the level of control which he exercised over
council officers crossed far over the line between legitimate member
oversight and the day-to-day operation of the council’s property
services function, council officers felt that they were under pressure
{1L2: PROTECTJ 3, to push the sale through and that there would be consequences if
they did not follow Councillor Hussain’s wishes.
10.7 Councillor Hussain (jointly with others) pressed the sale despite the
fact that he appears to have known that the sale price (~35,000) was
far below the District Valuer’s valuation (~130,0oo).
a. Relevant Part of the Code of Conduct 2007 (page 45-57 of evidence bundle 1)
10.8 As well as consideration of the Seven Principles of Public Life, as outlined in the Code of Conduct, there are specific behaviours which are relevant.
Part I, General Obligations
3. (2) (d) you must not:- do anything which compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, your authority.
5. You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office into disrepute
6. (a) You must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage;
Part 2 Interests Personal Interests
a (1) (b) you have a personal interest in any business ofyour authority where either:
[1L2: PROTECT] a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting your well-being or financial position or the well-being or financial position of a relevant person to a greater extent than the majority of.. other council tax payers etc. 8. (2) (a) In subparagraph (1) (b) a relevant person is:- (a) a member of your family or any person with whom you have a close association.
Disclosure of Personal Interests
9. (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (7), where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you attend a meeting of your authority at which the business is considered, you must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when their interest become apparent.
Public Interest Generally
10. (1 Subject to sub-paragraph (2), where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority you also have a prejudicial interest in that busmess where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge or the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.
Relevant Part of the Code of Conduct July 2012 (page 71-83 of evidence bundle 1)
Part 1, Rules of Conduct
12 (2) (d) Do not do anything which compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, your authority.
[1L2: PROTECT] 12 (3) Do not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage
12 (6) Do not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute. Investigation Methodology
10.9 We reviewed the previous transcript evidence that Councillor Hussain had provided in relation to this issue (please see page 53 onwards of the statement bundle) Dur~gg these interviews Councillor Hussain admitted
that he did know ‘ and that he was a relative who visited his home. He said that he was not however, aware the toilet blocks were being sold to him until much later in the process when a query was raised. He stated that is a common name and he did not instruct the council to sell, nor was he involved in the valuation. When we interviewed him he~onfirmed that this was the position and added that he had not seene for some time and that there were issues in the family between him and the Hussain household so they were not really talking.
10.10 We considered the transcripts of David Willetts, Nick Bubalo, L -
____ and — -. and the statements of Jan Britton, Dave Willetts,~, wand~ and interviewed David Willetts
1 •, Jan Britton ande.
10.11 We considered documentary evidence in the form of cabinet decisions, notes of meetings, letters between the buyer and the council and internal
[1L2: PRQTECTJ e-mails. A copy of which can be found at pages 504-805 of bundle 2 of the evidence bundles.
10.12 We also interviewed Councillor Hussain as part of this investigation.
Agreed Facts 10.13 On 2401 January 2003 it was reported to cabinet that Sandwell council had a number of public conveniences that were surplus to requirements. In a cabinet decision on 23~ April 2003 the council was to prepare a further report to deal with the financial and budgetary proposals around the future usage. This was dealt with as part of the surplus property procedure. We have found no evidence to suggest that Councillor Hussain was involved in this decision.
10.14 It appears that no further action or report was prepared in relation to the toilet block until a letter was received by CPL on 18°’ July 2011 expressing an interest in purchasing the toilet blocks.
10.l5We have discovered 2 copies of this letter with handwritten notes in the file (please see pages 522-524 of bundle 2 of the evidence bundles). One of the notes states that the letter was discussed with Councillor Hussain. The letter from CPL identifiest,~______A Witnesses and the writers of the notes have confirmed that the sales were discussed with Councillor Hussain in great detail and that Councillor Hussain was pushing the sale through. Witness’s evidence confirms that Councillor Hussain invited an officer to many private meetings on the matter and specifically requested updates and the sale pushed through. liL2: PROTECTI 41 They state that there was an undertone that if they did not do as Councillor Hussain wished their jobs would be at risk.
IO.l6Witness evidence confirmed that closely around the time of the first meeting with CPL, Councillor H,~ssain was informed that they were meeting and dealing with a Councillor Hussain did not declare
any knowledge oL .. They have also confirmed that was told that Clir Hussain was supporting the sale and did not declare any association to ClIr Hussain.
10.17 When questioned about CouncillorHussaintold usthathedid know and he had known hth, for a longtime. He explained that
there was a family link between — and him through his daughter in law but that the relationship was strained. He stated that h~was not shown a copy of the letter and he did not know that was involved with CPL. He stated that he was not pushing the case through other than speeding things up to bring in assets to the council which was a council priority. He said that he did not know the notes were on the letter as he had not seen them and he was only consulted on the Oldbury toilets as he was a ward member.
10.18A briefing note was prepared by council officers (please see pages 526-
527 of evidence bundle 2) on 151h August 2011 which recommended disposal of the toilets by public auction.
10.l9The toilets were not disposed of by public auction and a meeting took
place with CPL on 9Th November 2011 during which the proposals for the toilets were discussed (please see page 534 of evidence bundle 2).
[1L2: PROTECT] Between November and January a number of internal updates were
provided to the responsible cabinet member. It is not until 12th January 2012 that a file note was provided which states that Councillor Hussain was consulted on the sale of the toilets (please see pages 542-545 of evidence bundle 2).
10.2OThe proposal was originally put to sell 4 toilet blocks with an internal valuation of 2 at £15,000.00 and 2 at £10,000. making a total sale price of £50,000. When one of the toilet blocks was removed from the sale, the sale price .was agreed at £35,000.
10.21 Letters and witness evidence sent to CPL with terms of the sale state that Councillor Hussain was consulted and involved in the setting of the terms of sale to CPL with some the council officers proposed terms being removed from the terms of sale (please see pages 551- 552 of evidence bundle 2). Councillor Hussain denies that he had any such involvement.
10.22The toilet blocks were subject to an independent valuation at a higher rate (please see pages 663-773 of evidence bundle 2).
10.23 Internal instructions were given to halt the sale but a note was placed on file saying that instructions have come through from Councillor Jones and Councillor Hussain to proceed with the sales as planned without auction or sealed tender (please see page 602 of evidence bundle 2).
Disputed Facts
[1L2: PROTECT] 43 10.24 Councillor Hussain disputes that he was told who the toilets were going to be sold to when he was first approached by Dave Willetts or later on. He disputes that he had any discussion about the sale price.
10.25 Councillor Hussain states that he was only consulted on the sale of the Oldbury toilets. He said that he was only consulted as a ward member for Olbury and he did not know of the other sales. He disputes that a was a regular visitor to his home; he said that~ has only visited about three times in the last 5 years (referring to the five years up to 2012 rather than now).
10.26 Councillor Hussain states that he did not discuss the price of the toilets at any point and was not involved in any decision making. lO.27Councillor Hussain denies that he put any pressure on any officer to sell the toilets to He denies that he was shown or told about the
letter of the 1 8th July 2011 at the time of the sale. He denies that he saw the briefing note.
Findings of Fact 10.28 It is important to set out here that we do acknowledge that under Article 2 of the constitution “Councillors will have such rights of access to documents, information, land and buildings of the council as are necessary for the proper discharge of their functions and in accordance with the law.”This is necessary to allow them to discharge their duties. It is clear from the documentary evidence that we have considered, that Councillor Hussain was consulted a number of times in relation to the sale of the toilet blocks. This is evidenced by hand written notes and
[1L2: PROTECTI l.a notes in emails made by officers, to that effect. In particular, an email from CPL tO~dated 12.1.12 has a note written on top
which says ‘V W to consult Cur Hussain and Cffr Jones. ‘~ a letter to CPL from ~dated 30.1.12 recommending the disposal of the toilet blocks and setting out standard conditions, has a note on it which says that “DWdiscussed contents of/otter C/fr Hussain. Agreed OKto be sent”
10.29 Having considered the evidence of ~ we can be sure that he was the person who wrote these notes and they were made at the time of the event. He stated that he does not normally do this but did it on this occasion as he felt something was ‘wrong’ with the salQ.
1O.SQFurther in a letter dated 2.3.12 from erto CPL, it says that further to discussions with dIr Ian Jones and Cur M Hussain, there are a set of revised conditions. This clearly shows that not only has Councillor Hussain been kept informed of the process, the process and specifically the conditions of sale, have been altered as a result of discussions with him. ~stated in his evidence that it is not normal for a letter to be checked by a Councillor. We find that Councillor Hussáin’s involvement in this matter went further than what was “necessary for the proper discharge of [his] functions’: lO.3lWe have also considered the Protocol for Member/Employee Relations (pages 44-57 of evidence bundle 1). This is a protocol that members and officers must observe at all times. It states that officers should not be put under undue pressure and that members will not use their position or relationship with employees to advance their personal interests or those of others or to influence decisions improperly. It goes on to state that {1L2: PROTECT] 4€ particular care needs to be taken in connection with the use of council property and services.
1O.32We have considered the evidence of David Willetts, within which he states that the sale of the toilets was led by the members. He states that the person who came forward to buy the toilets, A- was introduced by the members. He states that there was an unnecessarily undue level of interest in this matter as it was a low level operational matter. David Willetts states that he did feel under pressure from Councillor Hussain. We find this evidence to be credible, and supported by the notes on the documentary evidence.
10.33Although a complaint has not been raised by officers as to a breach of the Protocol for Member/Employee Relations, it is important for us to note that this protocol does exist and that all members and officers have been made aware of it. Therefore, it should have been clear to Councillor Hussain, that his conduct and involvement was improper. It is clear that Councillor Hussain has not observed and followed the principles of this protocol. He used his position to exert pressure upon officers to sell these toilets to
10.34 During our interview with Councillor Hussain, he stated that he was not shown the documents at the time of the sale of the toilets, he was not briefed on the details and he did not know who the purchaser was. Given the witness accounts that we have and the documentary evidence that we have seen, we do not find Councillor Hussain’s account to be credible.
[1L2: PROTECTJ 1O.35We have considered, along with the evidence, the case law set out above, the guidance on Personal and Prejudicial Interests issued by the Standards Board for England (page 67-70 of evidence bundle 1) and the parts of the 2007 Code of Conduct relating to Personal Interests and have formed the view that Councillor Hussain did have a close association with the buyer of the toilet blocks and he did not declare this relationship or his interest in the sales. He stated in his interview on the 261h of September 2016, that there had been a family feud and that is the
reason why he did not see This was the first time that he had mentioned this, he did not mention it to Wragges’, which appears stranxe as it is an important point and would have distanced him from at an earlier stage of the investigation process. This does bring into question the credibility of this account. 4 1O.36We did attempt to interview but he did not reply to our request. We have taken into account his letter (please see pages 805 a-c of evidence bundle 2). It is worth noting that that does not mention a relationship to Councillor Hussain nor, does he mention any family issues or the involvement between himself and dIr Hussain.
10.3 7We have also considered the case of Councillor David Matthews as set out at paragraph 26 above, which although not binding, reiterates the key principles. The key point as to whether there is a personal interest which requires a declaration of interest is whether there is a close association.
10. 3BHe may or may not have known that the valuation was low and the sale of the toilet blocks should have been by way of public auction. He did not step back from the process at this stage, knowing his relationship, and on
[1L2: PROTECT]
~t WI the balance of probabilities we find that he chose to then instruct officers to sell the toilet blocks below value, without following the process and to a close associate.
1O.39Acting in Official Capacity From the evidence we have considered, Councillor Hussain was acting in the capacity as a member during the course of his duties as a member. He had meetings with officers about council business in his role as ward member.
IO.4OConcJusions i. Councillor Hussain has a close association, with the purchaser of the toilet blocks. ii. He did not reveal that association to council officers. Hi. There was no auction or tender process followed for the sale, which Councillor Hussain endorsed. iv. The sale price was belbw that of the District Valuer. v. Councillor Hussain had significant involvement in the sale of the toilet blocks and directed that the sale proceed when officers had halted the sale, improperly using his influence to do so
We have determined that the evidence outlined above shows that there are breaches of the 2007 Code of Conduct as outlined below:
Council/or Hussain has acted in a way which compromises or is /ikely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, your authority.
[1L2: PROTECTJ 4w Councillor Hussain has conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office into disrepute
Councillor Hussain has used or attempted to use his position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for himself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage;
Allegation Two 10.41 That Councillor Hussain had improper involvement in three car parking penalty notices, which related to parking penalty tickets, issued as follows; 10.42 The case against Councillor Hussain in respect of the parking tickets is that he used his position to secure an advantage for others and breached the obligations of selflessness, integrity and honesty. The events in question took place on or around 26 September2012, 16 October2012 and 6 May 2014 (i.e. after the July 2012 Code had been adopted).
10.43 Councillor Hussain used his position to secure an advantage for others, and breached the obligations of selflessness, integrity and honesty; also apply with respect to parking tickets issued to Councillor Hussain’s wife and to one of his sons in relation to three parking tickets. Councillor Hussain appears to have used his office to secure that two tickets were cancelled (his wife and son) or reduced (his son).
10.44 The relevant standards are the general principles set out above in respect of the toilet blocks and, in addition, paragraph 12(3) of Part VI (Rules of Conduct) which provides that:
[1L2: PROTECT]
10%’ “12. Members shall in particular observe the following’ rules
when acting as a Member or co-opted Member of the Authority
and Members are informed that you: [...]
(3) Do not use or attempt to use your position as a member
improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other
person, an advantage or disadvantage”.
a. Relevant part of the Code of Conduct 2012 (pages 11-44 of evidence bundlel )Part II Scope of the Code
The Code applies to Members in all respects of their activities as a Member, including when acting bn Authority business, ward/division business or when otherwise purporting to act as a Member, It does not seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives.
Part VI, Rules of Conduct (1 Behavior)
12 (2) (d) Do not do anything which compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, your authority.
12. (3)Do not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage;
[1L2: PROTECT] so 12(6) Do not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonablybe regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
Investigation Methodology 10.45 We considered documentary evidence, specifically statistical information into the council’s cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices (PNC’s), the logs of each of the three parking PNC’s, the notes on the files, the process log that is followed to deal with parldng tickets (please see pages 806-881 of evidence bundle 2) and the Parking Enforcement Policy (pages 398-484 of evidence bundle 1). We also relied upon the evidence that Councillor Hussain had already provided on this issue and the interview that was
conducted with him on 26th September 2016 as part of the this investigation.
10.46We have considered the statements of~ ,~and Jan Britton, along with the Wragges’ transcript of~
Ag reed Facts 10.47 The following PNC’s were issued to Councillor Hussain’s family and dealt with in the manner described below: • SD51929943 PNC issued on l5~ July 2013, in Halesowen Street Oldbury. This notice was not challenged by the recipient within the timescales or at all. The PNC was cancelled on the 6.5.14. The recipient was AdH.
[1L2: PROTECT]
jo ‘e~ Li
a SD5I 950134 PNC issued on ~ 9~ July 2013, in Corbett Street Smethwick. This notice was not appealed or challenged by the recipient but it was cancelled on the 6.5.14. The recipient was NB.
o SD51595702 PNC was issued on 8th July 2012 at Kelvin Way. Red Route. This was not appealed or challenged by the recipient but was paid at a lower charge rate on or around the 16.10.12. The recipient was AzH.
10.48 When these tickets were issued, Councillor Hussain was Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Service Improvement. 10.49During the previous interview, the transcripts of which we have considered, Councillor Hussain accepts that he did speak to officers regarding these PNC’s. Whenwe interviewed him he confirmed that this was the position ad added that when he spoke to the officers regarding his wife’s ticket he was doing this in his capacity as a councillor. Councillor Hussain provided additional evidence on 17°’ Jan~ry 2017 stating that he was not the only one who approached about parking tickets.
Disputed Facts 10.50 Councillor Hussain disputes requesting that tickets be cancelled. p Councillor Hussain states that~ — has something against him because he was behind the change in council policy regarding car mileage claims. He questions her attitude towards him and states that she harbours some hostility towards him.
[1L2: PROTECTI Findings of Fact 10.51 The process for dealing with PNC’s is clearly set out as is the process for appealing PNC’s. This process can be found at page 806 of evidence bundle 1. 1O.S2Councillor Hussain’s address had a number of PNC’S issued to it during this period (please see pages 817-820 of evidence bundle 2). A number of these were either appealed appropriately or paid. As such it is reasonable to conclude that Councillor Hussain and his family were aware of the process that should be adopted to appeal PNC’s. 10.53 It is clear that once a PNC is received, if it is paid within 14 days of issue the registered owner can benefit from a 50% reduction in the PNC. I 0.54lf a challenge is made to the validity of the ticket this must be made within 14 days of the ticket issued. If the challenge is successful the ticket will be cancelled. If the challenge is not successful the registered keeper then has 14 days to pay the ticket at the reduced rate (50% discount).
10.55 Upon this time elapsing the full ticket price will be payable. If after 28 days no response is received and or no payment made a notice is issued to the registered keeper requesting either payment at the original rate or giving the further option to make representations on the form provided in writing.
10.561f representations are made the council will either accept the representations and cancel the PNC or reject the representations and give the keeper 28 days in which to pay the full amount owed. There are statutory grounds which can be relied upon to rescind a PNC.
[1L2: PROTECTJ
~ £3 10.57The registered keeper then has a further right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Service. The process does not allow for any reductions in PNC charges or cancellation of tickets without following the set process.
10.58 In respect of each PNC set out above, the following occurred.
PNC 1 SD5I 595702
• This PNC was issued on ~ July 2012 at Kelvin Way, West Bromwich for parking on a red route. The PNC was issued to a white AudLBJ12 XVO, which was register to the keeper,
• The penalty was £70, £35 if paid within 14 days of 8th July 2012.
• No appeal was received in the 14 days from issue and no payment was made.
• On 25 September 2012 the PNC was reduced from £70 to
£35.
s A clear note was placed on the file by a council officer stating;
“Head of Servicer — came to my desk with details of two separate cases He then gave me this case number and said “you know who this is” / said yes and the vehicle was parked on a red route. We have no appeals. He said that he’d received a call
[1L2: PROTECTj from “you know who” last week and that it would be helpful to me, Steve and highways as he has been supporting our reports if we can do something. I said”! was not prepared to compromise myself as it is acting illegally, however if someone put it in writing with mitigating circumstances and specifically instructing me to cancel it then I would have to but this also meant that I would adopt it as a policy and apply the same rules to all drivers parked on red routes.”
No appeal correspondence was received but the charge was
reduced to £35 on 16th October 2012 on officer instruction. F 1 0.59~ that she knew who — ____ was referring to when he said ‘you know it is’, she knew it was Councillor Hussain. She states that other Councillors would not contact parking services in that way; they may contact them to ask questions on behalf of constituents and they would be advised on the process. She states that Councillor Hussain had a different motive, he would contact parking for issues relating to his family.
I 0.6OShe states she was not given a reason for reducing it, but as her head of service instructed her to reduce it, she had no choice. She was not given any reason why it should be reduced.
10.61 In his interview with us, Councillor Hussain said that he did not say anything to anybody about this ticket. He said that his son was the one who had spoken to someone about it.
{1L2: PROTECT] ‘5 10.62 In light of the evidence gathered, in relation to this PNC, we find that Councillor Hussain was improperly involved in the process and sought to use his influence to have the PNC amount reduced. There is no other reasonable explanation as to why the PNC amount was reduced outside of the policy. No reason was provided or r~corded onto the parking system. The evidence of and is clear that normally in order for an amount of a ticket to be reduced, there has to be a reason given.
PNC 2 SD5I 929943
10.63This PNC was issued on 15th July 2013 for parking on a restricted bus stop at Halesowen Street, Oldbury. The following occurred, • The PNC was issued in respect of a red Audi, ~gistration ~1-
number VN12 JBU to registered keeper -.
• The copy of the notebook entry made by the officer issuing the ticket shows that the PNC was issued with someone present. The entry also shows that this person was “very abusive”, “cursing and swearing” and “threatened to come back and burst my [the officer’s] face open.”
• No appeals or payments were received in the first 14 days in respect of the PNC.
• The matter went through the whole process, the debt was registered with the court and then referred to Bailiffs on January 2014 following none payment of the ticket.
[1L2: PROTECT] • On 28th March 2014 there isa note on the system to say that the case has been requested to be returned from the bailiffs, by the parking service manager.
• On 6°’ May 2014 the ticket was cancelled with the following note placed on file “informed byto~canceI case upon instructions received from directed by Councillor Hussain.”
10.63 .. has stated that the ‘parking services manag~r’ referred to in the entry is her. She was approached by who had been to a meeting with Councillor Hussain and others and told her to cancel any PNC’s outstanding for Councillor Hussain’s address that meant this one and also PNC SD51 9501 34. She was told that Councillor Hussain had said that it would be in Highways interests to cancel them.ástates that therq was no reason to
cancel the tickets. The instruction from - did not sit well with her but she had no choice as her service manager had made
the decision. ~. corroborates account.
10.64 In interview, Councillor Hussain stated that he has never asked an officer to cancel a ticket.
10.65 In relation to this PNC, we find that Councillor Hussain was improperly involved in the process and sought to use his influence to have the PNC cancelled. There is no other reasonable explanation asto why the PNC was cancelled outside of the policy, outside of the
[1L2: PROTECT] statutory grounds and at such a late stage when the matter had been registered wi~the court and sent to the bailiffs to enforce. The evidence oand~is credible and consistent.
Ticket 3 SD51950134
10.66 This ticket was issued on 191h July 2013 at Corbett Street, Smethwick for stopping in a restricted bus stop. The ticket was issued in respect of a grey Volkswagen, registration BN13 DPU, registered to of 51 McKean Road.
• No appeals or payments were received.
• The matter went through the whole process, the debt was registered with the court and then Bailiffs were instructed on 7th January 2014. On ~ March 2014 there is a note on the system to say that the case has been requested to be returned from the bailiffs.
• The ticket wa~ cancelled on 6°’ May 2014 with a file note stating, ~ instructed me that following a meeting involving Councillor Hussain who is resident at 51 McKean Road, I was to recall the warrant from Newlyn and the case •14 was to be cancelled as Council Decision” “informed by to cancel case upon instructions received from Irfan Choudry as directed by Councillor Hussain.” A- 10.67 The evidence of’ as outlined above relates to this PNC also.
{lL2: PROTECTI
iC ~ Sc
10.68 Councillor Hussain in interview stated that he found out about this ticket the day after the bailiffs attended his address. He said that one of his son’s had written to the council. He states that he rang
and told him that his r and that there was a problem with the parking signs at the location. He “told him she was a blue badge holder and to look at it.” He states that he did not ask him to reduce it or cancel it. He accepts that he was acting in his official capacity when he made this call.
10.69 In relation to this PNC, we find that Councillor Hussain was improperly involved in the process and sought to use his influence to have the PNC cancelled. There is no other reasonable explanation as to why the PNC was cancelled outside of the policy, outside of the statutory grounds and at such a late stage when the matter had been registered with the court and sent to the bailiffs to enforce. c2~
10.70 During interview, Councillor Hussain stated that_ — held animosity towards him because of the changes to car mileage claims that he supported. We have found no evidence of this. Essential Car Allowance was removed which was what Councillor Hussain was referring to but, was never an Essential Car User, therefore, she was unaffected by this change and could continue to claim under the casual car mileage scheme, as she had bee5~\doing. For a period in time before the change to claiming mileagri,..... had also used a pool car. The issue was considered but the documentary evidence was clear. In any event, she states that she did not know that Councillor Hussain was involved in this decision. [1L2: PROTECTI
at 5,
10.71 She does accept that they have a difficult working relationship. She states that this developed over a period of time because she would refuse Councillor Hussain’s repeated attempts to interfere with PNC’s. She states that he knows that she “wouldn’t just roll over and do what he wants, so he would go to someone above me.” This evidence shows a clear pattern of behaviour on the part of Councillor Hussain to attempt to use his influence over officer decisions.
10.72 In considering the above PNC’s, we have also considered the Protocol for Member/Employee Relations (page 44-57 of evidence bundle 2) as we did in allegation I above. This is a protocdl that members and officers must observe at all times. It states that officers should not be put under undue pressure and that members will not use their position or relationship with employees to advance their personal interests or those of others or to influence decisions improperly. It goes on to state that particular care needs to be taken in connection with the use of council property and services.
10.73 Although a complaint has not been raised by officers as to a breach of this protocol, it is important for us to note that this protocol does exist and that all members and officers have been made aware of it. Therefore, it should have been clear to Councillor Hussain, that his conduct and involvement in the PNC’s issued to his family was improper. It is clear that Councillor Hussain has not observed and followed the principles of this protocol.
10.74 Acting in Official Capacity
{1L2: PROTECT] It is clear from the information recorded on the system and from his own admissions that Councillor Hussain was acting in his official capacity as a councillor when he approached officers to discuss parking tickets.
Conclusions 10.75 In consideration of all of the evidence and the findings of fact set out above, we determine that there have been breaches of the Code of Conduct as set out below:
• Council/or Hussain acted in way which compromised or was likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, your authority.
• Councillor Hussain used or attempted to use his position as a member improper/y to confer on or secure for himself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage;
• Councillor Hussain conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute.
11.Overall Conclusions
11.1 This investigation has considered a large amount of documentary evidence and the transcripts of interview with Councillor Hussain which was undertaken as part of the Wragge, Graham and Co investigation.
11.2 This has been a different type of investigation to the Wragge, Graham and Co investigation as this has been conducted in
[1L2: PROTECT} accordance with the arrangements dealing with standards complaints against members. The investigators have maintained an independent investigation. As part of the investigation, Councillor Hussain was interviewed again in relation to the above allegations only.
11 .3 In consideration of the evidence gathered previously, the comments made in interview by Councillor Hussain on the 26~ September 2016 and the additional comments made, we have determined that each of the allegations have revealed breaches of the code of conduct, as set out above.
11.4 In relation to Councillor Hussain’s involvement with officers, it is worth noting the comments made in the case of Heesom as set out in paragraph 25 above; there “is a mutual bond of trust and confidence between elected members and their officers.. .local government in this country could not sensibly function without it.” It is extremely important that this relationship is protected, to allow officers and members to conduct their business without fear of undue influence and interference. Councillor Hussain’s conduct has damaged this mutual bond of trust.
Related Documents Evidence bundles 1-4 Witness Statement bundle 1 Case law bundle I
[1L2: PROTECT) Statement of David Willetts
People Present:
This statement consisting of pages is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 4-u ndeFs antl—that-i-n,afl trequf ~ -also understand that this statement may be used in all procedures related to this matter and other connected matters. I am aware that a copy of this statement may be disclosed to others as part of these and related proceedings. I am the above named person and understand that I have been asked to provide this; statement in relation to allegatiqns made against Councillor Mahboob Hussain which are been dealt with under the Localism Act 2011..
I am David Willetts. I am no longer an employee of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council but, I previously worked for Sandwell Council as the Property Services Manager in Regeneration and Economy
I have previously provided statements in relation to various land sale to Wragge’s as part of the audit investigation that they carried out. I understand that this is a different process.
When at Sandwell I managed a fairly large team and I had responsibility for acquisition, disposals, property management, Employment and Skills and Business support. I was one of 3 service managers reporting to Nick Bubalo
I have been asked about the sale of the toilets, my involvement and ClIr Hussain’s involvement.
I was aware of proposals to sell the unused toilet blocks going back to at least 2005/2006 but were shelved because they were low priority. They were low value assets which were effectively costing the council as they were no longer operaUonal and were a cost IiabWty. Nothing happenedwmthem~r~~s
11L2 PROTECT] b3 The corporate asset team were not doing anything as far as I was aware. A letter was received from CPL which was endorsed by Cur Hussain and CUr Jones. We had no proposals to do anything before that.
I am not sure how it came in but, I think that it went to CUr Jones first. I remember seeing the letter and discussing its contents with Cllrs Jones and Hussain. I can’t remember if I ever showed an actual copy of the letter to CUr Hussain.
So far as the handwritten notes on the letter, I can confirm that it is not uncommon to write on a file in this way. It can sometimes be quicker than writing a memo. The notes on the top right hand corner of the letter were my notes. The bottom left hand corner were written by ~ and the
bottom notes look like they are written by — —
I did not know the names on the letter I was not aware of any association with ClIr Hussain and he did not declare one to me, nor did a A
Cur Hussain requested a number of meetings regarding the sale of the toilets. first became aware of the toilet block sales when CUr Hussain approached me saying that a person had approached members, I was called to the leaders meeting room and it was discussed then progressed. The meetings were not documented and Clir Hussain never sent me any e-mails or memos so it is difficult to trace. The members said that in order to make a deal viable to the buyer there would need to be a number of toilet blocks not just one.
I was given the Impression that the buyer was just a local business man Cur Hussain never mentioned any association to him.
It was not normal practice to meet with ClIrs in such an informal way. We rarely had an agenda to discuss and he or his PA would just telephone and ask me to go over. As such nothing was documented.
I would describe Cllr Hussain’s involvement in the sale as forcing it through from the outset. He was pushing the sales through. At an early one of our many meetings I proposed putting the toilets to auction and he became very agitated. He said that there was no demand for them and they had been out of use for years. He said that they needed moving on. He said that the council were open for business and I should move it on. He was very resolved
11L2 PRQTECTJ ~ussainwasiflvolvedindetaiI.th are accurate as describing consulted with Cllr’s) including the content of the terms and conditions as he asked to be and kept asking me to meetings to move things on. I questioned myself why the deputy leader and a cabinet member were investing so much time and energy into such minor assets as redundant toilets. I would come back from the meetings and be moaning and the team would say the same thing to me. I would deem ClIr Hussain’s
involvement as disproportio~~~~ senior political intervention . I was puzzled at the amount of pressure to push these through given the low value nature of them. The sales were neither high profile or political in any way.
Following an initial meeting with ~ from CPL I told ClIr Hussain who I had met from CPL and he did not~,ention to me that he knew him. I also mentioned Clir Hussain to — r and he too did not say that he knew ClIr Hussain.
At no point did I or as far as I know any of the team, discuss the actual sale prices with Cllr’s. This was dealt with through the negotiation process. There was no influence put on the sale price at all. We were dictated to in terms of the specified purchaser and terms and conditions and then told to negotiate the sale prices.
We do not consult ward members on disposals happening in their areas, certainly not sales such as these. In the past prior to 2009 we did consult but we have not done this for some time now. Cllr Eling became aware of the proposed inclusion of the former Bearwood bus station toilets in the package and had the sale of them pulled as they were in the middle of the council’s asset holding in that location and did not feel it appropriate to sell in isolation. He did not object to the sales of the other assets Proceeding.
The sales progressed and as the process continued we formally requested a DV report at Clir Hussain’s request. He was shown a copy as he had requested that we do it. I was reluctant to instruct the DV as it was not the normal process to follow.
ClIr Hussain was drilling down into the detail of the sales and the timescales His involvement was unusual.
I was asked about the relationship with CUr Hussain and how his involvement made me feel. I would say that at times the relationship was like that of a master and servant On occasions I felt intimidated stressed anxious and -
11L2 PROT~CTJ ‘) \ ‘S compromised by him. We would meet and he could be charming and approachable but there was always an underlying tone. He made it clear that as Deputy Leader he was the main person behind the 2010 corporate restructure and he had the power to remove officers and members who did not support senior members. The underlying tone was always of power and control and the message was he could get rid of you if you didn’t do what he wished.
Members were in control of the sale process not officers. CUr Hussain Was constantly checking on progress. He was angry and upset when any attempts were made to follow standard operating procedures which deviated from the matters in hand
Members were actively encouraging the rapid disposal of former large scale premises such as decommissioned schools and leisure centres on health and safety grounds and to minimise void management cost which is perfectly legitimate. ClIr Hussain’s involvement with the toilet blocks went much further.
I had the bulk of the involvement with CUr Hussain: I feel my team were annoyed at times that I followed his instructions and did not stand up to him but, they were not in the meetings with him and did not get the level of pressure placed on them that I did. I can speak more openly noW that I have left the council.
When ClIr Hussain wanted to see me I sometimes had a feeling of dread. Often it would be fine and just a quick catch up. Others it would be more difficult and he would be angry and upset if we had not done What he wanted. There was on most occasions no plan or agenda to the meetings.
Signed
Date f—~ ~W
HL2 PROTECTJ ) ~ IL2PROTECr Statement from I £
25th October I Place of I Oldbury Council Interview Date: 2016 Interview: House Maria Price People Present: Julia Lynch
. ‘3
This statement consisting of 6 pages is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that I may be required to give evidence should a hearing be held. I also understand that this statement may be used in all procedures related to this matter and other connected matters. I am aware that a copy of this statement may be disclosed to others as part of these and related proceedings. I am the above named person and understand that I have been asked to provide this statement in relation to allegations made against Councillor Mahboob Hussain.
I have been asked about the allegation that Councillor Hussain had I inappropriate involvement in and failed to declare interests in relation to the sale of toilet blocks.
I am no longer employed by Sandwell Council, I left in June 2016.
I worked for Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council for nearly 10 years. Throughout that period I held different roles, all within Property Services. My last position between circa August 2014 and June 2016 was Trainee Surveyor within Property Services.
In 2011—2012, I held the role of Property Review Assistant My line manager wasr and she reported to David Willetts (Dave).
My work at that time was administrative based with a property focus, looking at orocess and rocedures, ca ital recei ts. I also asked to he involved with 112 PROTECr
minor land disposals, to broaden my experience in the property field.
I was heavily involved in the sale of the toilet blocks from the beginning which I understand this investigation is focusing on. I was appointed to the role of Property Review Assistant in circa February 2010. As my time in the role progressed I asked for more experience, becoming more involved in the disposal field of work. This particular case, sale of the toilet blocks, was given to me by Dave as such experience, supervised me as my line manager.
The sale of these toilet blocks came to the attention of our team by way of a letter that was sent in by Central Property Line (CPL). I understand it was sent directly to Councillors and didn’t reach us through the usual postal system. It was not a complex matter. I was asked to do the initiaI~background work on the sale to see if the toilets were surplus. I know that : did some work years ago on them, so I got the background information together with her help and prepared a briefing note for Dave, recommending their sale at an upcoming auction.
I recall attending a meeting in 2011 with CPL and Dave which was arranged at
his request A gentleman attended, who I think may have been ______4 accompanied by a lady but I can’t remember either of their names. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss CPL’s aspirations for the toilet blocks, what they wanted to do with them. It was normal practice to speak with potential interested parties whether through letter, telephone or face to face as an acknowledgement to their enquiry and let them know the council’s plans for the land/property. I cannot remember if any Councillors were mentioned in that meeting.
I did raise concerns about the sale with — and she shared similar concerns, as it appeased more and more likely that the toilet blocks would be sold to CPL following the meeting. It didn’t make sense that we would directly sell to CPL, there was no justification for this, as there could be other interested parties which we were not aware of - this is why I recommended sale at an upcoming auction in my briefing note to Dave. A direct allocation to CPL certainly didn’t conform to usual practice. i also had concerns over the values; the land didn’t go on the open market so we could not demonstrate best value. I recajl Dave discussing values with -and ~ also raised concerns about the direct sale, and a figure of circa £50,000 was agreed for 4 toilet blocks by Dave I believe, based on his “gut feel”. Between instructing Lec alto action the sale and corn letion, I recall Counciflor Hussain asked Dave ‘4 ‘C JL2PROTECr
to arrange for the District Valuer (DV) to value to toilets. I recall the D~( valuation being significantly higher than the price agreed, which’ Wand I were pleased about as it supported our concerns surrounding values and there was hope that the sale to CPL would be withdrawn and the properties properly marketed. Despite the independent valuation, Dave instructed the sale to proceed. I remember that one toilet block was taken out of the sale, possibly the block in Bearwood which has now been demolished, resulting in a price reduction of circa £15,000. I can’t recall who made the decision that Bearwood was worth £15,000. I don’t think I spoke to anyone else about my concerns, I followed the usual procedure of reporting concerns through my line manager,
—, who I recall tried to resist the instructions from Dave on more than one occasion.
I cannot recall if I had any direct contact with members about this sale; to the best of my knowledge it was all through Dave. I knew Dave was having direct contact with the members particularly Councillors Hussain and Jones; he would feedback to ~nd I when he got back from the meetings he had with them. The communication Dave had with members was verbal to the best of my knowledge, although there may have been email correspondence which I didn’t have sight of.
.1 have seen the letter of the 18th July 2011 before. This was the initial letter that was received that I have mentioned above.
The briefing note of the l5t1~ August 2011 was written by me, with support. This wasApart of my background work. I also made the handwritten notes on it. ~ Jadvised me to write the notes down on documents as a result of my concerns about the sale. The notes made it clear why each document was on the file and gave a commenta~of what was happening in the case. I wrote the notes to protect both~’ Jnd my interests as well as the interests of Property Services as a whole.
The handwritten notes on the top of the email of the 16th December 2011 are mine. I made them for the same reasons as above. It is normal for me to write notes onto documents; a practice which I continued throughout my career with Sandwell on most of my cases.
The letter of the 30th January 2012 was a draft letter. I was drafted by me and cup I also made the handwritten notes on it. and I included s ecific 112 PROTEa terms in this letter as a mechanism to ensure that the purchaser did something with the toilets. Dave took the letter to Councillor Hussain and came back with the letter amended, having removed the terms that we put in. It is not usual practice for such letters to be checked by Councillors, or amended by them. Dave told me that he had taken it to Councillor Hussain. Councillor Hussain had instructed that the terms be taken out. Although I was a junior officer at the time, I still found this professionally insulting particularly as the letter was not improved. At the time, I may have been a bit naive in proceeding with the transaction but as I was just learning and the Head of Property was instructing me to proceed, I felt like I had no option. Both at the time and now, in retrospect, I know it was wrong. I did all hat I could in raising my concerns with my line manager, and I remember ushing back on Dave’s instruq~.ions on more than one occasion. If Dave was not prepared to listen to ~, I felt! had no chance of changing the course of events in my junior role. Dave said that the members wanted it and so this is what we are doing. The interference with this letter came from Councillor Hussain, evidenced from Dave’s verbal instructions to us.
The email of the 24th of April 2012 does have my handwritten notes on it.
I did not give any documents to Councillor Hussain myself. I had no contact with him from what I can recall.
The sale of these toilets was not high profile or particularly important, aside from the fact that they were wasting assets and the interest from CPL highlighted the need to investigate whether they were required by the council and if not, sell them. There was no political sensitivity to the sale either as far as I was aware. It is not usual for members to be involved in sales like this, sales that don’t go to the committee. For Councillor Hussain though, it was normal for him. Prom my memory, he had an unnatural involvement in land sales and disposals. I recall occasions where he asked to see the results of sealed offers, which Dave took to him and also asked to be notified of names and prices of land transactions agreed under the councirs 15 day land disposal policy - effectively rubber stamping transactions before I could proceed with instructing Legal to complete the conveyancing process.
It would be more normal for our team to notify ward members about sales going on in their area. We would not consult them on it; it would be purely brought to their attention as a matter of courtesy in case they got any queries from a constituent. ?0 IL2PROTECr
Dave would tell me verbally about the meetings he had had with Councillor Hussain. He was called in regularly to meet Councillor Hussain, weekly, sometimes 2 or 3 times a week. I think that Dave knew regular contact was wrong, but he laughed it off and only seemed agitated and under pressure when the team questioned him about instructions fed down from Councillor Hussain. Dave always said to us that it was the Councillors were our bosses and didn’t always respect our professional recommendations.
I was not aware of any relationship between Councillor Hussain and the purchaser of the toilet blocks at the time. It certainly felt like Councillor Hussain was in control of the sale of these toilets.
This involvement concerned me, as did the unorthodox approach to the sale. I pride myself on doing things by the book, even more so after this event. Not only because we are responsible for public money, but for professional and personal integrity. When you see the top level of management acting in that way, in a way that is wrong, it is a concern, and it is disheartening. I did feel pressured at the time, and in hindsight feel as though my position as a junior officer was taken advantage of.
The letter dated the 2~ March which _____and I drafted included reference to Councillor Hussain and Councillor Jones being consulted. The Councillors were very annoyed at this. I clearly remember Dave sternly telling me in the open office that the Councillors were not happy about being mentioned. The way in which Dave addressed me made me feel sad that this had happened as I was still learning and I felt that I had annoyed the boss. I felt belittled. I now realise Dave’s frustrations were borne from being pressured by Councillor Hussain.
Councillor Hussain did not have much direct interaction with the team, he wouldn’t come in for a chat with us like other Councillors, he would issue his instructions from behind the scenes. When I did speak to him on one or two occasions he was very charming and pleasant to me. His main interaction was with Dave and I think he approached Dave because he knew he could get what he wanted from him~Dave, in my opinion, was like Councillor Hussain’s puppet. I recall stood up to Councillor Hussain on one occasion,
~. ~ usual practice so he 7’ 1L2 PROTECT
Signed ‘Plitnessed
Date: 3rd November 2016
I 1L2 PROTECT
Statement oft ak
1st November Place of Oldbury Council Interview Date: 2016 Interview: House People Present: Maria Price
______Julia Lynch - ______
This statement consisting of 6 pages is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that this statement may be used in all procedures related to this matter and other connected matters. I am aware that a copy of this statement may be disclosed to others as part of these and related proceedings. I am the above named person and understand that I have been asked to provide this statement in relation to allegations made against Councillor Mahboob Hussain.
I have been asked about the allegation that Councillor Hussain had inappropriate involvement in and failed to declare interests in relation to the sale of toilet blocks.
I have been employed by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council since the I 0th August 1980. My current role is Senior Property Officer. I have been in~is role since December2015. In 2011120121 was, along with Property Review Officer and our Service Manager was ~ At that
time I supervised 3 or 4 people including. .
Part of my role involves reviewing practice and procedures of the Development and Commercial Property Group. The Review Team was part of that Group and was set up by David Wiltetts. I originally worked on the Development Team dealing witij, amongst other things, the disposal of surplus land and property and~ worked on the Commercial Property Team dealing with estate management issues relating to the Commercial leased estate. The Review Team was set up to deal with the business element of the Groups work. We were meant to be primarily non-transactional, working on giving advice on projects and then allocating the work to the relevant team. The Review Team did, however, deal with minor transactions and sales. I oversaw the work of the Review Team.
H; 1L2 PROTECT
The sale of the toilet blocks that are subject to this investigation came to our team’s attention through David Willetts, who passed the written request to to investigate. It did not come in to our office like letters of this kind normally do. Normally the post comes into the office from the post room and the Review Team registers the post and allocates accordingly; the letter went to Councillor Jones’ office and then it was p~sed to David Willetts. David
Willetts then allocated the work to ~‘~ only just getting used to the various processes.thd expressed a wish to get more experience and become a qualified surveyor. He was more than capable of doing the work but it was not something that he would normally be involved with to the extent that he was.
My involvement in the sale of the toilet blocks was as supervisor. He would ask my advice when needed and I would guide him. I helped him write some of the documents that went out on the case.
— ~was told by David to deal with sale of the toilets as a direct allocation i.e. a private treaty sale. I argued against that because there was no justification to go down that route and I was aware that there had been previous interest frpjn third arties in redundant toilets blocks in Council ownership. I do recall thatj ut together a briefing note about the potential sale of the toilets whic[fwas given to Councillor Hussain and Councillor Jones. l gave fla copy of a draft report I had undertaken a number of years before regarding redundant toilets. I recall the toilets had been declared surplus by another committee years ago, after which I had completed the draft report recommending what should be done with each redundant block. This is the draft report I gav~f~
11c C—
— and ~ll had concerns about sellin3 direct to the company concerned and these concerns were voiced in the office.~2 made a recommendation that the toilets should go to auction. I know that Bigwcods, the Council’s auctioneer, had previously sold a block of toilets and we thought that instructing them was the best way to deal with the sales and to be able to show that best consideration had been obtained. That was the professional advice, and this was the recommendation on, briefing note.
I advised to write notes on documents and letters with dates and names SO that it was clear what had happened and who had instructed him to do things. It was normal Pjactice to vvhte anything ~on~cant 2nto~Lments on Illes.! to 1L2 PROTECT
I did it as well and still do.
The letter of the 3O~ January 2012 was written by with my assistance. ~ drafted the conditions of sale and I went through them with him. We did this as it was going to be a direct sale and the company had said that they would be bringing the toilets back into beneficial use straight away. So, if that was to be used as a justification for a direct sale then we needed to ensure that this was carried out. That is why the conditions were drafted. This letter of the 30°’ January 2012 was then sent out. Some time later, we were told by David to amend the terms. The Company had gone to Councilor Hussain upon receiving the letter rather than contacting the case officer and Councillor Hussain had then raised it with David. The letter was then re-drafted and sent out with amended terms of sale as a result of David meeting with Councillor Hussain and Councillor Jones.
It was not normal practice for members to be involved in amending such letters, or amending technical parts of such letters. It was unusual. The terms had been drafted for professional reasons and it was very unusual to change the terms of sale in this way. I was not happy about this level of interference I advised to include in the new letter the paragraph about consulting Councillor Hussain and Councillor Jones. I did this for audit purposeá, so that it was clear why the terms had been changed. David Willetts had a go at Mitchell Spencer for referring to the Councillors in the letter.
I recall one incident involving Councillor Hussain and a parcel of land at Clifford Road. It turned out that it involved Councillor Hussain’s son. Councillor Hussain called an officer within the team to talk about it and the officer asked Councillor Hussain whether he was acting in his capacity as a Member or in his capacity as the vendor’s father. After that conversation, that officer was called into David Willetts’ office and he “roasted” him for questioning Councillor Hussain.
The interference in the toilet block sale came from Councillor Hussain and Councillor Jones. I am the type of person who will always say in the office if I think things are wrong. The knowledge I have from other roles I have had held within the Council has given me some understanding of governance issues, such as policies that have to be followed and how the Committee system works and when a delegation can be used etc. When I raised objections to certain ways of dealing with something or pointed out that there was a policy in place to deal with a matter I was often told that things were different now and members wanted us to deal with things in a different way. I began to feel like a dinosaur feel what’s the 1L2 PROTECT ‘S
I do think that David WiIletts was pressured. He is a very nice man. At the time, there was constant pressure on us; there were redundancies, job losses and more and more involvement from members. We had been told that the members were in charge. David, like everyone else feared for his job if he did not do what he was instructed to do. We had lost our Director Peter Manley who had worked for the Council for over 25 years. Nick Bubalo was our new Director but at the time we didn’t know him well or how things operated in his service area. No-one wanted to stick their head above the parapet because we thought we would lose our jobs.
Quite often I would stay in the office when others had left and it would be just me and David. Councillor Hussain would on occasions pop in to see David at these times and ask how things were going. He continually called David to meetings in his office. I know this because I sat next to David. Councillor Hussain and/or his secretary would call David a few times a day. Councillor Hussain would not normally contact other officers, he was clever, he would contact David and then David would get officers to carry out the instructions. We had to do it, or we felt that we could lose our jobs. David Willetts did feel pressured but I did respect him. He would always allow me to voice my opinions. I think Councillor Hussain went directly to David Willetts because he knew that David would do what he wanted him to do.
These toilet sales were not high profile. I know that Councillor Eling expressed an interest in one of them and that was pulled from the sale after we had instructed legal services. I don’t think Nick Bubalo knew anything about the sales until Councillor Eling contacted him. From that point onwards we were instructed that we were not to progress any sales without Nick’s sign off. He introduced a system where he personally had to approve sales in accordance with the delegations and I prepared a delegation form which he subsequently signed.
It was not usual for members to be involved in a sale like this. It was a minor sale. Sometimes members do have more focus on minor sales such as garden plots etc because they have been contacted by a constituent. At the level of the toilet blocks I would not have expected member involvement.
r5P) 12 PROTECT
David did not discuss the meetings that he had with Councillor Hussajn with me or the team in detail. He would tell us what we had to do as a result of the meeting and give us instructions. But, we would know when Councillor Hussain was involved in something. For example, there was a time when Councillor Hussain said he wanted to see sealed offers for land we had marketed before we accepted one of the offers. He wanted to be consulted on sales, including the 15 day land sales, not just within his ward, it was everything borough wide.
David told us that Councillor Hussain had raised issues about the legal costs that we were charging purchasers particularly on the sale of garden land. In relation to the disposal of open space land we had been advised by legal that the definition of open space was very vague and could include land upon which someone could walk their dog or fly a kite. This theant that the small areas of amenity land on housing estates which we generally sold to an adjoining owner/occupier for inclusion in their garden may need to be advertised to meet the requirements of Section 123 (2a) of the Local Government Act 1972. Because the definition was so vague we decided to err on the side of caution and advertise any disposals where the definition could be met. This was because the ombudsman had criticised the Council on a case where we didn’t advertise and subsequent objections to the sale had been received. Councillor Hussein was not happy that the costs of this advertising was being passed on to individuals. We had this information from David, not from Councillor Hussain direct; it was well known among the team that Councillor Hussain was involved a lot. Councillor Hussain was clever; he did it all through David. David was not good at documenting things. The team knew about the involvement from Councillor Hussain as it was inferred through David, he did not come in and talk to officers directly.
At the time of the sales, I was not aware of any relationship between Councillor Hussein and the purchaser. In my view, Councillor Hussain was in control of the sale. We instructed the District Valuer without a procurement process taking place, to provide open market valuations of the toilets blocks we were selling. I complained about that because going direct to the DV was against the Council’s procurement regulations. When the valuations came back they were substantially higher than the ‘gut feeling’ valuations that had been decided upon. David went to Councillor Hussain and possibly Councillor Jones with the valuations but then we were told to ignore them and to instruct legal to progress the sales on the basis of the original sale prices agreed. We then ignored it. Dav~toldme~aterwhenl(e~~th 1L2 PROTECT
~t) Councillor Hussain’s approach to our team was different to other Councillors. For example Councillor Jones would come into the office and speak directly to officers and give instructions. Councillor Allen would also come in to find out what was going on in relation to a particular matter but he would not interfere. Councillor Rowley would come in to make an enquiry, take advice and would listen to officers and take the professional opinion.
Signed
•1, ~ / ~ ~ Wit n e ssed ‘S a~j J(~ou
r
~-~‘ J~~3 C~ ~ ~-
Lo~tk<~ ~ CLk ~j C~uth~ opeLll~
~cjc~es~;cc~ ~ I
~3Lhj~~y 2011
Dearsir,
We are a local company based in Otdbury area. We have recognised that there are a number of Public Toilets that have not been used for many years in the Sandwell area.
We are proposing to take these various public toilet to make them useable for different commercial
uses. There would be a considerable amount of money spent on these premises to make them viable - for business. We would submit planning applicatfo~ for these various sites. If any of the sites do not achieve the planning permission that is submitted we are Willing to demolish these sites for the council at our own cost (approx flak per unit).
We have identified the following sites Oldbury, Bear-wood, Blackheath,capehill and Weneslury
If the Local Authority feels that there are ~hher premises that are not as attractive we are willing to take them on as package with the iden-tif~d premises.
We would take these sites leasehold or4eeho,rj
We as company would like to make a rel~tionshipH- with the Local Authority therefore are willing to spend money on the demolition of these ~ites.
If you have any further questions pleased not hesitate to contact me.
‘(ours sincerely
a
sat H H
521 to
Ci.. t~j.2 C~itaa Pv~pe~tj Lk~e cks~%.~ $L~ C’ I ~ D ~ .1 ;~h~O-~-
lSthJuly 2011.
Dear Sir, ‘Pt (21t~.t~ 1tft( ~i We a~e a local company based in O(dbury area. We have recognhed that there are a number of ci Public Toilets that have not been used for many years in the SandweJl area.
We are proposing to take these various public toilets to make them useable fordfffereg~ CQnlmercMl uses. There would be a considerable amount of money spent on these premises to make them viable for business. We would submit planning applications for these various sites. If any of the sites do not achieve the planning permission that issubmft~ed we are willing to demolish these sites for the
council at our own cost (appro~ £Sok per unit). ç ~.. e
We have Identified th~ Folibwing sites Oldbuz-y, Bearwood—. Blackheathcapehjl,/ ttvjand Wenesbury-,
IF the Local Authority feels that there are either premises that are not as attractF,e we are willing to take them on as package with the identified premises.
We would take these sites leasehold or freehold.
We as company would like to make a relationship with the Local Authority there~re are willing to spend money on the demolition of these sites.
IF you have any Further question5 please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely r&~U ~c~n ~ ~ ) -C1 do ocun p N~k~o1 oCc ci U2CVDQ.
______~ ~un~ c~à
~
-- I - . I
/ I Dw &Scus~eà ~j ( M.u&yS
— MS Su~3 fl~ advised ~oüwTha ~fl&fln note to David 1NIIietts CQL~ J ~4 OW ‘It CbStU~5 E~hj1c Conveniences in5andwen
l5August 2011 The purpose of this briefing note Is to provide an update with regard to twelve redundant public conveniences located throughout the borough. Members may recall that the Cabinet Member for Urban Form at his meeting on 23 April 2003 requested that a joint appraisal exercise be undertaken with regard to the future use of a number of redundant public conveniencos which had been declared surplus to operational requirerne~~3 by the Cabinet Member for Sandwell Direct. The report higNlght~ that all of the toilets were n a poor state of repair and may, in some instances require demolition Some of the toilets have been dealt with under separate reports as they have formed part of development proposals for different sites but the purpose of this report is to provide an update/recommend a course of action for dealing with the remaining toilets. The situation and/or recommendation for each block Is as follows: Site SituatlonfRecommendauofl Albert St1 Cldbury Suitable for disposal on the open Holly Bush, Cradley Heath Demolishedmarket. and the cleared site incorporated Into the Tesco Market Place, Great Bridge Demolisheddevelo ment. and incorporated into Hill Passage, Old Hill Demolishedad7 mm car andark. sold to Watenjoo Housing Association as part of its Birmingham Road, West Bromwjch Demolishedresidential develoand soldment.as part of a larger site with the City Academy Mallini Street, Smethwick TheSchool.Council does not have documentary title to these toilets. The Director of Legal & Governance Services will be requested to resolve the title issue and a further report, if Princes End, Tipton Demolisheda ro date, submiftedand clearedon thesitematter.has
been landscaped - and - is- cuuently managed by Sandwell Homes on behalf of the Council. fl
Jei-vojse Lane, ‘Nest Brom½jch Toilets may be suitable for disposai on the open market Limited deveioprn~~~ potential. If purc~,~ cannot be identified toilets should be demo lishec! and cleared site Hill Top, West Sromwich Suitableiancjsca ed,for disposal on the open arket. ‘emof [shed and ciesreci site Iscaped ahcj lncorpor~~~~j into Windmill Lane, Smethwjcfr a >natlonsite Is Gardensleas~ to thc Council by Mitchell’s & BuUei~ Ltd. Lease has ezpired and is Currently holding over. The toilets are integral to the structure of the adjoining public house and there Is a Possibility that the structure has Listecj Suilding status. Former West Bromwich Bus Station, DernollshetJ and clear~j site West Bromwjc~ incorporaftrj into a larger development site forming paa of the West Broni~j~j~ Town Centre redevelo ment The three toilet blocks identjff~ —3 CS— J fl~j Subject: ~~!~en Sandw~j ~Q~idt ~ J/p~J~y Good morning progress today in-regards to theJustPublica quickToilets.e-mail to find o~t if there win be any Regards * ..nI.ç~ 12/12/al wrote: Good afternoon ) Just a brief email to let you know t will have something to you this ‘ weejc 1ifling ±he available sites along with appropriate Planning guidance. ) > Regards, ) Original Message ) From: CENTRAL PRCPERTh’ LINE Inlailto : a ) Sent: 23 ~ovenjber 201i 11:52 > To: ______ > Subject: Re; Public Conveniences - Sandwejl >Hi Sorry for the late reply i was Ofl holiday and have just returned this weekend, As discused at our meeting below are the two grid references reques~~~ > > West BronwIcs (Dartmouth Park) 52.529753,_i 926997 > ) Stone cross 52.544403,_a 983274 > > I~ you have any questj~~5 please feel free to contact me. ) > > Regards ) ) > on 11/7/li, CENTR4L PROPERTy LINE >) For ~PPQfnt~ent till ~ttand two Person5 ; ______ / St >> >> On Non, Nov 7, ZGfl at 10;59 A~ >> — >> >>> Thank you, who will be attending please**** >>> >>) *4 ** >>> ))> Regard~,***u )>> >>> ** *4 >)> 4From•* CENTR4L PROPER-ri LINE >)> 45~gfl:4 07 November 291a 10:49 Grjr) n> 4To:~ 1 >>> 45jt~~~ Re: Public Conveniences - Sandweufl.. >>> *4 ** >>> That’s fine , we will at-tend to appointment **** >>> Many Thanfrs**s* >>> >>> cpL**** >>> >>> On Non, Nov 7, 201j at 10:32 All, >>> Fr L__J~Lgov.~fr) wrote:***. — )>> Good morning, *44* >>> )>> t**4 n The meeting is scheduled -for 4pm on Wednesday 9 >>> >>) **4* >>> >)) (f you could attend Sandtq~fl Council House reception and ask for ~) myself r will meet you and take you to the meeting rooln,**** >)> )>> 4*4* >n Could you corl-fjr,M the attendees please***t* >>> >>) Many thanks,~*** >:.> — >>> 4* ------— — >>> ~*** ~ CE~IRALP~~PFR1~V From: CENTRAL PRQPERW UNE -. Sent l2Januacy 2012 1113 To: Subject Re: Public Conven,en~ - Sandwejl ~ .c1~ It woulcJ be nice to gain access t~ ±he itt25 bt~t it will mean more time getting used up as to if we were to do a survey when we have control of the sites work can commence as soon as we do a site survey. The Planing we will be applying for all sites will be 41 or 43. Regards S in Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:05 PH, 4rote: >..-~, ) > Thanks for your email. Would it be helpftg if I arrange for a licence to be issued to you; granting you access to the propertjes to carry out the relevant surveys? ) Regards, - Original Message > From: CENTRAL PROPERW LINE ![ - > Sent: ii. January 2012 10:15 To: J_~ Subject: Re: Public Conveniences - Sanrjtqeu Hi - I have had a 1o~fr at the sites and would like to move > on with the process, I will not be able to give you details In regards ) to what use we will be putting each site in to untij we gain access to > the site and do a site survey, but i can assure you that once we > obtain the relevant planning permission work will, be completed within > 6 months and the site will be up and running. > > if you have any further questio~5 please feel free to contac-f me. > > Regards :n ni, Qec L5, 2JU it Lt:i~3 ‘(1, ~i•j. k> i~rj~~: a’ >> I refer to previous correspondence in connedjon with yaur request to acquire a number of farmer public convenience buildings througno~~ the Borough. n I confi~ that I have flOW Concluded ~ iflVestigatI0~5 into the matter and the foll~ng sites are available for sale, subject to contraa: >> >> 1. Stone Cross, 3ervoise Lane, West Bronwick >> >> 2. Albert Street, Oldbury > 3. The Shambles, Wednesbury )> 4. Beanqo0~ Hagley Road West >> >> x have attached location plans for each identification purposes only. Please note site and hatched the building5 for regarding the site at Bearwood bus station that discussions are not Concluded with Centro could no longer be available for sale. At and there is a slight chance that this site and should this change x will Contact you. the preserrt moment, however, it is available >> >> >> As agreed during our recent meeting, regarding potential uses for each site. I have also met with the Planning Authority provided as guidance only and all sites Please note that the belotQ information is for your Proposed use. will be subject to obtaining Planning permission >> >> )> The Shambles, Wednesbury >> >> >> )> The public conveniences at The Shambles, &Iednesbury fall Within W~nesbu~ Town Centres retail core and therefore uses falling with Class Al of the Town and Count,y Planning Use Classes Order (shops) would be acceptable in Principle. Other accep~ble Uses would be financia and professional se~ices (estate agents? hairdressers etc falling within Class Al of the use Classes Order), restaura,i-ts and cafes, drinking establishmen÷~ and Potentially hot food takeaways subject to emerging Planning policy on the number? clustering of hot Food tak~aways in ~ centres. The building falls within Market Place, Wednesbury Conservation Area and therefore he Council shall be seeking the retention of the building in the first instance. >> >> >> >> Adfrmn5 Lane, Bearwood - >) >) flip public ccn~/enjpncas at ~dkj~5 Lane, arwood Fill ithj1 Bearqg i; Such tow1 r~ntr, usp~ 5uch ~ ~~tall, El Icial ~nd proFn~sjonaj h~ ?cc~ptiht~, in 2rhrp ~ at ~ncr1 t;~aways ?fltra -~-~ .~ji rt r) ~~ç’ ~irg p1 innLps ~ I:’, on tho ter nd ~ 4n~ oF U pr ~tI b L a ¶lt ‘7 >) > Albert Street, Oldbury >> >> )) The public Coflveflieslces at Albert Street Oldbury fail within Oldbury Town Centre a~d therefore town centre uses such as retail, financial and professionaa and drinking/ food establishments would be acceptable in principle. Hot food takeaways may be acceptable subje~ to emerging planning policy on the number and clustering of hot food takeaways in town centres. The site falls within an area protec-tzed by policy ENV2 a-f the Black Country Core Strategy therefore should the site be redeveloped special consideration would have to be given to the impact of proposals on historic character and local distinctiveness. >> >) >~ Jervois~ L≥ne, West Bromtqic~ (Stone Cross) - ‘> The public conveniences at Jervoise Lane3 West Bromwjch fall within Stone Cross Local :entre and therefore retail, financial and professional uses would be acceptable in principle. Hot food takeaways may be acceptable subject to emer~ng policy on the number and Clustering of hot food takeaways within local centres and close to schools. The site falls Within an area prate~ed by policy ENV2 ~ the Black Country Core Strategy ther~ore should the site be redeveloped special consicjera-tion would have to be given to the impact of proposals on historic character and local distinctiveness >> >> >> >> I trust that the information provided in this email is of assistance to you. I should be gratef~~ if ~OU could provide the council with your definitive proposal for each site for consideration If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contac-t me. >) >) ~.> I look forward to hearing from you. ) > Regards, >> >> >> Property Review Assistant >> >> >> >) -- >> San&.~fl Council.. .working for-yaw--- - >) >, 1: R21 ~39 39t~ j S~LL7L 88 >> Sancjwell Council >> > Regeneration g Economy - Property Services Sandwell Council House >> fl Oldbury n West Midlands >> 869 3DE (Sat Nay - please use post code 869 3DB) > W: www.sandwen.gov.uk >> Be Green - Read on the Screeni >> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail >> >> This email and any attachments may contain confidential information. It nay also be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. If this email has been misdirected, please notify the sender as soon as possible. If you are not the intended recipient you mu&t not disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the in-formation contained, and ail copies must be deleted immediately. >) >> - >) >> >> >> The information in this message must be regarded as confidentIal and is intended for the addressee only unless explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error notify the sender and delete it. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of Sandwell NBC and no contractual arrangement is intended to arise from this communication. You should also be aware that any email may be subject to a request under Data Protection, Freedom of Information or Environmental Information legislation and therefore could be disclosed to third parties. Please note that Sandwall NBC cannot guarantee that this message or any attachments are virus or malware free and have not been intercepted and amended, > > > ) > -— > Central Property Line > > The information in this message must be regarded as confidential and ~S intended for the addi’essee only unless explicitly Stated. If you have received this message in error notify the sender and delete it. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are those of the author. and may not necessarily reflect those of Sandwell MSC and no contractual arrangement is intended to arise from this communication. You should also be aware that any email may be subject to a request under Data Protection, Freedom of Information or Environmental Information legislation and therefore could be disclosed ta third. parties~ l’lease note that Sandwell NBC cannot guarantee that this message or any attachments are virus or malware free and have not been intercepted and amended. Central Property Line S ~ TwJ d4Sc~usg~j c&i4~j~ of NfCllr HJ$saL1~ -j cz-. OK. +ts be &~ez-dL~ Central Property Line My Ret MSIPS 36 Birmingham Street Your Ref: Oldbury Please Ask For 8694DB ______Tel No. 0121 569 3916 Email.’ For the attention of — Date: 30 January2012 SUBJECT TO CONTRACT Dear Sir RE: Public Convenience Sites - Sandwell I refer to previous correspondence in connection with your request to acquire a number of redundant public convenience buildings throughout the Borough. I confirm that I am prepared to recommend the Council disposes of its freehold interest in the following redundant blocks as shown edged red on the attached plans (for identification purposes only): Albert Street, Qldbury— Plan No CPDIOO48O/6 (-lagley Road West Bearwooci — Plan No CPD/21561/4 Stone Cross, Jervoise Lane, West Bronwich — Plan No CPDI26600/2 The Shambles, Wednesbury— Plan No CPD/43220f1 The blocks would be sold on the Council’s standard conditions to include the following:- 1. The blocks must be retained and you will seek to obtain planning permission for an alternative use and subsequent refurbishment of each block; 2. If planning consent for demolition and subsequent development of the resultant cleared site is obtained, the Council retain the right to rescind any contract and retract any offer to sell the block to you; 3. A suitable price per block will be agreed taking account of any use of the site determined by any planning pemlission obtained; Property Seriices r4nnager r’rnperty Scribes afldweN Council -louse, P0 3ox 2377, Qldhi,r1 Sancfwell ~t ~J ~Vcst.~1idlona5 001 3DQ. ~0 4. You will, within 6 weeks from dispatch of contract documentation, exchange contracts and pay a commitment fee of £2,000 (Two thousand pounds) which will be deducted from the agreed purchase price; 5. You will, within 8 Weeks of exchange of contracts, submit an application for planning permission for your proposed use of each block; 6. Prior to submission of a planning application, you will provide me with written confirmation of what your application will be based on for each site; 7. Upon the gtant of planning permission, you will within 4 weeks negotiate and agree a purchase price for each block based on the planning consent secured; 8. In the event of planning consent being reftiseci, so long as it complies with the submission as outlined in condition 6 you will be entitled to rescind the contract and request repayment of the commitment fte. 9. If conditions 1, 2 or 6 are breached, the Council reserve the right to retain the commitment fee; 10.You will within 4 weeks of the agreement of the purchase price complete purchase of the block. In this respect, the Council will reserve the right to include any additional dauses ip the contract documentation to accommodate the use proposed forthe block and for which planning consent has been granted; 11. In the event that any of the timescales outlined above are not adhered to, the Council reserves the right to rescind the contract and retain the commitment fee paid; 12. You will be required to meet the Council’s Legal and Suweyo?s costs in full. it is appreciated that you will require access to the redundant blocks to undertake any necessary investigations to determine the costs of conversion and refurbishment In this respect, the Council will upon request issue the neceèsary coflsent and indemnities to allow access. These investigations must be undertaken within 2 months from the date of this letter or otherwise the offer to sell will be withdrawn and the Council will make alternative arrangements for disposal of the blocks. I should be grateful if you would confirm, in writing, within 7 days of this letter whether or not you wish to proceed on the basis of the terms outlined above. Upon receipt of such confirmation, I will arrange for the relevant documentation to be drafted and submitted to you by the Director of Legal and Governance Services. ?roport’J Serjices Manager Prcperty Services Sandwe4i Council House. P0 Sox 2377, Oklbury, Sandweu, West Midlands, 669 300. 5 • .7 If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully Property ~Wew Assistant Property Services Manager Property SeMces Sandwell Council House, P0 Box 2377, OIdburj, Sandwe[F, West Midlands, 369 30(1 ‘I 4 r— ?“~~t- rt ~ i:.i ~ 1 &1er~p(~it~n Soreucj, Ccijncfl Central Property Line My Ref: MS/Ps 36 Birmingham Street Your Ref: Oldbury Please Ask For: 869 4DS Tel No. 0121 569 3918 For the attention ofa Date:rJ1j02 March 2012 SUBJECT TO CONTRACT Dear Sir RE: Public Convenience Sites - Sandwell I refer to previous correspondence in connection with your request to acquire a number of redundant public convenience buildings throughout the Borough. Further to my letter dated 30 January 2012 and discussions with Councillor Ian Jones and Councillor Mahboob Hussain, I outline below the revised terms and conditions that the Council is prepared to proceed: 1. You will pay a purchase price for each building as outlined below. Albert Street, Oldbury - £20,000 o [-lagley Road West, Bearwood - £20,000 a Stone Cross, Jervoise Lane, West Bromwich -£15,000 a The Shambles, Wednesbury -£20,000 2. If planning consent is not forthcoming for any of the above buildings, within the period listed in condition 6, you will be required to demolish the building(s) entirely at your own cost and the Councii retain the right to purchase the resultant cleared site back for the original purchase price; 3. As you are already aware, The Shambles falls within a conservation area so the building will need to be retained. If you are unable to secure planning permission for this building, you will not be required to demolish but the Council will retain the right to acquire the building back at the original purchase price; — 4. You will~ Within 8 weeks from dispatch of contract documentation, exchange contracts; Properly Sor.lces Manager PrrpertySer/c~ Snnrjwefl Counr.if House, PG Sox 2377, Otdhury Suodweil, ,V~t ~k9nnds 869 300. ‘3 5. You Will, within 4 weeks from exchange1 complete the transaction. 6. Following compledon of the sale1 you will have a period of 6 months to obtain relevant planning permission for each building; 7. You will be required to meet the Council’s Legal and Surveyor’s costs in n~ll. I should be grateful if you would confim,, in writing, within 7 days of this letter whether or not you wish to pmceed an the basis of the terms outlined above. Upon receipt of such confimiation I will arrange for the relevant docume~~~jj0,-~ to be drafted and submitted to you by the Director of Legal and Governance Services. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully ~~Re~ew Assistant ~rcpQf-~.y ~nsfrn~ 4 ,~ ,q ,r 1~ ~Ji~rH4 ~ :~S~ 2. From: David Willetts Sent: 02 March 201210:46 To: — ____ Cc: Subject: Re: Pub Convenjenc~ Attachments. imaqeOoljpg ~ agme ~ith your o~menb,them Isa high degree of subjec ygiven that there has not been anyplannlri~ analy~ era potenuaj uses. I thThk that given we include a dau~ that they find dandfi&p~v~ne~~ ecepMd (no ~~Sfltc)th~~j withfri 6 months,with a pta empifon clause to us this will impact upon pita My gut feel Is h the LID l~k bracket but HI !eave that with you. Thanks David a) ___ ~: David Willetta ent7ITM~7O2 10: 822 2012 ‘SubJect: Re: Pub Conveniences David, ______has put the letter together to go out today. We have looked at the values, considered photos and compared them with the Birmingham one that sold yesterday at auction. I am not suggesting that we base our valuation off one £50k disposal, however three of the four we have are as good if not better In terms of location and condition. I would stmggle to iustify £SOk and wouldn’t entertain going in at the level, however equally going in at a nominal figure seems wrong. The purchaser would be taking on no more risk than the winner bidder at the auction yesterday. ‘would welcome your thoughts. t_1 , Jr SenbrDev&cprgent Sureeyor “11 Sandvvej :3 ~ 1:0121 5693920 F:0121 5693938 E: maithey, ~ ~S3 a ~5 From: Sent; 08 March 201213:52 To: CPL UnW Subject: RE: Pubjrc Convenfen~s HI~ Thanb forvour email As a comprlniise, and in the £nt2rests of ccmpfeflr,g the matter, lwou!d be prepared to re.cflrnrac~j that the Council accepts a figure of €55,cai. We can see nojustiJ!nu~ to accept a figure beiow.E55,(y3o withcutanyn~~~I~ behind your valuation. an ould be grateful (orvoureartyrs.p., legarris, Sent: 08 Marth 2012 U:zg To Cc: Dave WiJlet~ - Subject Re: Public ~onvenfeji~s H1 Thank you for your reply, After looking into all the sites and calculating the cost to put each site in to use and taking into considerafion that each site has been out ofuse for some years. I would like to offer £46’OOO for all four sites, Ifyou except the offer we shall complete by the end ofMarcft 2012. On Tuesday, March 6,2012, >1110 thY~ij±gi~yjflç> wrote: > > ‘fl; c’h ~‘/~~ri”T1r~iit ~ ‘/1. a I,’ > > Clearly the receipt exceeded expectatio~, however it does demonstnte thai such pmpeth~ hold more than just nominal value. > > > The values take into accc,a the location and condition in COmparison to the above. > >1 cannot see how yons have come to yons opinion offlmper acre, howevm ifyou do not agree with the valuatjotj I wonid advise you to seek your own professj0~j advice. > > >1 look thrwazrj to hearing from you. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > From >Sent:O6M~h2ol2 11:53 >To:~ > Subject FW: Public Conveniences > > > > > > > > Frorn CPL Line [ma’C ~ > Sent: 06 March 2012 11:41 > To: > Subject: Re: Public Conveniences > > a I N we oday ~ceiv~j rho Ie~er that you posted [Ito conc~~ I have 3 the 2dco of ~cii mit ~iflj ~O ~:: HE c’midyoij oleasee~1U,l 20 3u rothe ;ije ~rce hrowh H ~ Ut’; ~ 0 ~ ‘tit[jj~ a 9, > On Frid~ç March 2’ 2012’~fl@sand eli tJp wrote: >> Hi >> >> >> >> There is a letter on its way to you in the post today but Ihave attached a copy forease of reference. >> >> >> >> I look ibrward to heathg from you. >> >> - Regards, >1- >> >> Property Review Assistant >> >> >> >> Sand-well Council. ..working for you >> >> >> >>T: 0121 5693916 a — - >> >> Sandwell Council >> >> Regeneration & Economy — Property Services >> Saudwell Council House >> >> Oldbury >> West Midlands >> B69 3DB (Sat Na-v - please use post code 369 3DB) ≥> XV: ~g~wsanchveljgov.~ >> 150T9’537055&athd=oij ~ ~ ~~.its~-’, ~~;~•}t)$ *attid-zQj~ ifl ,‘~-~Ir’ •I] r ~ n~— ‘—,~ ~ ~ ~ _ 09 March 2012 12:26 W;g.~% ~ w.Us Subject. RE. Public Convenrences back Uk~ uSe The Council are prepared to accept the offer of €5o,00o. Please forward me yourscljcjton detajts and I will arrange for t.egal Services to draft the nece~ary dowmej~.3u~ lwillcon~y~ there next week. ~ards, • Prom;CPLune[ Sent OMarth 2012 la:45 Tot Subject; RiiWàbIic Convej,is,c~ IL Thank you for the offer you e-mailecj m~ we are ready to meet at £50t0013 if thug is an offer you would consider then please do inibim me so! can forward you the solicjto~ details. aRegards On Thurs~44yJyf3ruh 3,2012, Mitchell Spencer nitchell spencer(a$andweIjgg~~~> wrote: ‘3—> Thanks for your email. > > > > As a comprimise, and in the interests of completing the matte; I would beprepared to recommend that the Council accepi~ a figure of £55,000. We can see nojusdficatjon to accept a figure below £55,000 without any radonaje behind your valuation. > > > >1 should be gmatefhl for your easlyresponge- - > Regards, r From: Sent: To: 1~pnl 2012_11:o~ Subject: PW FW: &&ler Public Conveniences imageoa5jpg. irnageoo2 jpg lmageoQ4;pg Further to p~vious emails le5~ below Confl~ation that CPL wish to proceed with Pu~hasing the other three former publl0 Conveniences which I outline below for clanty Albert Street -. £15,000 (Fifteen Thousand Pounds) The Shambi~ -£10,000 (Ten Thousand Pounds) me Cross -E1o,og~ (Ten Thcjusand Pounds) I shouj~j be grateful if you would now prtcee~j with the transaction If you need anything further just let me know, From: CPLLIne,______ Subjed: Re: FW: Former Public ConvPj-g~,C~5 File Ihavehth a read ofyour e-m~ aud Iwo~d s~ like to go ahead ~th the pu~~a30 of the Public 3 .,nvenjenc~ ~egards OuWedAprIs9oi,tcj7~ HiW ~%~~~•!!• Lgov. Uk> wrote: Have you had chance to review my emaji below? I :~~k rflr;vaid to V°1jr a To; ‘CPL Une’ SubJ~; Former Pubit Convenf~,cas Qj) (3 i ~ ~ to thth~ you that the offej to sell the public co~~ site at Hagley Road West (also as Adk~3 L~e - ~ Bus Stadon) ~ ~ due to pofl~cal ~voJvem~t I con~ however that the Counc~1 is sfill pr~ar~d to pmce~ ~vith sale ofthe other thee sites on the ternig previously agreed at a revised sale price of~35,~00 (Thirty Five Thou~nd Pouw!s) I sho~ be grateThJ ifyou would con~ that yo~ a~ ~ffing to pmce~ on ~s bas~ and I ~fl nod~ Legal Services, Many thanks, PropettyReyj~~ Assfgt~g • - S — Sauc{we~j Councd worid~ for you T: 0121 569 3916 C~F 161 ~ Sent: 24 April 2012 16:40 To: Subject: RE: Former Public Conveniences - Valuation Request Attachments; Imagecol .Jpg; imageoo2jpg; lmageooajpg That Is couec~b~thrs Is a minordevi~j~~ fitmme wntm~and insign anth~ overall terms. The membej~~~ wanteci the OVas a non commerc~I independents~.vjce provider. Thanks David From: - nt: 24 April 2012 11:47 ~ David Willetft 4ubje~ EW: Former Public Convenlen~s - Valuatfon Request Hi David, Furtherto my below email,I am told that we don’tha~a contyactwftn the DV to undertake valuatjo~5 of this kind. I unr1erst~~j that the contract relates to CP0’s and RtB’s only. Is this something we can proceed with? Or do you wish for Kerry/cjirj~ to source an external vaFuervia P21’. Cheers, From:e Sent: 20 April 2012 14:20 To: David Willet~ Subject: Former Public Conveniences - Valuation Request avid, ~ below draft email to — Kept it as simple as Possible. Feel free to amend and re-send back to me and) will gefflo And9Tcday as lam off on Monday. Cheers, He I require an open market valuation to be carried out by the District Valuer on 4 former public Ooflven~nce sues within the borough. Please charge work undertaken to cost code 38050 and advise me of the costs incurred as soon as you are in a position to do 50r 3ack~jrotind information ~tt~nh ~ita J9rsofff--~L~1-m-~,- ~ ~r’cr (5’ 5, ~. ‘- •::r-?~ ••~t 3. 1 ‘at 4. Adkjns Lane/Hagley Road West Smethwfck These 4 sites have been closed and Unused for an e~ended period of time. ~nin I outiin6 belo’g planning guidance received on each site relating to Potential uses: 1. Alben Stne4 Qtdbu~ - The public conven~nces at Albe~ Street Oidbupj fall Within Oldbu~ Town Centre and therefore town centre uses such as retail, financial and profess~nai and drinking/food establishmen~ would be accep~ble in principle. Hot food takeawayg may be acceptable subject to emerging planning policy on the numberafld clustering of hot Ibod takeaways in town centres The site falls within an area pmtected by policy ENV2 of the S~ck Cou~ Core Stnt~y therefore should the site be redeveloped special conslde~uon would have to be given to the impact of propos2~ on h~toric charecter and local distinctiveness 2. The ~hamb/es Wednesbuw The public Conven~nces at TWo Shambles W~nesbuw fall within W~nesbuw Town Centres retail ~re and therefore uses ~fling with Class Al of the Town and Countw Planning Use Ciasse~ Order(shop5) wou~ be acceptabis in principle. Ctheraccep~b~ uses would be financial and ptofessjonai services (estate agen~/ haIrdr~se~ etc ~l1ing within Class .42 of the use Classes O~er), restaurents and ~fes, drinking es~bfishments and Pote~ially hot food takeaways subject to emerging planning policy on the number/ clustering of hot food takeaways in town centres. The building falls within Ma~et Place, Wednesbuw Consewation Area and therefore the Councn shall be seeking the retention of the building in the first Instance. 3. Je~o~S~ ~ne, Wen Bromwfch - The public conveniences at Jewois0 bne, West Sromwich fall within Stone Cross Local Cen~ and therefore retail, financial and professionaj uses wou~ be acceptable in principle. Hot food takeaways may be acceptable subject to emerging policy on the number and clustering of hot food takeaways within local centres and close to school5. The site falls within an area protected by polIcy 2NV2 of the Black Coun~ Core S~tegyther~~0~ should the site be redeveloped sp~iaI consideretion Would have to be given to the impact of proposa~ on historic charecter and lo~i distinctiveness 4. Adkjn~ Lane/Ha gley Road West, Smetnwkk_ The public Convenien~s at Ad~ns Lane 8ea~ood fall ‘.vithin Beanvood Town Centre and as such town centre uses such as retail, financial and professional and drinking! food establishments would be acceptable in principle Hot food takeawa~ may be acceptable subj~t to emerg~g Planning poi~y on the number and clustering of hot food takeaways in town ce~ms I twst that the above info~ation will allow you to pmgre~ the request Jf you need an~hing fu~horjust let me know, Thank you, - ‘,: .,ç~’. Sandwell Council ...worlcjng for you T:tJl2l 6693916 p. indv,~fl Councrl ~~c~noraHcn ~ - - ‘, ~l ~ *‘, -I;.-,’ .1 r-H ~ J. Property Specfaijs~ C/tDtc~\gc~W Data : 23 May 2012 Des, Andij, SANDWEI.~L MEG OF 4REDUNDANT PUSUO CONVENIENCES AT WEL3NESEUR7 WEST BHOMWICH OLosuay AND BEARWOOD I refer to your emajled fnstmcffons dated 4 May 2Ol2~d to my emailed letter of Confirmation of insfpjc~f0~~ dated 21 May. I am pleased to report as fojlows-. BACKGROUND San~e;i MEG has re~ested my Ophio~ of The current market value of the site irj Connecffog with a Possible disposa;. SITUATION AND The sites are well ~own to the Coun~ so I wflj not DESCRIPTION set out a full descnptio~ Iii This report Please riots That this report is based on Inspections only. I have not been able to inspect the intsrlor~ of any otfl,e propertf~ ~breawedflesau Briefly1 this Property comprises a pro-war detached brick anti flat roofed set of public conven(efl063 now closed It is Situated just off the town centre, fri a Street of secondagy shops and a1ongsf~~ the entra,~ce to a Pay& 01~pJaysu,~’a09 car park which is situated at the çear. Je~o ise Lane West BromwIc Sdefly this Property comp~jge9 a 1950’s detached brick and flat rcofed set of public r.cflVeniPflC~5 now Closed It is situated just off the Stone Cross local shopping area. A Tesco Bpress and petrol filling station are on the same side of the road on the Opposite side of Jervohe Lane. Briefly, this prcpoiIy comprises a modem (1980’s) detached brick and tile roofed set of public conveniences flow Ciosgcj~ it is situat~cj off the tow,i centre, opposite the health centre and pharmacy. it Is In a hidden position relative to the main cornrnerci& area of the town. aridBriefly,Me thisrtofedPropeliycornp,fsesset of public Conveniencesa pro-war detachednow closed.brick it is situated in a gooc.j position at the enø of Bearwood High Street adjoining the bus station. There is a modem café by the bus station. The sites are shown, for Identification purposes only, edged red on the following plans: Wednesbury_ Drawing No CPD/.o,~p~0j1 Jervo~e Lane — Drawing No CPD/26~f2 Otdbuw — Drawfrig No CPDIOQ4BWo Bearwood - Drawing No The bound~es have not been checked Sf~E AREA I have been informed that the areas of the sites are: Wednesbury - Jervaise Lane —Gljh,2 Oldbury-. 187.4m2 Bearjvood_. 139.8rn2 I meas~~j the buildings externally and have adopted the following gross external building areas: Wednesbu,y — 89.3m2 Jervoise Lane — SaSrn2 (Jldbury —66.1 m2 — 39.2m2 TENURE I have assumed that the Council owns the freehold interest in each of the silos and that vacant possession can pass on a sale. r4AS2PAENTS, flE3TPuicrpQ~5 I have not been made aware of any easements CUTGC?NGS J~ND CNj~i3a3 ~9stficUons outgolngs or charges that may adversely ‘ifect ant of the sites and have assurnad that thqre ~re itS PUNNING I have not made any Inquiries of the Local Pianning Authority, but have been provld~j wftii general planning 9U!dance by the Council. Allot the sites are suitable for town centre uses, including hot food retail uses. ENVJRDNME,~J.I. AND I have not undert~j<5~ any environmental surveys and am CONTAMINA-I.ION MAfl~pjg cannot state that any of the sites are free from confaminauon or noxious weed 1nfestauo~ etc. However for the PUrposes of this report, I have assumed that there axe no problems arising from thse matters. srr~ STAEILI-yY The sites are sftuat~ in mining arvas, but! have not been made aware of any site stabiIftyprohf6~3 or the existence of mine shafts. It Is Possible that shafts may exist, but! have assumecj that the site does not suffer problems that are Worse that the usual problems associated with land fri this area. Consequen~ I have asswy~eJ that there will be no signiflca~~ abnom~j developrn~~~ costs for the sites. FLOODING I have assumed that the sites are not subject to flooding. FENCING AND SOUNDMIES I have assumed that all fences and bounujaries are in the ownership of the Counco. RIGHTS OF WAY I have not been made aware of any rights of way or footpaths over the sites and have assumecj that no problems arise from this source. ACCESs I have assumed that there are no access problems and adjoining landownem do not hold a ransom over any potential accesa I also assumer that the Council would give appropriate rights of way over its retaIned land on any sale. SERVICES I have assumed that each site has the benefit of all mains services to the bounciaiy VALUATION DATE The date of valuation is the date of this report. OPINION OF VALUE I am of the opinion that the current market vat’ of the site are sums fri the region of; bVedn_~5000 (tony ft,4e tlrnusan -Jervojss Lane — £50,agg (fifty thousand Ofdbury — £35,000 (thirty five thousand Ssar,vo 4 — £70,00a (seventy thousana a 1t4 BASIS OF OPINION & theIn givingdefinitionmy OPInIOnof maffietof value above,ContainedI havewithinhadtheregardRoyalto VALU.LrnON COMMENTARY InstItutIon of Chaflered Surveyor-s Valuation Standards (8th Ediffon) ‘iaftiagon Standard (VS) 3.2 dafin~ market value as “The ~sllm~ed amount for which a Prvpe~p,~ should on lbs date of vafii~Lion between a ~WUing buye, ems a willing seller in an arm’sqengy, transaction afterproper marketing wherein the parties had each acte~j kflcwledgea~íy Prudently and withow compu/gicon However as this repod Is advice on a POten~J sale of the Properties the Standands will not apply. A theIn Pad!cular,presence theat anyStandardssp~j~ r~uimpu~hase~the valuerwho mayto Ignorebe prepar~ to bid sums In 9xces~ of th~ value under the above ma~et value deflniffon I am aware of interest from a neighbour at Wednesbu,y and feel that slmibj lnteres~ will be forthcom ing for other of the site as well. Whilst I have not includ~j an element of speciaJ purchaser bid in my opIni~~ of value above, I have had regard to The commercial location of the plots. I have also had regard to the recerft sale by auction on 1 March 2012 of a redundant public convenience at Hockley, SlninlngJ-~m This sold for £50,000. CURRENT MAR~~ in °°flsideflng the valuations I have had mgasd to the CONOITTONS following factors; I. The develop~9~~ land marscet Is expedencing an unprecedented downtij~ at the present time. With the restHction of bank lending, finance and funding is exfreme(y scarce and potential purch~ers are not showing an appetite for inves~,ent I anticipate this ~ will obtair, for at least a further is months, 2. I also anticipate that the next stage of Present econom~ cycle will be a fall in general demand caused by a rise In unemployment 3. In the present market, developers who are willing and able to purchase sites are few, arlcj Vendors are tendinato hold onto sites in anticip~0~1 of an upturn in the market in the fu~ ‘rq r~ - accordingly ‘/enj few transar ~arable -2Vlden00 IS 3Carc~ 113 C,~ 1~er.~ I sc’~ SnCUI~1 ;D~-~jd dl 0(1 4 1 C~cv ~i -h :h 10~ VAT My OPInIOnS of value above are excfuglye of any VAT th~ may be payable on the transacifo,, LE~t AND OThER Cos~ I have assumed That each side would be responsible for its ow~ ieqaj and other costs. This repo~ has been pmpwed for the express PUmOSCS of the Counoji ~ °Oflslderfng the future of the sites. It shoud not be relied on by any third party for any purpose whatsoever This repoft should not be published in any form without my express permission as to (fig fory~ and conten in which It Is to appear. This repoft should not be considered valid For more than 6 monffi3 from the date hereof, nor if the circumstances alter. You may wish to Consider Whether this mpoftcon~ns ~empf in(ormaffon within the terms of Pamg~p~ 9 to Schedule 12A to The Lo~ Government Act 1972(Seduons 1 and Pa~ I of Schedule Ito the Local Govemme~ (Access to Informaffon) Act 1985), as amended by the Local Govsmme~ (Access to information) (Varlauon) Order 2006. Should you ha,,e any queries please do not hesitate to con~ct rile. Yours Sincerely, J Fl M Page BSc (Est Man) FRICS RICS Regi5~~~ Valuer District Valuer Services STRATEGIC RESOURCES ft4’~tj ~TTfl<~4~~ Ti) Oils ‘2S~zr O/~-?C-O flAy LANfl AT dc,Q Th~ ~‘c tiED N y 750 C4rz — ‘I rat, t,~ ~“~a n~. 3fl.fl4 fl~ rn q?TI~r1 ~t~ ‘Cr?Q’a I ~2.2 ~2 S a n d’,va H ~“~1t -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ hn ~flr,j ~fl / ~,,+ Sc — —. if a 109 STRATEGIC RESOURCES MAN4GEM~J. r / / / / ro Ou~ ~ D~--rc,’~ 2-3 flA~’( 2-312. ~W L~n~ OFF OC.jQ csSW I aa STONE CROSs LANE WEST SROMWICJ.j ~Vg LP ~1 ‘e• $‘ — ~ ,c ~ ~ a a5sTr, ~C.9fl~ CCPYPICHr ~ ~ ~ .fl~ ~ I’~)~~ ~)1-Dr’ jfl a 110 STRATEGIC RESOURCES ?t-44J ATrr~-cq~-) 1c) tCVaQ.r DPrT<0 L~No OFF 4/ 2~o,2 •ALSERr STREET GLOB (JR V I flair,0, ~ Cr q t GHT ~‘.— —~—‘ TO~3Qitjg~ 3)~’%’h •It •tzn;~j c~ qc H. STRATEGIC RESOURCES SG~CA~T MMGE~,~ ftc-t.j ~rrrks4E32 ro ~y~jç F, ~fl c3c79 ~q~1 761/’1R4 HA~Uy ne~ JEST SEAn ~sa I_p / 3~3JnN’~ç~j~ It ~ •~7 ~ tflflp ~ r. ~ I flrI5w~ fl~ ~CRfJ,H CCPYn!cHr flhJ\~’/ej1 •2 ~ runny, ~:‘t’t. c~n1~fl Ir In,~$ I. 1 I~. scN~ 1)1 Prom: Sent: To: 25 Ma 204714.41 SubJ~t. Rb’-i-’u Ito * imag~oj .Jpg; imagego~ jpg imageoo3jpg Will do From:! Sent: 24 May 2012 15:41 To: Subjed. RE: Publi0 Ccnvenj89~ ) bavejug received ~flher instruction from David via Councilio~5 Hussajn andjones .ie trsnsa~i00 which you are dealing with ~ proceed as normal. You will note from my I~stnj~J~jj5 that the d~ha~~ Is to exchange Contm~ w~htn S ~ee~ from dispatch of dnft documen~tjon I make that the last day of exchange to be 5 June 2012 as You sent the docs o~ on the 23 ApdI (a~ed with 24 April). Could you contact the solicitor and ad~se/,emjfld him of this deadline date to exchange and make it explicit that there will be no ~ensjons if con~~ are not exchanged the offer to sell will be Subj~: RE: Public ok rn: :flt4 24 May 2012 12:53 0 ______Su5j~1 PublIc Hi~ Just to confi~ our conversauon Yesterday, please do noj exchange con~cts on this tmnsa~ion Fu~her to an independ3~ ValuaUon being Ca~ed out at the request of membe~ they are no~ COflsidedng opUons for the future of the redundant blocks. V/ill update you as soon as I know what Is happening Cheers, El ‘mm “1 San~weli Coun~jj Regenerauon & Economy — Propsi-ty Services Sandtvejj Cotgi~ House Oldbuc-y West Midlands 969 306 (Sat Nay - Please use post code 369 3DB) W: — Ba Grae~ - Read on the Scrgeng Please Consider the environment befo~ prinung (his ~ajg ~ emafl and ~ may Con~ln confldent~I Information it may also be egaiiyp~~~jj0 d itft Intend~soge~ for the Individual to w horn it Is addressed ii this email has been mi5dfre~ed please notI~ the sender as Soon as possible (you are not the Intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute Copy, print or rely on any of the information contained and all Copies must be deleted Immediately. S ‘lie Sent: ~ 2012 1127 Subject: RE: Former Public Conveniences ft Sent: 31 i~1äy 2012 17:20 To; Subje~. FW: ftrmer Public Convenlenc~ Scott, please see below for (nformauon I will confirm to Abdul We have no obJ~0~5 to this. 5mm: CR Line - Sent: 31 May 2012 To; Mitchei; SPen~r Stsbjee: Re: Former Public Conven(enc~ Hi~ Somj for the delay ~ complet~g Would ~t be possThje to have the con~~ ~ my ~e which was the ~ idea so~j for the ~Conveulence ca~e~ Ifyou decide it ~ OK to do so a~ go ahead I can have my ~Ollcitor to change the name. ‘Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:50 ~ ~fIi ___ I mU ~vdt~g to thfo~ you that the offer to sell the public conve&eflce site at &agley Road West (also as AW&3 La~~ - Cen~0 Bus Sta~on) th ‘~ththa~ due to poHtical ~voIvemeflt I con~~ however that the Cou~cn is still prepared to proceed ~th sale ofthe other three’ ites on the te~ previously a~eed at a revised ~ pHce ofE3s 000 (Thifty Five Thous~d Pounds) I ;hou!J he gnteft~J If~~’i V)Uij C(~] t’mj ~‘t 7~’i ‘~‘ii!li~~ U ITfl JCd ni tbi3t, ~ EDOL DI’ p if-i2 cu~-~ 0ATh0&t.tA &t~tvq 2012 cF~l ~ ~&Øt. THE aOFZOUGH COUNCIL OP SANDWELL - and.-. H cj) relating to I the sit,~ of former public conv~~ at i~ibart Street Ofdbup1 lbs Shambles Wednasbupj and Janijolsa Lane Stone Cross West BromwJch I all in the County of ‘Nest Midlands 1~z~LcTh I Jib AN AGREEMENT made the 2~~y of Two thousand and ~elve BETWEEN: THE BOROUGH COUNCIL O~ SANDWELL of The Sandwefl Council House Oldbuw West Midlands B69 3DE (hereinafter called ‘the Council’) of the one part and I West Midlands (hereinafter called “the Purchase?’) of the other pad WHEREBY IT IS AGREED as follows; (1) The Council will sell and the Purchaser will purchase the freehold properties (hereinafter called “the P~pedles~ sho~y descñbed i~ the Fi~t Schedule hereto (2) The Purchase Pdce is Thir~ Five thousand pounds (~35~0Qo 00) (‘the Purchase Pdce Monie&) (3) A deposit of Three thousand five hundred pounds (E3,500.oQ) representing 10% of the Purchase Monies shall be paid to the Council on the Signing hereof (4) The purchase shall be completed no later than 28 days fmm the date hereof at the offices of the Council at Sandwell Councu House Oldbury aforesaid (5) The balance of the Purchase Monies amounting to Thirty one thousand five hundred pounds (E31,SOQiJo) shall be paid on conlp(euon (6) 6.1 The Council sells the Properties ‘Mth full title guarantee provided that (i) the /900venant implied by Section 3 of the Law of Prope~ (Miscellaneous pmvisions) \/, Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”) shall be deemed to apply only to charges encumbrances or nghts expressly creates by the Council or any or its predecessors in title from which it derive9 title solely by operation of statute and Ii) ~ tJ4 \‘t ~h3 ~ “~~;ii ~ ~LZ a In Land Registry ]~pi H part &‘ recistererj n:(z3 ~r you need more room than Is prQvided for in a panel, and Your soflware allows you can expand any panel in the form, Alternative;y use continuadon sheet cs and attach it to this forrp, Leave blank if nol yet regI~ered, 1 Title numbe~s) out of which the prope~ is transferred. When application for reg~~on is made 2 OtherWMI5Sj0QUtle number(s) against which matters contained in this these tiflo numben should be entered n transfer are to be registered or noted, if any: - panel 2 of Form Apt. Insert address, including Postoode (if ~ Property: any), or other descrip~on of the propes-&~ transfen-ed Any physical excfus~ons such as mines and m~erals should be All those d~used fojle~ at Albert Street Qldbup1 West defined Midlanas Place ‘X’ in the approp,j~~0 box and complete the statement The property is identified For example ~dged red’. on the attached plan and shown: edged red For example edged and numbered i in blue’. C on the title Plan(s) of the above titles and shown: Any plan lodged must be signed by the bansferor. 4 Date: L~ ft 90 z. Give full name(s) S Transferor 9 The Borough Council of Sandwelj Complete as appropflate where the E2[Ufjncgm_~__ trans~ror is a company, Regis~e~~ number of ~ liability partne~hjp including any prefix: ~rseas corn enie (a) Territojy of Incorporation (b) Register~ number in England and Wales including any prefix: Give full name(s). 6 Transferee the register: I ftrukincoroofltd appmpnata ‘~here the includingteredany prefix: OT company or limIted Iiabtljty Partnership fransferee is a company Also, loran I/ O~erseas company, unless an — arrangement “eTh Land Rsgistnj exists I ~ icdge either a certificate in Form 7 in ~ of incorporation. Schadula 3 to the Land Ragist~~j0~7 Ruies2oo3cracs~w~dcGpyofth I (b)Reqistered numberin Enqlan~~1j Wi~ DicJinq ~inv constjtuUcn in Englich or Welsh, or other 5d~:s P~rrR)~J by FuN I~T9 ~f tie 2ren’x: • -d p~-~•~ •~-~ :2~q•,. F - I,’ Place ‘X’ In the appropdate box. State the 8 The transferor ~ansfers the property to the transferee Currency unit if other than alerting. If none of the boxes apply, lnseg-t an appropfiate 9 Consideration memo~ndum in panel 12. ~ The transferor has received from the transferee for the property the following sum (in words and figures): Fifteen thousand Pounds (~l5ooooo) C The transfer Is not for money or anything that has a monetaw value U Insert other receipt as appropijate: Place 2K’ In any box that applies. 10 The transferor transfers with Add any modlflcauons ~ lull title guarantee C limited title guarantee The Transferee transfers the property with full title guarantee provided that (I) the covenant implied by section 3 of the Law of Property (MlsceIlan~us Provisions) Act 1994 (The 1994 Acr) shall be deem~ to apply only to charges encumbrencos or rights expressly created by the Transfe~r or any of its predecessors in title for which it derives title solely by operatlon of statute and (ii) Section 6(2)(a) of the 1994 Act shall have effect as though all matters now recorde,J in all req isters open to or capable of public Inspection are to be considered to be within the actual knowledge of the Transferee Where the transferee is more than one person, place ‘Xl in the appropriate box. 11 Declaration of trust. The transferee is more than one person and o they are to hold The prope~ on trust for themselves as joint tenants ~ they are to hold the prope~j on trust for Themselves as Complete as nscessa,,j tenants in common in equal shares O they are to hold the property on trust Use this panel for — definluons of terms net defined 12 Adcjitionaj provisions above rights qranted or received — resblctjve Co’Ien~ft Definitions — other Covenanis — agreeme~j~ and deciarettong — any required orpermftfrd statements — other agreed prog5j005 roe prescribed subheadings may be added to, amended reposjfloned or omftted. Any other land affectaj by rights granted or raser.ed or by restuctive Covenants should ba defined by ra~~rnnn to 1 Plan. I’ 4ZL5 - .i ~r.:i r U, • Tb0 transferor must execute his transfer as p deed using he space opposite If here Is more than one transferor all must execute. Forms of execuffon are given ri Schedule 9 tc the Land Regls~tion Rules 2003 If the tmnsfercontains transferee’s covenanh ordeclarauons or EXECUTED as a DEED contains en applice~o~ by the transferee (but not delivered until the date ) (such as for a restriclron), it must also be executed by the transferee, hereoo by THE BOROUGH COUNCIL OF SAND’IVELL its COMMON SEAL having been ) affixed in the presence of: N DIRECTOR OF GOVERNANCE SERVICES (Authorised Signatory) SIGNED as • thesaid_idejb I ) ) / WARNING lf’~o~~ dis~one.stiy~nr0. information ormake a s~tement that ~u know i.~ or might be untma 0rmisr~dln9 md r(1~FJ by so to cooks again for YGtJis&foranotherperson orb cause o~ orrhe flsk of’oss to 2fiO~erp~ron you r~y commit ti:~ oifanre of fraud ur.ders~ctjon I cfijio FmurJ .4ct 2CC~ the ma’im11 raot, ~nrwh~,’h a Ii) ~~sr biTted gp, orb ~ih O~c L~nd Regiscrg Transfer mc p&~ of recd5t~”~d I If you need more room than Is provided for in a panel, and your soft,y~re allows, you Can expand any panel in the form. Alternatively use Continuation sheet cs and attach it to this form, Leave blank if not yet registered. 1 Title number(s) out of which the property is transferi-ed: ‘~1hen appilcauon for registration is made WM973070 these ~tle number(s) should be entered in 2 Other title number(s) against which matters contained in this panel 2 of Form API. transfer are to be registered or noted, if any; Insert address, Including posicocle (if any), or other descripuon of the property 3 Property; transfe,md My physica’ exclusions, such as mines and minerals, should be deftned. All those cIFSUSed toilets at the Shambles Wedflesbuw West Place ‘X’ In the appropijate box and Midlands complete the statement The property Is identified For example ‘edged red’. on the attached plan and shown: edged red For example ‘edged and numbered I in blue’, Any plan lodged must be signed by the C on the title plan(s) of the above titles and shown: transferor. 4 Date: Give fill name(s). J 5 Transferor The Borough Council of Sandwell Completh as appropnato where the trans~ror Is a company, For UK In Comom ted co m nan ies)LLPs Register~~ number of company or limited liability Partnership including any prefix: ~rseascomanies (a) Tenitory of Incarpora~o~. (b) Registered number in England and Wales including any praflx: Give Ml name(s). 6 Transferee for entry in the register rL__ — Complete as apprcprlate where the Registered number of company or limited lability Partnership trans;eree is a compsny. Also, for an including any prefix; overseas Company, unless an rrnngern~n~ with Land Regislnj exists, odga either a certJftcj~ in Form 7 in ~3ci;~oul33 fo the Land Rsgistr~o0- - (a) Territory of incorporation. Rules 2003 ora certifed copy of the C3fl’~Utflflon in English or Wels’n, or other ~‘c’flfl3 C1~l~d by n~in 13:3 of the (b) Registered number in England and ‘N-iles including any nj ?.1~;m—4~~ ‘.:3 :‘:‘.y~ ‘on 4 ~ rn n L1 i) ‘2) C) C) C LU CC C b 1_I C) —0 C: L C-) ‘21 LI 3-! LU ‘233 — C mt 5. -C cC, O. IC) a 0 r a x C ci -m -1 “3 I: 313 C) ( 3’ 13 a C) C’) C: • C: -C ) U ci) ‘2) 31 a x’—, L ‘-C C LI )! ‘23)! r ID i LiLl F- Li C) Li Li .iz C, C C t C C) C: U) Cl) I)) C) c It? 9 C) C! _ Ci I]) 0) -b Cl) Ci.) Cl) E h ,, LiF CLI F- C) tj .2 U) C C: C] o CC) Cl) o C) — U) w C-) — (1) > LI) Ct) C) C-, 4-- - -b : UT, 0 :3 Cl) 4— C C) CC) a) 0 — *- > o ,, CC ‘ C] Ci) o z Cu C: F E U) C: I)) Cu C: ‘C: U, C-) Li) a 1) ci) Cl) C) C: ± C) C) Cl) C) b w - C) 0 Ci U, - (CC) o Cl) 0 Cu — 3-, ty _i — Li o c; Cl) C) C 0 (1 C)) CD .Cl) C) -3, C) u o a) LI) . U, > — i; U)) Cu 0)-9H C) Øca It) E C (C — C: ,, ‘cj- cu C)- >C: Li CC)) C) IL) U C C) C) CC 0 C) — C: ‘2) ‘ 4 r C) Li CC) C) ot o F) CD >, ci L C:) CC 2 -i U? .C5 C C, }t5 U) > C) E °)a,Eu1 C’ C, Cl) C) C) C!) C-) > C: C:I) c C: C15 CC u) Cu .L’ c s: II Cu > £ 0E0’—n It —Lu “C ‘C) C: C: Cu E U)) Ct) tcfl C,) U) C: C-, Cu Cu C Li) ci) C’) s’- CC tO ‘—C .C:C:— 0. Cu rj C) a) (C C C!) (C) r Cu U, ttL Cu Cu - C, 0 o Ct! i-. CI) 0 CC) I, U, 0:t:C> C: CC 00 Ct a) 1 rn It. U3 = nasfer&a daS aa3ajcrJ :ias1 ‘i3 acuted ‘ta’rs ecte. 2303. 3 mm ai j marn2rmcn)aTI r’ 3opLV3crt ca ‘a a flfi he he enana ‘f flCOL tranafnir Land :cutrcn 3 cy rars’mor, ‘tratan r }3 a 0caratars ccntatn3 ar L qnn OC3 3d rt .r a tnesaid.. StGNEDasadby 3f;d (bjt s CUNCL RECTOR 3OVERNANCE — CCMON not tacrisd !n by dcod The OF PdE OF presence — SEAL SANOWELL Signatory) BOROU LEGAL SERVICES und a c ir 013 iND ite on .1 a £2 ‘ ‘(- c( ii 13) t w -j o ‘ 0 rn ; -. ‘ cc02C 02 - (1, 3” ‘Z — - N CC (“ nrn (3) N — 01Jt L •1 rn — cL 0 (H -“ w ‘1, _‘_ ‘— 0C” , ci C’ ‘- (3 — — 1 i_fl C - p cv LJ - C £2 -t’ct11 0 0 -. 0 C’ — J) ,U) rn 0 _) ‘-- L) J - - - 2 £2 , j v o ci. fr-r 3 (C C, 2 c C) t v C”J Cl — C) — j cv C N Ii) 2’ 1 ’i: £2 c, p Cl C) 0 C C’ C C’ L — 0 C (3 —, Q p fr o b C 0 n C) 0 C) c-c, ci 0 ) t 2:’ C) 00 C 0 - C) 0 D N £. L D Co 2 I 9 II - r Od -, nrly c- X’ Tccat(crS 1 J n in yt’oh ap I 9 r pnrni , bit r TI rt np 2 E in T nn t ID Do 3 3 .i) [i) arovded The E i The Jj fl hey on ert:cn H’o of Section all :ctual operation predecessora rghts rOOtS nt be the MiscejIaneous Transferee limited ftil transferor pubiic Insert matters monetary Tetnnsfarisn]tLrmt ‘rars prODerP/mefccJirg rato ten deemed ar covenant do-rat’n tit’e that nov.ledge r expressly thcusard 6(2)(a) ttie orher inspection faor guarantee n ‘ of now transfers to transfers guarantee statue i alue n impied r000ct in eaply of ots recorded srty Provisions) created title ermnjeroe of poucis the rSq3l are the end for only wCh 1994 as by the to na Transferee which by Section cprcpre in sum (DID prooert’j to be Act otj all Ire n Act charges rOS considered a registers yorothlg it rm CuD, n shai Transercr den 1994 3 words wfth of L) have ice encumbrances the (ihe “aa foil open - onu tie to Law offect or LtIe be 1994 :rmnasa oolely rrce) any to of .vithin guarantee peroCo or as Act’) Property or capable b though i or Is the shall eL5t5L1,r eDueJMq Wtfl4EJ3 V, 03 JaqwG39O SLOE awting The ‘/aluaticrt rich orr,dertty wilting The Vati,attcn In 114 change Our 0 113. towards e 11 rioted mderlaking sated You estimated 1:1. Vatuation ar satniors Report sailer 1 lessee 2. ?ossassicrt The — Standard have abed 1 and aver kn is Standard the Definitions .:nniisdgeabiy, uatn3 Data in MarYat orhiout General arrount a rear on of rsructad cur ln.struct:cns !nstructtons amount an retatfveiy of value appropriate VPS & of of owuations, of Various arm’s VPS Vatue’t. hais to c-ompufsionh MaMa Valuation this Ja1uaUon for or Assumptions are 4 of cr us 4 which di:.rL short 1.3 report. length oean rod Market I as roor’r to which of Pubbo 2 and of ci r.rily lease provide we of at the partcd. an the red Theroed. 23 the ilansaimon, .0 Basis have •an interest Va freahcd and Red Conveniences ococr:lsrce - tenors Red May asset las cur and ct adsotad ylthrt Bock sitar Of Back 0 p 5 i 005 2012. in in Si Conditions Valuation or interest real an defines after “C roth ilabilifj defines wiLt the The ansla crcpertv stratus moper :.h oreviousiy DiGS IOn as :rrportaoce c- diarVet sot •ohcuid Market l’er, at defi : l’s marketing 23 roaM art on Rent frensaction, 3rd exch.anqe Value CEremi the owned lore o..r May of ire (bID) with foltowing ii the coO, leased of (MV) 2012 and Aurrpacos by date Market rip as: an .dJn Sandwett as: wedre •aftar then. on on cases: of The Value -. valuation the the proper •i valuation op LOS ors’rsrhrp valuation ?.ssurnpttcn ran MaC arc pames marketing r’ust ilonditarra uiaret date data. or had he defacer of how Yant, stressed between arid each tail C 0 at rodeo, as eacant 0:0 acted 0 a o detailed OSLO as a wiling million orapertj Lire noseasslon knowiedneably. a rOLL .03 parties buyer babw !.esaor beoned a 00 values 00 Sa’1iITS and had md (Vacarit v. eMon can a Harley ,tarcose Toe 0ibad We 121. Metropoirtan sUragge tf 1,2. and nubiahed Nertoer soceotod stated Pnaly. 1.1 reievaroa tiLe Vstuation tire Report Shamfues, have irdiog ocrte St,reet Load 12 recommend sale cone, abora, Lawrence been the in Historic this Background docoment. to proceeds Wst, accordance Confldentiatity Clcbuni of Ira Sorcugh whole of rheat::Lronovvcn arty Viwdnesbup informed serdoatcn & wtoch eaca Vorious it tineruwick Third Valuation Graham that Purchase a nor pathcu!ar oat Council, condentiai t oircuiar may party you that with any PublIc were rooess. & the satisfy appear. part and the for Co or Price Esta:es point acrrieved following Conveniences recommendatIons toe statement, of have Respons;btiity to yourself tics I whale sria,cuO ‘520,000 and lot 0 20,000 Department, rnstnscted roe report sold. for prices for or conte nor on the the any or all were pcthisned, prevIously ales. Savilts use arty part these of of paid the reference amy the This of (UK) points, RICS, for its referred purpose of owned is contents, these Limited part toe we either to early of to sites it ny would of to may or an our Sandwefl by undertake Any used in to ongoing state verdcation be vauatoos 2012. whom arson in included that any MBC review parties astuatlons 1 way toa ;3 of now, Oar addressed of ecoh without intiMbual reiy various vofobons or of upon rs these at our provided any only, coirris matters thia written $ time should sites report onto or solely reocrdirg approval cr by as no the act at part Judgement resaonsboty for their oe future, of the savills, of w°ed Sandwelt a awn the purocse review at of ‘arm risk. upon arty If a a J 3 a arc cv “ t as asdataotaanL)ri Aerrstve I’s location, cc acsaares T -c case piarnrg croposcd and the drgs cttices access, mixed The oak r sates Nc 4 eve bus 3 t ocot’cra, Vahon property Report 2 from 2. normal for nave jvi ey oroftas avon statisri lb etch arccarce are a a ccacoris, permissIons a anes thts There :aoco typical scheme dnaer eta vaLed The at rrethd as a CLrmnt on Approach a.b /mi4tcttlt neductng cf cccl and sch 5 reirg cv bees gfl aervoise ,ou’d & has pcpe:tj for r±eve’cprrant at ‘iartous bve cmi out the d could Jegree cC Valuation a as at bra of aecti Th5 purchaser and Men prcoerhes new at Coveasry valuatIon as cistinca tact sit an rae atfcrd adcet To Lane are Public as eva evidence an of the uses. edvs-’age taco iesrtCd aura Valuation passing VaLe ti occahcr ncressing costs poertal as a to reasonace close ‘-a of rer’a.ned for nay c&s, Conveniences bract There pay an trese the 4 a — cdew of rg or1 — code, development purcnaser proximity aa’t cr m 5 dev&opr’ent, Investment t’j best acrncarscr is egard ‘moors oropert trend a also the csr e.fcL1 be merest but via ‘arkefs ate to to a vealco cIty ascianac th Is es sculd si growing pm capersole the ness a resicteritsat access ads However if a Valve tdbvcy a 2g12, and apart rc.uarg the o1.siy reuse at cerceotec be scud ‘a’moas specs, ‘as abety access trend taorg a a of and bet madreed oed M ccl canter and cc evidence constroctian budd3igs, thIs for to as ‘a Westh e se a and rooard Ir &a:t rd ama es good a’css rsarcs aar eccrom, by taco! sass a duat a and I ‘e Sand.ali prcpert!es j ccrnmercaty cca’ec coda as for a acpc-cr oa t soase grea:er apprasal a finance, r”rket ate scot scone example thee ass anTht to d an “ga n cc at of VBC end &os an ceree are sent Hagley far sees, anil cc Ire rstated -sc sari cetermfnmrg petrol viable estaOfsbed rave no mart. crc’s other “sac cer’c-rd’c’es evin; the proflt, schemes been of cad stators, a reascraoe/gcod same .n caR pcrceraba sass temative aa,a’ roadside etc cars Nest than the coal a to dowever crepared cc-s puOlic bass gross crave wovia ran aercara use. a rsta,i Iccadons cerl-aps The as dev&corrert nausea at The asbe.ecp Ir otrerarse rca cocOon or a cat re a as. cSa sb. value oudrgs costs orcxnctty us -‘-orcet anan-aI and a ens! ity and V toe S8Vit!S and lost are on and gve cc -a tan vacant best vaus at reai are i.e as me Me rosa no in solo aortorrral ouudng ‘‘e 4 arrange We ‘ Hagtey Jeriosa 3 Valuation Report e have at 2 consider i suco ShtuTOISS at Road oeveloprnent states Market Lane, that ow of that West, & true, eve above annus West WOOLJP/ Value Valuation nese aces Smathwtck however costs Bromwidh our properbes Public ‘/ersus suggest understanding • couic there ConveWences Purchase easy that waud was they rave a cf attract vere omricd the Puce a sgrorcart prev 1 ously (Fifty sae (Fifty (Forty not roost ernouro apen prices, Thousand Thousand Thousand nierest £50,000 £50,000 j £40,000 Leancg awnd rrarceted. of all srnrar through of Pounds) Pounds) vhcn on Pounds) b an sales Sandwoll an appear ravauai aucto evaiIaie to $8C value cc sale, given low whch The n the cornoarson fect aculd nature hat a tae of icur .v:th the up prooertes sales outbings to 3 montns of saviIIs am acre Ar, o reoresentatons Mj Borough I improperly 1 this I may matter ‘r’ptie also am I belief. This People am understand have role a statement a the be understand d statement Technical nvotves a and disclosed CCil work been above Present i a involved other that f in a asked named work e monitoring consisting Cerk n’ relation that I at connected to I have may ag others wthn r this hirns&f ithin IT person about ______ ceen be to statement oaJments of October2016 all required allegations as matters. tne n 3 in parking and part the pages tre Parking car urn understand of Julia rote may to parking allegation - these I is enforcement, egster’ng o made give am since true Team Lynch be afte aware re interview. Pce evidence and used to against penalnotices Januarj that of the Andrea related that debts Sandweli of that in I best such all have Councillor should tJn a 2001 Councillor procedures nstruci proceedings. Dyer copy ) of as been my Metropolitan nctce a L House Oidbury of knowledge hearing asked M this g Li Hussain, baiFtfs related process!ng oJ M statement Council to be Hussain provide held, and I to this I ) dopolntment telling Another different • hat had had the surprised unusual. ) result told SD51950134. would charge she • March the In final judgment supportive Jn the case on he He relation history idd previously a her print was the would “0 system vojld me tendency decision IL)Pfl’)TECT of tell manager. 2014 colleague notice ticket to H a system that going out that me discussi of recall i calls nrcrar t to ask was oy was evidence is Councillor occurred of he a’’ reduced parking she more numbers had in basically to to me the needed. as running the the nad come cases once get another had a for to system is Ia cases principal lengthy parked he ticket involved a to what because_.__ the been n she recei\ed r. involving stickler Hussains and cancel, a t DJer had told If if I meeting process details did there which he he refused SD51929943, I given said con n had do me and officer had as was in - for then recall_thase. a iersation restnctea is judgement to parking that were she with of asking involvement this r telephone getting a for straightaway, mitigation, doing to recall a and parking we she asked. o Councillor particular do having instruction. later will would tickets, it, them had things He there Nith came oay q cancelled calls. do enquiry call The r an dtd if bumped in at from be that, they •nforn are notice. The to in audit from I Hussain she parking not the other know I the writing. wasn’t me some the which entry provide have gave foSpit3i Councillor as trait decision car.,n i after intoZ ticket I that bailiffs. would a seniices, trying automated This surprised made and access me But council was being ounciIlor a number tnat two valid eifcrtfran there I was usually maker would to She occasionafly was Hussain on get at to his decision penalty I very the knew reason because said a are not Chipside ws actions a make meeting Although, put Hussain 28 very she who he memos with as , the and 1 on of few a • • touch NQU’d I process behaif tickets I challenged. over have recognised I reason reduce they am Reducing • Vivienne email did In on presume true. would an 1 a as relation aware with the her. rfj know oontactbe entry had did of ‘I It I onto and was it, asked dont ther years, not s not thg very PQTEC The Reeve. that the on not that there the 1 m we I to the normally given, think old receive corstituents. know the ticket little common amount about system these since advise address. other system she manager. was system we we contact the SD51595702, jark the ticket Councillors around tickets cancel a have them were does of good exact in though. There notice a reflecting relation not SD5150134 would with notice got just of not were v a 2004. reason reason ami’y case tt have for one Councilior show Usually told have pcssiblyt linked has ooo to example, I A my currently merely had to been to a I mei’bers. why lot that been approached case conversation reduce do e other have to no by she I this lots so Hussain Councillor know at y major Wragges, done - historj if outstanding ard oeen the Councillors we said She was of the They tickets that in accept request pt input amount. does to the parking pack paid, the He with usually cancel Cncii?or r Hussain Vvienne case apart essure past, linked 4 vou!d get their provtded a for her will of lot services a for that a these ask from if contact have lot reason Councillor. because have to ‘ the did this Reeve Hussan address. about that of to loading two say person been pressure ticket. been about Wragges us address we ü tickets that the I on L did will ‘n That No says an creatE put I is is for 1 involved I 9 this I may matter also I This belief am People have interview am understand vcretrnIein Sandwell rn statement Princical the be understand statement rp been and disclosed Present above himseafrncarpardnp Date other c’ a etropoiitan asked that Oftcer name in named consisting -r relation that connected I to a’ may about I others vithin this use Julia person 2013 — r be to SL:atement Bcrougn statement for the Octoner of required the allegations Lynch as matters. wcrk; 4 j and part a1Iegaton Parking pages tt Council Andrea understand of 01b to may bea these I is give of_ made ty am andafer true be notices that sine Dyer lnterew: aware Place evidence and used to against that! CounciNor the related 7 h of my that in & best or Sustainable all have Counciltor should real a procedures proceedings. copy of 1986 name. been — my Hussain a House Oldou’ of knowledge hearing asked M this Travel I have Hussein hav related statement improperly Council to be Team. isored bn provide and held. to this I srruc’ora • He oroperly up It team relation I • me however, • me time • collected There wasn did something Hussain Hussain it in from went to service service standard Nould in may to to touch used him relation application W do cancel t the was to to and aware have rsVuct so, I know as a manager had Councillor on. manager to had wtthand hke bailiff, process. no meeting, to cok be my to Note the been The said a do at representations reason that ticket a lot me, Manager to after the it ticket. with regular was person was that the of a referred has an t Hussa’n time In e he budget SD51929943 is say my the why court made the it his requested CouncIIor I ouId came a gave thing would staff. asked who that in he budget this decision entry eiera to our to meeting had on but, the back is say received for my to He reconsider ticket be the budget. him me. from be for authority Councilior person reasons would the this Hussains in there at and system am sent to He Highways. should I Highways that the address do case ia cancel the teing said has a— come was who ifl recaN 28 th the to why e1 ticket email as be be the Hussain address that override no ticket. had March the you Isaid is per into returned cancelled. what it interest authority appeal known should could he or ticket. received practise the A writing. When wanted happened 2014 to ad my office t have to contact to and please, not D of to decision cancel It us saying i—i. that the I should override be this been it made asking hke n went ticket cancelled; me. s Councillor the me ticket the to the o’ The to and an have do parking through but me h ( parking me ticket - was Councillor a out returned things direct Parking 134 h I so been stood tid a qf rgs it I the got had ) The make received follow we reduce There Hussain person received department. Also, is that a his to asking Others was September In the me return irelaton ‘12 would influence follow. ______ 4 relation family. I that to bailiffs the Counciflor I could POTET was d rot it. was as see on this that from Councillors the dscount process I known Councillor r was then Asian’ behalf aware to not what instruction. to and this I en ticket 2012 the was e ticket rn cket not cancel an 3 these orsJr Hussain. ticket the ‘did bailiffs tickets an of ______he We that unsure and email gi’/en I When needed may SD constituents search SD51950134, officer Hussain ticKets amount, not try would for Councillor Councillor h I 51595702, at for frorn any contact Nork to have one if Generally, the .o in there Councillor be revealed to reason be as had nd planning. within and same but be fair a reduced oman us choice o and was comtng Hussain’s Hussain’s consistent. a D’(r Ihere not in th,s 1 different due o why do a trne our these no we a straight another. Hussains was ne I would said relationship in to ecall other to would approach. included it from as n this had a £35, two. son to son, another the to motive lack the Councillors Courcilor line. case say be o.s been me It give worked 1 I one that address was of entry had this that ‘you If reason I understanding, for between them t’cket did discounted. above.àsked I is the no in do he contacting why J’ know in not made the !ussain choice, not same were advice contact had the that and feel I entry agree this referred j who planning told on he no outstanding we strol circumstances. good I Sometimes on person not the to asked us had us, it Councillor would they then the is illustrate in 26’ to it when to ir I that was process knew are this rno I who with way for it ) ‘told Dated Signed. sure a There that any policy I make come He over requests developed L have pool me does way. Councillor of PRO T FCI .,, a was car. when to a the never to period note me not do I n I a period do over think relation essential period in this go had on of not Hussain person to the time time. as this essential or know members of the dates. to system. was car time It So, parking if was mileage who has he usual 2005 our when car I did did involved not was of re1atonship tcets, user staff or allowance this approach come was ,:- I involved didnt 2006; allowance, because in Witnessed costing in from I my it. would claim it any team was was in deteriorated a - the the the specific casual other decline - for scrapped only for service policy Service a things casual. couple member car ncdent. and change. a mileage, it Manager to lot, this did of The be of years, not kept He staff done, I change did when affect would at happening they not I the am He I in me know make time would would used not in ) 7Jr PAY PAY AT tOUNTSPEC; t !:D PAYMWINI4DAYSATASO% CASE THE ITS ISSUE After AMO and THE Sandwell DISCOUNTED . ORiGINAL CLOSED CHARGE notify CASE U CHARGE 28 CLO3) c; A NT PAY The days NOTiCE Yu Metropolitan the CLOSED Keaper WITHIN AT may D1SCOUNTED if keeper AMOUNT if no CASE TH: rejected TO payment then 14 Cr OWNER of The CLOSED DAYS REJECTED Borough has the you REPRESENTATION Keeper no vehicle or 28 RATE AT may FORM payner.t no day THE Council USE response of in TO to: the 50% THE writing or THE vehicle will no 0. BACK has REGISTERED response then AKE whether AGAINST -*- then been OF consider AN THE has received to their INFORMAL the Sardweil THE APCOA FORM 28 KEEPER CANCEL the representations Nctice days CANCELTHEPCN WITHIN PENALTY Sandwell representation Cryoumaj TO Pa to M,BC to CHALLENGE MAKE OF Owner THE 14 THE CHARGE days iill M.BC, Seniices Pa PCN Freeth FORMAL The is hae VEHICLE then: Sax recei’ed received will: Parking All 2374, St. IN been: NOTICE Ltd correspondenc WRITING Oldbury wiH Council Control 569 Hous Ohic 3D t )) i D CD CD < r a kj’ C) C; ‘3 C, ), -;,i_ — C-’ CD 0 a C>) CD 0 fl 0 ‘>3 33 a 3) CD z CD D CD CD I 3) CD CD — tlGr.r(T — 0 >Qg to o >T CD C7- q< 0 CI) >rrr ‘>3 fTT-— CD , 33 CD —I—,.”— x C’) :i_____;— C rTt CD ‘>3 CD CD CD CD tj ‘ ft4 -, 2 1> -c• CD CD a (3 CD a CD 3)- ‘>3 0 (CI Z CD> ‘3 ‘3 ‘3 CD CD — — - r c:> - a CD C.) c C) 0 ‘3 CD cz.. CD C>) C.1 Z 3D C) (Cl C), CD CD t Cl. 9 “ CD ‘3 CD C’) CCI CD 2 CD 0 C’) “3 CD C’) C’) CD CI — e 2smc 3\)>CD’ I -4rri COC3)0, 0 CD 0 C) > C, CD CD ‘38 CD a C 4 C:, 2. CD ; ‘3) C 3) CD CD c 41€ — a U a 0 ¶2 24 — 0€ a C o ¶2 S 0 0 0. 0 m00 0 C 0 U C IS 0 2€ €U C U On S 0 42€ V ¶2 C C (0 a. .-(cj ‘2 3 — 0 (S (1(” C C J 04 U (0 0€ - Ct — r C “‘ a — “‘P 0 U a C C C a . C — 4 C * U, a - a’ i — , — — — - — r a ap— r e L I ffl c a c — - — — r C 1r *.. am ) Supponmg )PACetaSi Badge EDo’ Abardcoei. Broken Notc” ttWoncns VDA cadirg NoNe Notice S051 Locanon Lcca,on: Sat crjeco “or ce 35cC er Type Ni Scen lls r Oown Oestraton B. Oflrre Ontalts rnbar emc ore Infor-natton Pescrptlon 595702 oer’ Detail” Cheiked S Tire. A No No A No No No Jo No No Attached I RR Kelv ctearway) Stopped 46 08/07 08.012012 P note Blue noows rn’t Ceaay n seen Badge Way, 2012 seen to vdhere checked Windscreen West (S Surj ceen n) prohibted Bromwtch - 1426 14 26 (on a red \‘fr-eets Obs VsNes route (17) ‘50Th Frort Foote or Back a 1 cells 08107/201 0 Frst / Yellow 1 Roadside Va: Hetght;We’ght ‘0555 0 vpe co:our 426 0 Lires: Second Sandnell a 0404771899- 000 Q Pr.vate Audi - 0 00 Mtropohtan 30,04’2013 1*0 BoroJ A IrcomingMesage Outgcrg Nstic 3051595702 Pr Printing Outgoing Pr Printing New Progressed DVL Review DVLA DVLA Request DVLA CPE File CPE suppo o Head System rda’d’’ouknnId Notue a nhng h’s nting a Handheld Address Histarj ment rreet’nJ Address - - - of PCN tind PCN VQ5 Electronic Automatic Number Message C?E CPE Message CPE Check CPE Serace tack e - - eturned Added .n Discount dnce Notice Made CC CC NTO NTO place Bwming,. Created PCN VQ4 Electronic Prn+ed In Other Pct Post To Printed vha’t’s’isa/lyesand In Current Contravanton wh’cxh Print yesteraj Address Number Period Case Print Request On and Queue and Queue was System and Initial Expired Posted Allocated Needs came 2 ;OO; 2 Ol 2 ) Sent Posted rqueseJ VQ4 On to • civ Iz Job Job Job Job Job Job desk Job Job tievsiclei 1 at took Manager Manager ____ Manager Manager Manager Manager arouna Manager Manager ‘aith .t for 5 detas arr O93Cbrs r or log ‘on.eJ 26092012 vo I 17/09/2012 14/09)2012 10108/2012 10/08/2012 09/08/2012 09/08,2012 09/08/2012 7/Q92012 07/08/2012 08/08/2012 05/08/2012 cn 25/07/2012 09/07i2012 08i06)2012 30/0112012 was ac separate he unable rre case s t e 0707 11 09,18 2003 16’23 09,38 2004 cases. 09.19 09:19 0701 0700 20,01 20.01 to Jarajdhad H 0651 20.02 13 14.09 p tren this n one Certificate Correspondence: At)ornatic ga’.e printed Correspondence: Automatic Addressee: DVLA DVLA DVLA Automatic Automatic memo Notice Notice Ocr Lace ca’ me menis response V05 successfuiiy request as ti h allocated Created printed progression progression a’ 1 progression h progression returned ias 1 sac export oenb reviewed neadrg CPS su.. CPE ‘ nu,rr to devce sd esfu •,•j NTO h ad # y 1 J Correspondence SD5I Addresses SD51595702 Ref 826195 328499 82603 817711 817300 Outgoing CPE Address: Head this ‘Up Bsness Name Au:cac Automatic a 595702 FW ttacnments a eient metirg c Case SD51595702 F arne: ‘ Service Message ircomng Outgoing CPE Outgoing Type CPE took orcgrvssion progression “i Pack 5 r C Dccci r’ place Birmin can rce West Oldbury Charge NTO Created Message Message pen contain Message Ema Full hic yeste’day t:ei Midlands ham. Cercflcate payment h viruses ‘sas Oth’r Post came Post ijs 25/09/2O12) auestad. received that o my may ‘ S ceX 29/10/2012, harm at cr< around s; your h ror ‘ Ca 090hrs scar.: computer [ILl as PROTEC19 f a ‘g \vo cb Job I User 29110/2012 18/08/2015 r 1 was nedLOi’, 8i08i20 Attachments sepe tha Manager Manager Deja unabie a’e ste is 5 case ______ 08:19 07 to He 16,09 User Oatelflme Defauit may put 21 en i 0 h,j. Detais’ n bs not Address. o “se Generated r by seem display 2d/09t2O2 ama l7/C92Gi2 i4io9ro2 09/08/2012 10/08/2012 ce 30110112. r 09/08/2012 Yes as message corretly a I sd Case va a 07 20 1’ 20,04 1623 cc head n 07 P ‘5 o’ tO 09:19 ck b nor pay ra im £35 CO J SDi3957O2 void Poe — 1054793 page As 1(154792 Dear This Subject: To: From: Sent: This Attachments Cc: FW: Generated Attachments Orral reuasteo VvienneReevewragge-iawcom’ in 6 Vivienne nforrnaticn 1U]j 5051595702 nforrnaticn 18 of 4 SD51595702 August er Outgoing ost CPE be Case being bjieasa sage— can ar-11p1 2fl15 mg81 has 2015 y has Case Pack contain a FLH Message been 07C3 been 08 Full — 8072753 reached P payment 15 marked payment viruses marked fnd he Emai then bj 0001 the received as: that I as: received attached Executive pdf2(2M0)? iLl may LI: I 29/10/2012. PROTECT PROTECT harm 29110/2012 case Director tha your details then computer [iLl. Street [iLt Manager o SDS Scene PROTECT] Attacnments 595?0ad,es Highiays Cciv may ces not display Thref tnst 18108/2015 18;03i20i5 There correct’y s a reco 08:19 07 r d 21 to no ij P 5851595702 1 ymrm’] 5D51595702 cra2n Tha• ao Highways Sandweil Get satnav West 869 Oldbunj P0 Sandwell Regeneration& Sandwell mn35 2 n÷ZO2 W: T: Sandweii sandweilmbc ]èchnical ri Your social nfr;rrnr.Ir..n, Box wwwsandwelLgovuk 3DE. Midlands post Oa 1 tw 2374 number wtwout Council wdh Council , - twittor Council. Clerk code: r n n—3 Economy oi Sooial facebook 869 House ccs Is working rntss.acin; 3DB —nrtannP yen 1s fliokr nird u for ms; must: — you youtube Oi on cm no ran re eamn —nj-n Pta satan c cram as ia-ra nor :n,’ C2] confiannual nat fcr n —ar- a t +2 m s and eoa_anda—’mCd S nd’ m 1 r 2 5r ‘eDnr’a intended a dr 2 ea a i m’armrn’oge for the n nt- address.aa in’ t3 r —nso n— only 2 ca—nra uot•ass n—’ a >O esuodse aclkLesuods cc edkj pws VOèJIIVflD iai 3NIIS LO 3IIHM ionv .. 00. IC racover Fai.lure paLO merge sth lam Location: Date Vehicle Notice Dea o CO 0 ur.pd. mmeaa:eiy, of ‘arftin Traffic .SSu0O of end to H to the No: scribe: .0000 Registration CyGid nov 000tinT charne. Mancoemert n ral to You rei Re Dao000 will 00flr 00001003 ce are Oeoo on . result tc. OCOOfl N: beYg ois&Re Hands Act .H t.fme of .onfoo clear.vay) Stopped West Kelvin — 0810712012 5051595702 in Intention 00 aLcoa 2003; gf.ven tOaI00IHOS&’EICOS further LOC 0010 omen:, 0ro1 Brornwich resentaors Way Cfl010e Clvii 0 Qenait’j where a to •action bnni at reoto Enforcement P rster 14:26 0 HO 5 chare Hfrohibitad orH001tu.Yty r no ‘‘ Stoet heinq and OH ‘ 0001 .00 ade ovm AaIs : nctce. S of ta.ken duo .110001 .HrO fan Parkinq d to at Th:.e 0 and a pay Re by Oon Sandvvell red ons or £t penaify Contraventions the thLe b.at0tf route Hf C5Pf 0 CannoN cutstandhig flHf 0 0:001005 cherçe or 2001 must tOOl 0 be to H s rfan Yours thislatestae the sreardin Council Pesdents onarge There Cash Phday cam B70 ser Chcudrj oenalty ur sncerey 3T to by must cneque s offices. The can CiSO Cash attending tab quoting charqe not Parking an or at cc payment be auto postal ih’iavs the the sent paia tre notice top payment Control PCN order abo’ie by s of ‘ia then also and post. the number shcuo tna ‘ire offce Olfice, accepted screen. no use on further ce nternet the oeieen Aternatej, te’ept’one 3 made St. hok Payment oier corresoondence Michaets or on oayab’e 9.QOam the number ‘make the may counter ou to Court, ar may Sandweil also a 0345 SANCWELL paymenc at 5 pay be will 3Cprn West 355 the made by be abmie 3500 ecsite Bromwich, Monday oredn!debit under entered MBC through or, offte the te and at to ) SuSjd: Sant: Subject: To: ori Sent: From: 07795332310 01215694051 SandweLNEC Parknq Prnc:ai Attachrnenrs Subject: Cc: Ftom: 5 tânIccia Tue Cctacar and Ofcer J: 0 16/10/2012 Safar ThD SD51595702 — S’17O2 and SLctara 16:19 a ravai I Taam U: Cl 0 U—) — C,: C U) U) U) U)L. Ut) Ut) U., 0 ,. U) U)) ) 0 h j - “0 C’) U) Ui U) U U) C) Li j ‘U U) ‘00 > ‘)“ U’) U) .0 C. Cl , U) r’) U”) ‘ If’ U) ‘1 U) U) ‘U “1 ‘0 Ui C) I 0 U) cp U) 1,,. U) U) U) 0 U’) U’) ‘‘ fi Cl. C U) Ui U C U 0 U,) U) U) L U) U) U U) U) U) I) U) U) U)’) U) tfl U) C 0 q CL - a c C) CT C) P (NI C) a CI p U) C) C) fl C C Ii — In — C C)) c a CC C a C) >< CI C 0 C In ii CC) o C) C) C a IC) t - t3 C) C t1 0 In C) p C) rn C 0 C C > C) 0 > C C) C) CI v r LI C) C) C C: ° a (1) p C L C a CE C) o C) Cl J C) C C) 9 ______ e ii Bo SD5 t92994 Notice Detaili a e CaL ir 15/07/201 (iton, 140 PM ntr v n n a 15/07/20 a i09) 1 40 Make Adi 47 Restr ted bus stop or stano Red Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand j e Caw Private HeightiWeiqht 0 00 000 ocation Hatesowen Street Oldbury ‘IEL Not Taken Location Description. Roadade YES Notice Destinatien Attached to ndscreen Yellow Lines: 0 PA Details: SD252 )IDAType First All Windows Second Checked No /1h€g Frnt/Pack, 0/0 riroken Doen No Ohs(1/2) 1740 Abandoned Nc’ 15/07/201 Dnver Seer’ No MwesF ctway 0 oading Evidence No aupport rig Information Badge Nimt a aar3oak I’ Pb 0 Milc j 0 ) ) Notke 5051929943 TEC Posted r 0 rfl’rJ Ouj Pri9trg Printng Outgo Prinbng Prinbrg Progressed DVLA New Review DVLA DV1 Request DVLA CPE CPE to System Nctce bra laandbeld H35tor/ Address Dab Address ng - PCN PCN VQ5 - - Automatic Number Electronic CP CPE i5s32 OCE OPE CIeck CPE Messaçe CPE Returned Added Discount Not:ce Made F-c Dr CO CC NTO Created PCN VQ4 Electronic Dot Dc Prmed In in Post To Printed Contravenbon Current r Print Address Number 0 rnr Penod °rirt Request Case PrntJ ‘i On - and Queue Pr’t Rc’ - and Queue Sstern and lntiat Expired APocated Posted Needs aid Que Sent w Posted - VQ4 On -_ e i Job Job ob Job Job Job Job Job Job Jcb Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager 23/102013 27/09/2013 26/09,2013 22108/2013 221082013 21/08/2013 21/08/2013 21/08/2013 5/1020 70920 14/08/2013 13/08/2013 12/08/2013 01/08/2013 16/07/2013 01,06,2013 1311212012 3 3 08 2001 0341 2001 141 0913 159 20:01 16:07 0700 16:07 07:00 2001 2001 0651 2001 2001 1 I Correspo utomaei Crtinatc Ccnrescrdencm Automatin printed Correspondence: Automatic ettr DVL Addressee: DVLA DVLA Automatic Automabc Nobce SD5 Notice prbd 1929943 response VQ5 request successfully. aocated Number mc erue onDge-s;efl norted cni’jressn crcgress;on progression progression returned ucDes1 1 . ass export reviewed. CPE CPE Created. sLLoessni,If. CPE t c device - - Pre Cnar NrC C 022 ) AddraSSe3 SD5132943 D51929943 Acton) CPE Scarnea Cancel incoming Outgoirg Debt Bathff Baff Execution TC TEC EC ddr lnformed WSCOO7O1 WSDOO7O WSDOO7OI4WSDOO7OI4WS0007OI4WSDOO7OI4WS0007O14WS0007O14’tJSDOO7OI4WSDOO7O WS0007OI4WSDOO7OI4WS0007QI Case Collectors Case Registe Baliff Warrant Baliff Selected Selected Council Message sent Message incornng b’rto Pack reset reset 14WSDOO7OI4WSDCO7O1 for 4’tjSDDO7OI4WS0007O ed Eecuton Dec:sion For Created For Send bahff For ______ - Correspondence cancel Other EmaiL Bahif Narrent2xecutcn ______ Warrant warrant To Newiyn Sent Export case of o upon Coirt tNo nstructions I 4WSD0O70I4WSDC07014WSD0070I4v’/SD0070I,WSO0070l4 4WSDOO7O14WS0007OI 3WS0007OI4WS0007O14WSDOO7O _____ ______ ______ received from 200712016 25/05/2016 06/05/2014 06/05/2014 28103/20 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07101,2014 07i01i2014 0’3 4WSDOO7O 0/12J2013 01/2014 14 16 1105 11 11:23 08:05 1249 I O’e/TrrE 1249 I I 12 I245 1242 1245 1552 4WS0007OI as 4W3D007014W6D0070 53 29 46 directed Generated service Case April Remittence Case please requested The es sent Case No No No registration Reference Nocoments by comments 4WSDOO7OI4WSDOO7O1 comments comments Parking 2014 history 21!08i2013 ‘( via returned Counc sent records web ______ Case as this to 85270 passed from service llo client requested balift from case entered ertared entered I I4WSDOO7O1 Pack entered Hussain, 4WSDOO7O1 co;iect,on l607 ?vSDOO7Ol portal Newlyn TEC Newlyn be manager returned 12 4 4 4 4 has OViA zaOSl Payments SD5I Pay sD:1923943 u’,LAPesconse 1145544 1130369 964656 5P336 929134 5 27C4 929943 Generated Case 929943 Pef Case The sent ______ No trr’dt comments Parking ‘ histonj returned a Type ‘4eb CPE-Case Scanned Incoming Outgoing O2gong UPS Case p from serl:ce cient crss from entered Pack TE collection portal Message Messa9e Newlyn Message Incoming ‘iotnod manager on Pack TE9 seniice 12 Correspondence has Other Email Aprl Post requested Lser records 2014 Detafs as requested tois 7 case cc Remittence returned .1 SiiOi ______ pse ptease 85270 ____ _____ — ____ - Oescrmon 20/07/2016 2510512016 06,05,2014 28,0312014 1511112013 14/ 1,2013 1653 11 11 08 1256 2 05 23 05 24 t mot Yes p N’ 5D )IDA SLupporting Sedge Loading crier Nolke Au S051950134 Soen banOored PA Notice Local D Windows Details tais Type: rac Seen on N Details Destination Don Eucecce nb Descopti tnfarTnatuon Crecked a.eiT n Au N No No No No No 50275 Attached OPP Corbett Stoppad 4/Restricted 12/07’2013 19/0712013 w:ndows lue5adg NO Street, 30 to on che’ Windscreen ‘Fn) a (Fri) bis .estrictei se Smethwick ked n stop 13:49 13:50 or bus stand stop or Cbs Valves stand (1i2) Frcnt’Back. 19/07/201 Fist Yellow 1 Roadside VEL 13:49 H&ghtNight 0 Lines Second N 026509298 0 Private 0 Grey Volksvagen 00 O0O 28/02/2014 politan 65 E I ‘lot!ce 3051960134 SD51350134 Pastad Pnnt’ng Pr’nt Cutgmn Printrng Outgoing Pr Prrnhng Progressed DVLA New Revtew ‘nntrng DVLA DVLA DC Request DVLA CPE CPE to System Notce ntrng Handheld rig Hsto-i Address - Address ‘tRg PCN - PCN VQ5 Njmber Automatic Electronic CPE OFF Check SF5 Message CP CCE Message CPE Returned Added Drscount Nctrce - Made Pm ° CC CC NTO NTO Created PCN e ati VQ4 Electronic Prred Dct Debt In Poat Post To Contravention r In Current icro Prnt Address Number Period Pnnt Request Case r Prinmd In ted On and Queue nnt R a System Queue and 1nitra Expired Accated d Posted Needs aria Qece Sent Posted w VQ4 On Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Job Jab Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager 30/1012313 25/10/2013 07/10/2013 07110/20 04/1012013 30,0812013 30/0812013 29/0812013 2910812013 29/0812013 20/08/2013 17/08/2013 16/08/2013 05/08/2013 20/07/2013 24/06/2013 11101/2013 3 08:54 20 1233 08:57 2002 12i1 07:01 12:11 0700 20:01 2002 0650 2001 2001 i2 C Automatrc Crrescorder’ce. urnt Certia+e Corresponden Automabc printed Automatic Correspondence: DVLA Addressee: 044441 DVLA DVLA Automatic Autcmabc t Notice 5051950134 Not:ce r ornted response VQ5 request successfully - &lccated Number ro progrSSc;cri printed prograssion progression progression progressori returned i1i... u r a export reviewed. P2 Cre:ea ucessful’j CPE FE to s 1 de I ra ice N ra D-- Cugcng rc CPE !rcoming Cancel Incoming Outgoing Debt Balff- Baihff- Baff- TEC Execution TEC r’ auJ’od Call FEC Tr:ed Subjec: Sent: From: 10 intormed r ‘IJSDCO7OI WSDOO7O WSDOO7O Case 1/5000701 I a - :g c-hoes Collectors back Case Registered !o - Bali/f Baliff Varrant Selected O3Au Selected VMerne Mes0e Council Mesage Message sent call Message- ii Message- Private from b’to Pack ccl sen t reset reset ‘ 1 rcerne I 1 for ust 4V/S000701 4WSDOO7O1 4tt/SDOO7OI4WS0007Q1 4W5000701 V Executon - :sed Decision i-cr - For to Created Reeve Send baiff end ‘i 2015 Prone - For Phone ne a Email cancel Other Erne arrant Badiff ccnfdentaI rrant as To warrant to 14:40 [maltoVivienn Reeves. r Cail requested Nwly Newlyn Call Sent Export WSDC070 case 4WS000701 4WSDOO7O c Executon rtn’c of To upon Iran colection EFlLE-Legal02 Court no Out instructions through e. 1 I unable threfore 4WSDOO7OI vo 4WSD007014WSD0070 1 4SDC07014WSD007O14WSDO070 4WSDOO7O 4W800070 Reeve©wragge-lawcomj IIl seices Job ______rgCi the s to Manager contact case cbc 32695421144771 received case 1 I 4W3D0070 4WS0007O 4WS00070 I ecai ae bac as r regvzerd from sh g n’at aund I4f082015 I 28/0212015 14/0812015 06/05/2014 06/05/2014 was 27/03/2014 I/0S2015 07/0 1 1 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 I 07/01/2014 07/0112014 cllo 4WS000701 03/01/2014 4WS0007O1 30,12)2013 4WS000701 exp!an:ng on 1/2014 ss ng snoher s a ector den 11 11 11 11 1128 1t24 15:45 12:49 1249 12:46 12:45 1242 46 I 02 12 4WSDOO7O1 1552 4WSDOO7O1 4V’SO0O7Q as net 00 44 ccl t 45 o directed lb 3 rocer hrs iert r Generated April Remittence Case per Requested Case No rssage No No Court registration Reference Ii Au No &as by 1 request comments 4WSDOO7OI4WSDO07O comments 4WS0007O 4WSDOO7O1 comments h 2014 comments ometic returned Councillor sent o and ten resnoese Case as a to a 85270 return passed p uall -i weirant requested bailiff: og from entered entered entered 1 14WSD007014 entered Peck Hussan 4WSDOO7OI 4WSDOO7O re ession from to Newlyn TEC Newlyn as, beck any Newlyn oF 12 14 14 4 as 1053954 964657 1021762 956758 930604 930019 920217 923338 913816 91041 3 Cueut. Sent From: Genrateo Case Requested Automatic No Automatic Automat’c 0: 0233 Steie comments 03 returned Vivienne Pr,Jaze ugust CPECase ircomlng OutgoIng Outgoing Boffy CPETE3TE9 CPE Outgoing CPE Oitgcmg CPE ncoming progression prcgresson orccression Case return from entered Reeve and 2015 Pre Charge NTO Pack from Message Message Message MessagePost Message Message Newlyn con.der9ai Debt Pack 14. [mailto’ Newlyn Certatc tO Letter 12 Jivenne.Raeva@wragg&aw Email Other ErnaH Post Apnt Pest as tFILE per 2014 request L&cei02 as req KF jested 2095421l447] .emittence corn] i.JJi1 Job Job User _____ ____ 85270 Manager Manager Uta1s 06/05/2014 14/08/201 27/03/2014 21/11/2013 20/11/2013 07’1012013 25110/2013 3003:2013 29103/201 3 11 1124 15,20 15:45 1322 20 12.32 20.02 12 00 Y 33 No No No S’31 P3y SD5l95013I 3D51 1053971 1053955 130370 f Ca Usually however Courrillors hapnen occasion for recall instructed authonsed the Call Tned n Wragge Please w;v Swtchboard: Two Wrage DD[ Vv—rre senior 3 /i councillors notices 950134 back mnne h SncwHl, the to ÷44 Nragge-iaw. 1. story Councillors if Associate note call generally Lawrerce Scanned but Lawrence warrant some Incoming from Outgoing me (0) Reeve and may sent /ivienne from that that 121 that to ÷44 Vivienne Brrnngharn, issue underlying to be get Wednesday Kira codection from 393 following corn they (0)870 Graham take approached Message- Message- Graham involved ncoming as would 0579 Newlyn o are ______ ths Reeves. requested 903 reason ewlyn advised service a & information not & 34 in meeting Correspondence :s Co 1000 Co Phone and Phone 6WR cases by my rorrnallj I collection is jan was LLP member the but records to listed NWD Calf Call through tell involving and revealed case unable therefore well cancel the as try services. of was and a person to the the to Top Councillor that get a the to case contact public case case 30 be them was person to I Best was recall cancelled submit background merely and as deemed Drrrr cancelled, Hussein Workplace registered she of that feel what a at was written as following compelled the relevant who Council explaining to I on request as said do. appeal Great is another a resident action for not debt Decision. to of mitigation Place to act that in with a call common to line Councillor on at there recover the to left their 51 with Vivienne Work® message Court McKean 25/05/2016 I was 14/08/2015 explained but 14/08/2015 the constituents the and no did required and Institute debti asked response It RoaTwas happen to a would that call warrant 11 11.48 fit 1102 practce behalf 05 me many only was on to ‘sq back any to usual No of No No ______ Bu n Sc Jare > Ai ass VOLKSWAGEN GREY POLO MATCHTD Msmifd Type Response Type Response OK ) 713112015 Begiji, 044441, NSSr~MS Yeir re( SQ5ig5oi~ Ne~4~ PIC ree 2721197 AccessibilIty - Change style to: ~EQ nerp&fifled I ~i~in I Logged frt 138 ~w~dow • showcase • Updates are not allowed for this case Address I Contact OujJD; 2721197 Link ID; Surname: Fore names ______Title: ~r N:ime2: Address: T/A: Phone 1: Phone 2: Email: Employer Name; Address: Phone: Fax: Roll 1: Ni: 0~ °Ot In 7~1~l5 B~um ~4~4l, N~r~ Ma, Y~w teL SD6!~ois~, NeU~ P~ teL DOE: Benefits & Status Vulnerable. No On XIS: No JSA: No Proof: No Office: CIa Return Reason: Retun,ed as per thstructh~ Date: ~ 85270 Agent Agent: Mr- L5thgho7g99g1g5g1 Active: No Alice; Mar26, 2014 Levie± No Visited: IVfar2o 2014 wp signed: No Debt! Offence Client SandwellMetropo~ Borougb Council Scheme: Road Traffic Work Type: Parkfr~g Your ref: 3D51950134 Received: IanO7,2014 Age: 570 Year/Pej-jo1j: Batch: 49 Details: Reshicted bus stop or stand Location: Corbeft Sfreet SuninIops #: BNI3DPU Due fPeriod up to ‘Offence: fin 19, 2013 lVan’ant!Liabffi{j, Order: fan 07, 2014 Registration date: fan 07, 2014 Offence fitnj Status Status; Closed, Cancelled Stage: (Return)(L) Hold until: No By Oen~ No Last~~cjjo11. Mar23 2014 Next - - ~ --—-- - Started: Paying: 0.09 every days (mimi amoufif ‘4’ -:: - 7131flo15 Bo~.i~ Nas,eslMa You. ret 5051950134 Ne.~4sn PLC tt 2721197 FmanchjI Stmutar,r Debt: 112.00 Renijttecj: 0.00 Costs: 0.00 to us: 0.00 Fees: 148.20 balance: 177.84 VAT: 29.64 to client: 0.03 Total: 289.84 balance: 112.00 Paid: 0.00 Balance: 289.84 Wailing: 0.00 History date User Type Note Jan08, 2014 0551 Letter stage letter (PAR1 Jan 08, 2014 0551 ~ Stage (U0) FfrstLeffer JanlO,201410:11 . Note Jan20, 2014 05:57 ~ Stage (LO) 1st ‘/isk(1) Jan20, 2014 0557 ~ Stage (SO) 1stVisj~ (2) Feb 12, 2014 08:46 apeny2 Removed agent Feb 13, 2014 1223 aperrv2 Reitoved agent. Feb 14,2014 14:09 ~ Ex~ Agent (zArea2l lfllO1)~FriFeb 14, 2014 at Vi~I~e(s)~ 42.00. Feb 14, 2014 14:09 hbaverstock Bailiffnote Address visited: deffinlter. Propertyi~e: residenthi. Property status: occup~d. Property grade: lair. Actions. no answer Feb 17, 2014 04:55 ~ Stage (BO)2r4 Visit Feb 20, 2014 1141 bbavergtock Bail~cafl E~Agent (zArea 21 D:101) ~Th’a Feb 20, 2014 at Visftfèe(s): 54.00. Feb 20, 2014 11:41 hbaverstocic Bai]jffnote Address visited: delaulter. Property type: residenthil. Property status: occup~d Property grade: lair. Actions: left letter. Feb 21, 2014 04D2- PROCSvR. Stage (SO) 3rd Visit Feb 25,2014 12:51 hbaverstock Bailiffcail Enf Agent (zArea 21 rD:lO1) (Tue Feb 25,2014 at V~sft tie(s): 63.10. P.:b 25,21) 1 N ~ Rathtf::ote Door browa Lock bnrre~ Address ‘1~t3d (leraLirer ~rocert’,’ ç≠pe: r if~~tp~, I.Mncr~l F’ :r~v ;~z~t ~s ~cc~.p:cd Prop~:-t:y ~s~~dc: ~iir ~~‘) :c: ‘by 7/31/2015 8cgumG~4l N~re~ Ms, Yo~ rcft SD5I9~I~ ~ PLC rt 2723197 Feb 26, 2014 04:50 Stage (P0) Phone Stage Feb 26, 2014 09:49 bhillery Moved mowd from Phone Stage to Attendnig to Remove ü~ I day. Feb 27,201404:53 PROCS ‘JR. Letter stage ~fter~OV~Rm) Feb 27, 2024 04:53 PROCSVR Stage (L7) AUendh~gto Remove Mar 06, 2014 04:52 PROCS VR Sage (BO) BafljffRemoval Mar26 2014 09:00 AW-1016 Bafliffc~j E~Agenj(~yi~. LSfr~gho7399gJ3531 W:lO16)(wed Mar26, 20j4 at08j9) Reskleneymt confr~d Door Brow21 Lock’ In handle. Mar 26,2014 09:00 AW-i 016 Bailiffvrne BaliffcauecjDesc~ Detachedtnlckean road no reply lcbI re~r all calls to baliff Mar27 2014 25:44 CW-143 Note “Return Case” requested via Clientweb: Parlcfngsej.tq~c Manager requests return of case Mar28, 2014 08:14 adigby Moved moved from BaffigRemovalto 0cc BaffiffJ~er Agent Max 28, 2014 08:14 adigby Letter stageremajigletterCurrent Mar 28, 2014 08:14 adigby Stage (L14) 0cc Bail~Leuer Mar 23, 201409:31 bcowee Note to Agent client ~date on ffie, p~ see notes, &~njc~ Beckk Mar28, 201411:18 bcowee Cancelled Repoa sent: RTDRetU-fld\ydoc Note: Retizned as per your TCE Fee Histojy 2013-07-29: Debt: I 12.00,20140 I - Apr 04, 2014 1642 a~e Note 35.O0ao1z~o22o.08: Ffrst Letter 1I.20,20140214.Visit~e 2: 45.00,20140225.flit ~e I: Visit 3: 57 00 Apr07, 2014 12:32 lmalcepeace Note Transfrjoned From COflJ-IID 479 Scheme Road Traffic Apr 07, 2015 15:44 awK~e Note Tra11s~joned(Sand) * from 2001 to 479 No payments are available for this case CUe ntWe b is COP)Ti~t © 2008-2014 OrtS tep Solut~p~ (Research) LLP L [Rebse 640] ~ ONESTEP Pr~cy policy: access to this web applicat~n is lo~d. This web appI~a~on does not use ~ack~g cook:~s. ‘(you change th~ page disphy s~e, a cookk ~iII be ~ed tornem~eryo~ cha ice I :3 Sarciwejj MeIropclHflfl flotcugb, Cmjncj ~iewRecord of & I” Initials of Speaker Record Introductions given Housekeeping issues discussed Procedure outlined MP Declarations of interest, I think you have all been trained on this, what do you understand as to what the members’ code of conduct is? Are you familiar with the code? (Copy of Code shown) MH I am familiar with the code. MP There are emails from Neeraj Sharma (NS) in the bundle showing correspondence relating to declarations of interest too. MP What is your relationship with ____ -~w MH He is not a relative of mine. I advised the Police of this. MP Nothing has changed since 2011/2012? MHNo MP Do you know him? MH I accept I know him. There are 6/7 in Cldbury. You are referring to toilet person, I know him. MP How long have you known him? MH I cannot say exactly, been a long, long time. MP Did he visit your home? ~- ~j 3JS I’, Initials of Speaker Record MH I said he occasionally, he would come and visit, not myself, but his sister, especially when there is a death or Eid, for last 5 years maximum visits 3 times. MP Did you have any shared business ventures? MH Never SC Is it worth clarifying there is a business relationship with another Mr MH Estarted in 1992 had a business relationship with him, 5 star taxis, he lives in Dudley. He is a different~ A MP Visits to your daughter in law, is this the sister? H Yes visited 2 or 3 times. P What do you know about CPL? MH I do not know about them, I have seen their offices, I do not know who are directors or their arrangem~~~5 MP Did you know thaL ~ A was involved in CPL? MH I did not know he was involved as a director or an~hing. My son Probably had dealings with him but not me. MP Refers to letter ia 7.11. When did you first see this letter? -- ‘U Initials of Speaker Record MH First time I saw it was when the document was provided to us. When Wragges sent it to Sc. MP Do you remember at the time discussions about this letter? MH I was never told about any letter no discussion about it, never seen it before. MP Were there discussions with officers at the time about the toilet blocks? MH Officers came and brought drawing and plan, said Oldbury toilets, someone interested, as a local member do I have any issues or concerns, name of person was never discussed. My office was by Steve, I cannot remember whether I went with them, they said they would see Steve, Dave Willets (OW) spoke to Steve he raised concerns. Same day I was consulted Steve was consulted. MP You were only consulted on Oldbury toilets? MH I was only consulted about Oldbunj toilets. There is a protocol for local members, when someone was selling something in their area they would check with the members Oldbut-y was my ward. MP Have you seen the briefing note dated 15.8.11? MH I have never seen this. This is to OW. I have not seen it. I think that this is prepared for briefing with Ian Jones which they usually take. I wasn’t part of it, if it took place. MP Have you ever seen any of the other documents? (docLiments - S Initials of Speaker Record. previously sent with case summary to SG shown to him) MH There is never ever anybody saying the name of ~4 was not mentioned to me. Never mentioned by anybody. No documents passed to me. I cannot be more clear, if I knew, if someone put~/j fl-p then I would think my partner more than anyone else, I did not have at any time any briefing with the details. SG These documents do not have the name eonA them. The documents we have been sent, the name - ~ has not been mentioned on any of them. They all refer to a . c.__—. is not mentioned until the Agreeme~~ MP If it had been mentioned to you, what would you have done? SG This is an impossible question to answer, it never happened. MH I made it clear Maria, I work in Council, you do, like my solicitor says first thing in my mind would have been i. •s he is my partner. MP As far as the notes made on the letters, you had never seen them? Was that the only briefing you had? MH There have never been any official briefing with any officer or unofficial briefing, someone may have made comments about it, Steve Eling, Darren, ClIr Ian Jones in passing, never ever physicaj briefing. D’N never said to me, I want to sell these toilets is this ok or not. MP I refer you to the email 16th December from~ there are notes on it about consulting you, what do you say about that? Initials of Speaker Record MH I can’t recall this. Bear in mind that portfolio, i was not chair, I became chair in Nov 2012, I had no responsibility at all, ‘members’ could have been anyone. Is it usual practice for people to make these notes? Why would they write this? No date on them when they were written. Why not include the notes in the email instead of writing on the email? MP I can’t comment on what the officers did. SG It is a fair question, an awful lot has been based on these notes. It is a legitimate to question. Much seems to be based on these notes which are not dated, many of them do not refer to Councillor Hussain at all and those that do are not specific about when he was supposed to have been spoken to and exactly what he was Supposed to have been told/provided with. Most of them also appear not to have been written by the person who is supposed to have spoken to Councijior Hussain, though it is not easy to tell because they are not signed or dated. MH It is not good practice to write notes on emails. DW is not making notes, it would have been clear to identi~ when he met members and what was said. SG You may appreciate that in relation to the Wragges investigation, an awful lot is assumed based on these ambiguous notes, it may be that there ‘was something that was sat behind them which has not been shared. MP This is a separate investigation, it is not Wragges’, it is a standards investigation. 22 “I Initials of Speaker Record SG That is good to hear. The way th~complaint has been worded is that CUr Hussain informed ~ of the possible sale, there is an assumption based apparently on no evidence other than th_~fact that he knew him. We have provided a letter to you from ~, which had been sent to Mr Britton before he submitted his complaint, saying how he heard about it. The only direct evidence from the two people involved is in direct conflict with the comment made in the complaint. di!) MP You have made it clear. MH I think Mr Britton made those comments, i had 28 meetings with him during that period, when original Wragge report came out it was libelous, that he was a regular visitor to my house. SG That was what they said in their original document, they changed it to occasional. This change doesn’t seem to have affected the inference that they drew. There is no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, they knew each other, he knows a lot of people. MH We were not on talking terms with that part of the family at that time, my son’s partner was not even going there well before that date because they had a row with each other. I was honest, yes he occasionally comes on an Sid day. I don’t want to bring them into it. They had their own problems, family issues. SC This is a crucial point because the ‘iVragge report has differences in it, they have been willing to make the most damning conclusions without basing it on evidence. MH I can talk about myself, it is difficult with family. 0 In Initials of Speaker Record. SG The only thing that is different today from what was said to Wragges is that we have said today about the family problems. MH Jan knew about this. MP Ok, that’s fine, please tell me everything. Did anyone discuss with you the price of the toilets? MH I want to reinforce, I am not qualified and I can probably speak oh behalf of the other 71 Councillors, I was never involved in the price, I admit that there was land that was for sale in Oldbury before, it went to auction, loads of people interested, reserve was £60k, I advised officer of my local intelligence and it sold for over £1 Oak. I was not discussed the price at any time. Even if I was to give that judgement I am not qualified to give this. Bear in mind there is property sold for LiOmillion each year. MP Did anyone mention District Valuation (DV) report MH I never saw a DV at any time, I was told later, an FOI request came in, that is when I knew there was a valuation. MP Was that FOl later on? MH Yes itwas 2014 MP Were you ever involved in any decision making? MH No. Decision making, there was nothing for me to make a decision, I was not chair of the and coni ittee N rt c~7 “a Initials of Speaker Record committee The Oldbury toilets were empty since 2003. I was consulted then. Wragge was suggesting that I did not know they were empty. Twice I got the bushes cut by them as they were overgrown i walk my grandchildren past there, I did know they were empty. I had no involvement in decision making. The decision making or consulting cabinet member was Ian Jones, my belief is that Ian Jones said it was his responsibility and he was the one who was getting briefing MP Anything else you want to say about the toilet blocks? • ~G I would like to mention, firstly, there are a number of cornments through the Wragges report and the Goudie opinion that there was an unusual, inappropriate level of involvement of ClIr Hussain in this, we have never seen any evidence to support that assertion all we have had from Wragges are the letters and emails with handwritten comments which we have discussed today, which have very limited information, where does this repeated comment come from? Councillor Hussain has denied discussing the issue with officers, save one briefing as a ward councilor. Even if you were to accept that these notes are correct, we keep expecting to have this evidence from somewhere but it is just not there, it feels that it is being presumed, where is the evidence? If this is it, it does not go anywhere near proving the allegation. MP Our report will be based on what we have seen and gathered and what you say. SG You have information from that we have sent to you. In terms of political intervention, therEtas some intervention in April 2012 from CUr Eling, the only evidence that we have seen of direct political intervention has not come from Councillor Hussain Jan Britton (JS) became involved at that stage, email from J8 to Nick LFO 1W Initials of Speaker Record Bubalo (NB) and NS, saying please investigate and report to me, the email was sent on 13.4.12, we haven’t seen the report that was prepared as a result of this investigation, If there was political intervention and it was wrong it was Cllr Sing doing it now ClIr Hussain. Presumably ~s was given a report, what did it say and surely JB would have picked up on any problems within it then? It was flagged up as an issue then, if there were concerns about it why wasn’t something done at that point? 0) MH We know that CIlr Sing in relation to Bea~ood ohes, I have become aware that it was allocated to somebody who I understand that Steve knew very well, there was a direct link, tendering or something, he was allocated, toilets allocated to a business in Bearwood, Steve two months later, no contract signed at all. JR and NB knew, JB is well aware at that stage that the person who may have been a party member or someone, to do with Steve and the business community in Bear-wood. SG I want to understand, the complaint refers to ClIr Hussain being involved in this through various dates, we were confused about why, when looking at the correspondence, the last alleged involvement to do with him is from 24th May email, (referred to and read) even if there is a suggestion that ClIr Hussain has been involved, there is nothing to suggest that he has done anything after 25.5.12, we have a concern that this (reference to the alleged breach of the Code continuing until August 2012) has been deliberately done to bring it into the jurisdiction of the Localism Act 2011, when the complaint was sent to him he was not given a timescale to comment and once we had done the comments it had already been decided to investigate. I do a lot of investigations for Local Authority’s which would not ~ / Initials of Speaker Record MH After May Councillor Eling, NB, everybody was involved. If you are going to get to the bottom of it, there were lots of people involved. Break MH 15 day land sales, I was told to get involved by directors, JB, Darren, at a Cabinet and officer away day. Told me to look at it to move things along. SG I think this was after the toilet sales. MH They are painting a picture of my interference, it wasn’t, I was told to move things along. I was being asked to approach them, not the other way around. There were complaints about legal taking too long, Ja told me to push it along. I asked for valuation on something else, he said this is nothing to do with members, that is right, but I was being asked to make sure that there was a process. SG It’s difficult to divorce this allegation from things that have gone on before. MP We appreciate that there has been a lot more going on. SG There are cultural differences in different Local Authority’s as to officer involvement in matters, if there is a suggestion of inappropriate involvement, he was actually being asked to do this by JB. It is a members’ role to challenge and make sure that processes are followed. No evidence that he was doing that. MH Can you remind me what date of the DV? I I,’ Initials of Speaker Record MP 23 May2012. MH By that time JB was involved, NB involved, already one toilet was being withdrawn, why wasn’t a further concern raised then? There is evidence there, the DV, the sale, why didn’t someone raise it then? If they were looking at it, why didn’t they raise it? Responsibility lies with JB. Steve was involved. JB asked has appropriate authority been obtained. MP Are you referring to the email of 13.4.12 which was Jan’s. MH This was the golden opportunity to stop, they had the opportunity When things have gone wrong they blame Cur Hussain, when things going right it is2ok. The point is there was the Opportunity for anybody, Dave Jto say something. After three years something is said. Even if I did, it is not my job for valuation, we are seWng millions and millions, it is officer’s job, I get their advice, like _sent a letter saying you are asking us to do something which is against our advice do you want me to do it, they do not say what they can do. I suppose we have to learn from the past. During these meetings, I have made JB aware of all of these things. SG There have been a statements throughout that Cllr Hussain was aware of the price and the DV report, there is no evidence to support that assertion, which we have been seen. Where has that evidence come from? MH If there is a Local Authority that has lost any money because of me and they can say I have done something wrong, I am more than happy to pay back, I do not want people I represent to lose money, ~ S I” Initials of~ Speaker Record these are toilets, I will pay for them on my pension. Just take me and say I make a mistake, I am more than happy to pay for the mistake.! do not want people to lose because of my responsibility. There are 30 million pounds of land sales over 3 year~ and this is a tiny. This has come up because they thought_- was my business partner. If you say! have caused the Local Authority a loss I am more than happy to pay. MP Would you like a break? MHNo MP Shall I move onto the parking? I will go through the tickets, see what you say. The first ticket 8.7.12 (documents given) what is your relationship to ~? k. MH He is my son. MP Did you know anything about this ticket? MH To be honest with this one my understanding is I never said anything to anybody, it has been ages, _____~must have phoned someone in there, I cannot recall physically speaking to anybody about that. MP There is a note on the system file, does the note ring any bells? MH I don’t know what he said to anyone else, what he says to someone else I cannot comment But I can say I cannot recall phoning him up. He is the onI~ one he can tell you. My understanding is that it was not me but~ I himself who made the call. It was paid by his credit card, he tells me. In initials of Speaker Record, MP Would you have ever have mentioned to any officer ‘reports’ or ‘being helpful’? MH Honest to God, I cannot say whaawouldp say, I Would never ever do that, for £35 would I have threatened them? If I have been helpful to them they may do what they want to d . I do not have the authority, it is their decision. I never said that to I wouicj not do it to any C)) other officer Was I cabinet member2 I wasn’t at that time I don’t think How can I be making their decision? SG This is an entry that has be~.n put in by ~._ about a conversation with — , &ho he had with ‘you know who’. There is lots of hearsay and potential for misinterpretation. The initial conversation may have been about something completely different. You will have spn the email which we sent to Wragges about not speaking toa we did manage to get an email from him which we have sent to you, it says CIIr Hussain has not done anything wrong, if you have seen the transcript with Wragges it is~Lear that Councillor Hussain explained that he believed that~,ay have something against him because of what he did in relation to expenses, he questions her attitude towards him, she does seem to harbor a certain amount of hostility towards him. There is an entry about ~~jj~_ticket to one of his Asian officers, what is the relevance of them being asian? I wonder why this remark is made. ‘Nhether someone is Asian or not is irrelevant, this may be an underlying cause. Seems that other officers in council are contacting parking about tickets. When we looked at this when ‘A/ragges looked at it there is an email sent tO*1j’1~,vhich suggests that e correspondence in relation to this was with ‘i” an ot Cllr Hussain JwHl send it ~you 4)1. \Zj ~ 1~~ Speaker MP Is this the email of the 16.10.12? SC Yes it is. This suggests thate has made the contact. MH The ‘you know who’ seems to imply that I was ringing them up regularly, there is no evidence of this. This is important that JS is aware of that, I quote, that he feels that this is a personal thing that ~awas doing as she was claiming £1 1k on car mileages I stopped this under improvement. MP When was mileage claim stopped? MH I think it was 201 1/2012, I cannot remember. It was before this time. MP I will check it. MH The wording, not mentioning my name, sounds very, very personal. MP Was there anything else that had caused you concern about your relationship with SG That was the only issue in relation to the mileage, when I read that note about ‘asian’ officers, it made me wonder whether there was any underlying issue, any underlying animosity in the words that she uses. Particularly that [he evidence you are relying on is a very short note on a system about conversations 2nd,3ra hand hearsay, it is dangerous to use this as evidence Particularly several years after the event. MP Iwill move onto the next one. 15.7.13~ The keeper~ - - -r )td Initials o Speaker Record What is your relationship to him? MH He is my son. MP What was your involvement in the ticket? MH I cannot recall discussing this with my son. MP Do you remember ~ discussing any tickets with you? MHNo MP The comments made on the system (read out) MH I was surprised about this, I can’t recall ringing anybody. MP Have you ever asked any officer to cancel a ticket? MH I have never asked an officer to cancel this ti~ket. SC This is even further removed hearsay, how reliable is this? Things could get lost in translation, if they are said at all. This is not consistent with what was told to Vivienne Reeve, going to the one we have not di cussed yet, 14.8.15 email (read out) that is consistent with what has said,~T~erself has said that she would never just cancel a ticket, all of what they are saying is inconsistent as to what is on the system relating tc.Z*r~$ -r Break. -5E MP Moving to the final ticket, for ~ ______, what is your relationship “I Initials of Speaker Record with her? MH She is my wife MP Can you tell me all about this one? Did you know about it? MH I did not know, I found out I think the day after the bailiffs came, I was told by my wife she told one of my Sons to write a letter to council and send a c~gpy of the disabled badge and asking for them to look at it. I rungfljp, and I Said what they are saying to me, I made it clear it was.. ., daughter was driving, parked, went to Asda, no signage there saying no par ing at certain times, by the bus stop, that was the reason I spoke t all bus stops usually have the sign, I also asked him whether this was ever advertised in the paper as to that you can’t park there, it has to go through regulations. I told him she was a blue badge holder and to look at it. At no stage did I ask him to cancel it, reduce it or anything. I presumed, because he did not come back to me or my wife, that he had been and seen that there was no signage and that no regulation had passed. I never heard anything else from him. MP You said you rang as husband and wife, were you ringing in your personal capacity? MH I was representing my wife as a Councillor. I knew I needed to declare my relationship. It was right for me to tell him that it was my wife’s ticket. MP I think I am at the end of these questions. MHihave no power to ask any officer to do someth~g wrong JBis wefl In Initials of Speaker Record aware during those meetings, I told him all that, he was concerned about~jt would be quite interesting if these notes were written for others. I am aware that again when they were looking at those tickets, there were a number of others, Councillors who sent aggressive emails, sent with the threat that if they were not cancelled, JB is aware of those, he told me. MP Anything else you want to say? SG I would like to make a point. MH I would like to say that the police, senior fraud squad pave looked ta this, I am aware they have interviewed people like~when they rung me up they never interviewed me, they said no evidence of wrong doing. They did not interview me on these, after speaking toa%nd Q~ Usually they would say not sufficient, in my email they said no evidence. I did raise concern with them that they have not interviewed •me. SC The main point I would make i~reIation to this is that ClIr Hussain accepts he raised the issue, has provided us with information saying he does not believe Cllr Hussain had done anything different to others Cllrs and that the officers acted appropriately. No one has suggested that this ticket being cancelled was wrong. A lot has been said about not following the appeals process a-he has raised it as soon as he could. MH She did ask my son to write a letter SC ~has said that parking staff wanted clarity over Councillors contacting officers, he said that he and his officers did not think that 9 “3 InitiaJa of Speaker Record they should but legal advice was given saying that they could, we have seen reference in a freedom of information request to 41 representations from Councillors on the issue of parking tickets. People are reading into this because it was his wife he should not have done it but, he declared it. It was dealt with appropriately; j don’t know where the accusation that he has put undue pressure on officers has come from. It is difficult to understand why Wragges have made their conclusions. Prior to the issuing of the Wragges report, a number of people, including the complainant, said they did not understand the fuss about the parking tickets. That is it in terms of parking tickets. You said, and it has been reassuring, that this is a totally fresh investigation, I have seen information and I have made comments about the evidential value. In terms of Wragges’ conclusions, particularly around the property trahsactions the toilets, we assume he had evidence from officers which elaborates on documentary evidence. My question is have you interviewed officers, Dave Willetts, JB? MP We wanted to see what you had to say, we will go away, decide who else we need to talk to now, we will disclose anything we gather to you. SG That is helpful, I say this as someone who does investigations, our concern about the Wragges process and conclusions being drawn, if it proceeds to the standards hearing, is that we could present our own evidence. I presume we will get evidence when we get the draft report giving us 14 days It comment? MP Yes. SG That doesn’t give us much time so we thought we would mention who L5O In Initials of Speaker Record we think has relevant evidenceDW,JB (although complainant he is also a witness to certain parts), in relation to the parking tickets there is a comment made by JB that he would write to Mark Greenburgh and say there was no issue We also understand that Melanie Dudley and Neeraj Sharma have relevant information about the parking tickets iss~e. Cur Ian Jones was portfolio holder at the time of toilet sales.~ he wasn’t spoken to by Wragges this is a significant gap. You have an email fro him from Us.~a lot is based on her comments is mentioned, his comments to Vivienne Reeve contradicts certain points already said. you should try and speak to him, assumptions have been made about his level of engageme~~ with ClIr Hussain. Steve Ehng was involved in property sale. The fact he intervened meant that one of the toilets was not sold to CPL, he must have been involved. If there was anything of concern from a finance perspective he would have raised his concerns and dealt with it. If it were to proceed to standards committee and they weren’t spoken to, that would be a gap, and we would try and get their evidence ourselves MH I would like to add, it is very bad now, like I keep saying it has been two years, it is not just about car parking thatis concerned about, my relationship with some people outside who have been leaking the information ~ever raised any concern with anyone during that time, she is concerned about other tickets and other members and has chosen not to tell those. Our relationship outside with one individual who works for Sandwell, my personal relationship may have something to do with it, a lady who works for Sandwell,r —~ used to work for council, I put a complaint in about him, some of these people have been leaking this information to the Halesowen News. It is important to raise this with yourself, Mr Greenburgh received phone call 11.9.15 and 12.9.15 he made a private phone call From his mobile sj It’ initials of Speaker Record to a senior officer of the local authority, it was the day Corbyn got elected that is why I remember, where I was told he said that there is nothing in it everybody is involved in parking tickets across the country and it is officers who made the decision not the members. My solicitor did say I am concerned that this, we said from day one we have no problem with you personally, I didn’t want to put you, with the experience of Wragge and go, it is Politically they have made their mind up that I will go to standards SG I made the point in my letter to on Friday, we do reserve right to challenge the decision if it goes to standards You are in a difficult position as the Chief Exec is the complainant It is staggering that a complaint made by the Chief Exec is being dealt with internally. And now the Leader of the Councjj has made a suggestion in the press that he knows the matter is going to standards committee. That puts you in an impossible positibn End of Interview Next Steps discussed. 3~2L~. Additional questions to Cur Hussain 1. It is alleged by officers that Cur Hussain initially approached officers saying that a person had lobbied him regarding the sale of the toilet blocks and he called a meeting to discuss this. What do you say to this? This is incredibly vague, failing to specify which officers or when. We understand from your clarification that this relates to an incident which allegedly happened at around the same time as CPL wrote to the Council about the toilets. The letter referred to was sent in July 2011, live and a half years ago. We understand that you have no documentation in relation to this alleged incident. It is understandably difficult for Councillor Hussain to recall conversations which he is said to have had with unnamed officers five and a half years ago. It is also not clear what you mean by lobbying as you have not specified what is supposed to have been said/done. Councillor Hussain did advise Mr Greenburgh when he was interviewed by him that he did recall being approached by someone at a Boxing Club about the toilets which he referred to officers (see pages 23- 24 of the transcript of the first interview and page 34 of the transcript of the second interview for details). In Councillor Hussain’s view he was not “lobbied”. A member of the public asked Councillor Hussain a question about an asset owned by the Council which he passed on to the relevant officers. This is something that probably happens in every Focal authority on a daily basis and there is nothing remarkable about it so we are at a loss to understand why it is being raised now. We are also amazed that this is being raised now 5 and a half years later and has not been raised or apparently mentioned by the officer in the previous extensive investigations [1L2. PROTECTJ a c 2. Who was the person that had lobbied Cur Hussain? As we have said Councillor Hussain does not believe he was “lobbied” for the reasons set out above. Councillor Hussain instructs us that the person was from the Bo~pg Club. He believes the person’s name was — . or something like that. Councillor Hussain was attending the opening of the club with Councillor Lewis who was the mayor at the time. 3. It was stated by officers that ClIr Hussain said that in order to make the deal more attractive the sale would have to be of a number of toilet blocks? What do you say to this? Councillor Hussain categorically denies ever having said this. The letter from CPL of 15 August 2011 which you provided shows that it was CPL who identified the sites which were of interest to it. There then followed a dialogue with officers. There is no evidence to suggest that Councillor Hussain was in any way involved and he denies as he always has done that he had any such involvement. Other Matters There are a number of other issues which Councillor Hussain would like to raise before the report is finalised. Witnesses When we first met with you Councillor Hussain identified 10 people that he believed had evidence relevant to your investigation. These people were: Dave Willetts Jan Britton Melanie Dudley Neeraj Sharma Ian Jones JLL PROTEGT1 f25 ‘U Steve Eling —~ ft p — In Ms Lynch’s email f 1 November 2016 she indicated thatj — and — had refused to meet with you. C In this email she also stated that after considerable thought you had decided not to interview Melanie Dudley, Neeraj Sharma, Councj~oj- Ian Jones and Councillor Steve Eling. There was no further explanation or reason why not which we will refer to in more detail below. The email does not refer to the other people identified but does state that 6 people (unnamed) have been interviewed Councillor Hussain is particularly concerned that you have not bothered to interview 4 people with relevant information and have not given any explanation why you have decided not to do so. It is particularly concerning that you have chosen not to interview Councillor Steve Eling when the only documented evidence that we have seen of a member seeking to interfere in the officer’s exercise of their delegated powers to complete the sales of the toilet blocks was carried out by Councillor Eling. He was clearly aware of the proposed sales, intervened in them and it seems influenced the sale process by requiring officers to remove one of the blocks from the sale for reasons which are unclear. Surely what Councillor Eling knew and what he did is highly relevant to the allegations against Councillor Hussain and we are amazed that you have chosen not to interview him and in the absence of any credible explanation must assume that this decision has been motivated by political reasons, Our suspicions in relation to this are exacerbated by the reporting of Councillor [~L2: PROTECT] çac 119 Eling’s regular comments in the press about the standards process. Councillor Jones is referred to on a number of documents and he was the relevant portfolio holder at the time of the events being investigated. He must have relevant information about the extent to which he and Councillor Hussain were or were not involved in discussions with officers about the sales. The failure to obtain evidence from someone said to have been involved is a significant gap in the investigation and we cannot understand how any investigator could have considered it appropriate not to bother to try and interview him about what happened. Councillor Hussain has been told that Neeraj Sharma was provided by Dave Willets with clear evidence in writing stating that he and he alone made the decision to sell the toilet blocks at the price which was the one ultimately agreed. We presume that you have been provided with this? Unfortunately, despite numerous requests for the evidence which the Council holds in relation to these matters we have never been supplied with it. Therefore, neither we nor Councillor Hussain has been able to test the veracity of what he was told. We hope that you have the document referred to and so have taken it into account in your investigation. Neeraj Sharma was clearly heavily involved in looking into what did or did not happen in relation to the toilet blocks so clearly should have been interviewed. It is not clear whether Jan Britton is one of the 6 people which you spoke to but we assume that he is as it is inconceivable that you could investigate his complaint without speaking to him. As we told you previously Councillor Hussain has recorded conversations involving Mr Britton. In those recordings Mr Britton is heard to cast doubt on the matters which he himself has complained about and also to make comments casting doubt on his motives for pursuing the Wragge investigation. We are surprised given that you were aware of the recordings that you did not ask Councillor Hussain about them and have not asked for copies of any which are relevant to your investigation. We reserve [!L2: PROTECT1 the right to play these recordings at any hearing of the standards committee if the matter proceeds to a hearing. You also have a copy of an email which Mr Britton sent to Nick Bubalo and Neeraj Sharma on 13 April 2012 at 06.43am. This email followed Councillor Eling’s intervention referred to above. In the email Mr Britton states; Can you please investigate the matter below and discover whether we have in fact concluded a sale and what authority there is to dispose of the asset. Can you please report to myself and Councillor ElThg Of course we have never been provided with the evidence relating to the allegations in this case. However, it is reasonable to assume from this email that the officers reported back to Mr Britton and Councillor Eling and they, therefore, would have known the full details of the proposed sale and were happy to allow it to proceed, save for Councillor Eling interfering with the exercise of the officers’ delegated authority in relation to one of the toilets. Documentary evidence One of the difficulties we and Councillor Hussain have had in. responding to your investigation is the refusal to supply all documentation held by the Council and to say even who Councillor Hussain’s accusers are. Councillor Hussain was provided recently with a copy of an email which was sent by — CiThe email was dated 20 August 2014 but was only provided to Councillor Hussain recently. A copy of an extract from the email is attached. The email contains a briefing for Councillor Jones about the toilet sales that appears to have been prepared for Nick Bubalo; it is not clear who by but must have been someone in the property services team. The email states: An initial assessment of value was undertaken by the Council’s in- house Property Team. This assessment took account of the u ncertainty of the property market, the conditions that would be VL2: PROTECT] imposed upon the sale and the risk of planning consent for a viable use not being obtained. An independent valuation was later sought but this was not intended for negotiations purposes and did not, in any event, take account of the restrictions applied to the sale and risks borne by the purchaser in relation to obtaining planning consent. A valuation is always a subjective opinion and does not necessarily reflect the price achievable in the market. To protect the Council’s interest and to ensure that the toilets did not remain vacant and unused the contract of sale included provisions for the Council to buy back at the original sale prices if no development or refurbishment for beneficial use occurred. As an aside in an improving market the Council has recently made available, via the open market, a block of redundant toilets in Blackheath and whilst there has been limited interest none of the prospective tenants have proceed to completion. This is costing the Council money in respect of marketing costs etc. This clearly sets out the thinking of the officers in deciding why to sell the toilets for the price which was agreed. Do you have a copy of this email? 0 Have you interviewed — — ~nd Nick Bubalo to find out who prepared it and on what they based their information. You have criticised4poupcjJlor4 *~ Hussain for not providing this information to you sooner. Of course he could not have done so because it was not in his possession. It is also worthy of note that the Council has persistently refused our reasonable requests to provide the Council with documentary evidence held in relation to the allegations against him. It is of grave concern that he was not provided with a copy of this email by the Council and begs the question how much other evidence the Council holds ‘,vhich supports Councillor Hussain’s innocence [~L2: PROTEC11 which it is withholding. It is appalling that he is being criticised for producing the documentation at this stage when the Council has failed to be open about the documentation which it holds in respect of this investigation. Failure to offer Cotincillor Hussain a second interview The email from Ms Lynch of 1 November 2016 also states; “As previously stated, we feel that it is important to allow Councillor Hussain the opportunity to answer the allegations made by the witnesses we have spoken to” For the record Councillor Hussain has made it clear that he is willing and able to be interviewed but for reasons not entirely clear when he offered a date 8 days after the date which you suggest~d this was declined. You have failed to offer any explanation why it would in any way be prejudicial to the Council to delay for 2 further days asking Councillor Hussain questions about events which allegedly occurred five and a half years ago. Parking tickets It has been suggested that Councillo~Jussain is the only councillor who contacted about parking tickets directly. Councillor Hussain instructs us that he has evidence that is not the case which he would have shared with you at interview and that which he will raise at the standards committee if the matter proceeds to a hearing. Bias/Apparent Bias As you are no doubt aware Councilior Hussain has made a formal complaint to the Council’s monitoring officer about an allegation made to him that you acted in a manner which amounted to a breach of the rules of conduct for solicitors, the Council’s code of conduct for employees and the member/officer protocol. {1L2. PRO FECT] The monitoring officer has failed to give an adequate response to that complaint and as a result we have submitted a complaint to the SRA on Councillor Hussain’s behalf. We have raised the issue with the monitoring officer on whose instructions ydu are carrying out the investigation. It is clear that a fair minded observer appraised of the facts would believe that there was a very real risk that you would be biased in producing your final report and conclusions as a result of the complaint which Councillor Hussain has made against you. Therefore, it is clearly inappropriate for you to conclude the investigation. Weightmans LLP 17 January 2017. 1L2 PRO FECT] J %] Sandwell Di Metropolitan Borough Council Arrangements for dealing with standards allegations under the Localism Act 2011 Context These “Arrangements” set out how you may make a complaint that an elected or co-opted member of this authority has failed to comply with the authority’s Code of Conduct, and sets out how the authority will deal with allegations of a failure to comply with the authority’s Code of Conduct. There is a separate procedure for dealing with Whistleblowing complaints Under the Localism Act 2011, the Council must have in place “arrangements” under which allegations that a member or co-opted member of the authority, or of a Committee or Sub-Committee of the authority, has failed to comply with that authority’s member Code of Conduct can be investigated and decisions made on such allegations. Such arrangements must provide for the authority to appoint at least one Independent Person, whose views must be sought by the authority before it takes a decision on an allegation which it has decided shall be investigated, and whose views can be sought by the authority at any other stage, or by a member against whom an allegation has been made. 2 The Code of Conduct The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for members, which is available for inspection on the authority’s website and on request from the Sandwell Council House, Oldbury. 3 Making a complaint If you wish to make a complaint, please write or email to — The Monitoring Officer Sandwell Council House Oldbury B69 3DE Or Philipl [email protected] [ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 Approved at Council 17/1/2017 ) ~ The Monitoring Officer is a senior officer of the authority who has statutory responsibility for maintaining the register of members’ interests and who is responsible for administering the system in respect of complaints of member misconduct. In order to ensure that we have all the information which we need to be able to process your complaint, please complete and send us the complaint form, which can be downloaded from the authority’s website, next to the Code of Conduct, and is available on request from the Sandwell Council House, Oldbury. Please do provide us with your name and a contact address or email address, so that we can acknowledge receipt of your complaint and keep you informed of its progress. If you want to keep your name and address confidential, please indicate this in the space provided on the complaint form, in which case we will not disclose your name and address to the member against whom you make the complaint, without your prior consent. The authority does not normally investigate anonymous complaints, unless there is a clear public interest in doing so. The process for deciding how to deal with anonymous complaints is set out in the attached charts. The Monitoring Officer will acknowledge receipt of your complaint within 5 working days of receiving it, and will keep you informed of the progress of your complaint. 4 Confidential Informant Process Any member of staff (including schools staff) within Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council can report information anonymously to the Monitoring Officer who may authorise an investigation. The Informant may be interviewed as part of the investigation process, but will not need to reveal that they are the complainant. It will then be for the Investigator to confirm or otherwise the facts of the mailer and come to a conclusion. This process is only available to employees of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. If the employee came under duress or other pressure from Councillors or Senior Officers to undertake improper behaviour the Monitoring Officer will expect them to be candid about that and it is unlikely any action will be taken against them. If the employee has colluded with the wrongdoing and benefitted from it then they cannot expect any sympathetic treatment. [ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 5 Will your complaint be investigated? The Monitoring Officer will review every complaint received and take a decision as to whether it merits formal investigation. This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of your complaint. Where the Monitoring Officer has taken a decision, he/she will inform you of his/her decision and the reasons for that decision. The Monitoring Officer must consult with the Independent Person before deciding whether or not a formal investigation should be undertaken. Where he/she requires additional information in order to come to a decision, he/she may come back to you for such information, and may request information from the member against whom your complaint is directed. The member against whom your complaint is directed, may seek the views of the Independent Person at any stage in the process. This could be to provide a view on the complaint itself, the process under which the complaint will be dealt with or to provide a view on any other query the member may have relating to the complaint. An Independent Person’s role is not to act as an ‘advisor’ to the subject member. In appropriate cases, the Monitoring Officer may seek to resolve the complaint informally, without the need for a formal investigation. Such informal resolution may involve the member accepting that his/her conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology, or other remedial action by the authority. Where the member or the authority make a reasonable offer of local resolution, but you do not agree with that offer, the Monitoring Officer will take account of your views in deciding whether the complaint merits formal investigation. The Monitoring Officer will complete a decision notice, whether or not a matter is to be investigated, which will outline the reasons for the decision. If your complaint identifies criminal conduct or breach of other regulation by any person, the Monitoring Officer has the power to call in the Police and other regulatory agencies. The Monitoring Officer will normally only decide to investigate a complaint about alleged conduct that happened within six months of the date of receipt of the complaint. If the Monitoring Officer is of the view that exceptional circumstances apply, then this time limit may be waived. [ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November2016 The Monitoring Officer will not progress complaints which are repetitious or vexatious. If such a complaint is made by a fellow member, the Monitoring Officer will consider whether that member has acted otherwise than in accordance with the Code of Conduct for members in making the complaint and whether such action may amount to a breach of the same. It should be noted that the recording of formal or informal meetings involving any Council issues is strictly prohibited. Covert recording without an individual’s consent may be deemed a breach of data protection, a breach of the individual’s human rights, a breach of the contract of employment with the Council and a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct. 6 How is the investigation conducted? If the Monitoring Officer decides that a complaint merits formal investigation, he/she will appoint an Investigating Officer/Officers, who may be another senior officer of the authority, an officer of another authority or an external investigator. The Investigating Officer will decide whether he/she needs to meet or speak to you to understand the nature of your complaint and so that you can explain your understanding of events and suggest what documents the Investigating Officer needs to see, and who the Investigating Officer needs to interview. The investigation will be completed in accordance with the Protocol for Dealing with Investigations into Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011, which is a separate document. The Investigating Officer would normally write to the member against whom you have complained and provide him/her with a copy of your complaint, and ask the member to provide his/her explanation of events, and to identify what documents he/she needs to see and who he/she needs to interview. In exceptional cases, where it is appropriate to keep your identity confidential or disclosure of details of the complaint to the member might prejudice the investigation, the Monitoring Officer can delete your name and address from the papers given to the member, or delay notifying the member until the investigation has progressed sufficiently. The Investigating Officer may ask the subject member to attend an interview about your complaint. The interview will normally be tape recorded, unless the member objects to this. This ensures that there is no ambiguity as to the matters discussed in interview. ~LO: UNCLASSIFIED] November2016 If at any point during the investigation, the Investigating Officer forms the opinion that the investigation should cease, he/she will consult with the Monitoring Officer, who may consult the Independent Person and take a decision to stop the investigation at any stage. At the end of his/her investigation, the Investigating Officer will produce a draft report and will send a copy of that draft report, in confidence, to the Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer will then send the report to you and to the member concerned. At this stage you and the subject member as well as the Monitoring Officer can identify any matter in that draft report which you disagree with or which you consider requires more consideration. You and the subject member will be given a period of 14 days to comment on the draft report. Having received and taken account of any comments made on the draft report and undertaking any further investigation he/she considers relevant and appropriate, the Investigating Officer will send his/her final report to the Monitoring Officer. 7 What happens if the Investigating Officer concludes that there is no evidence of a failure to comply with the Member Code of Conduct? The Monitoring Officer will review the Investigating Officer’s report and, if he/she is satisfied that the Investigating Officer’s report is sufficient, •the Monitoring Officer will write to you and to the member concerned, notifying you that he/she is satisfied that no further action is required, and give you both a copy of the Investigating Officer’s final report. If the Monitoring Officer is not satisfied that the investigation has been conducted properly or has other concerns relating to the complaint or the investigation report, he may ask the Investigating Officer to reconsider his/her report. The Monitoring Officer may consult the Independent Person about this. 8 What happens if the Investigating Officer concludes that there is evidence of a failure to comply with the Member Code of Conduct? The Monitoring Officer will review the Investigating Officer’s report and will then either send the matter for local hearing before a Sub- Committee of the Standards Committee or, after consulting the Independent Person, seek local resolution. flLO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 ‘at 8.1 Local Resolution The Monitoring Officer may consider that the matter can reasonably be resolved without the need for a hearing. In such a case, he/she will consult with the Independent Person and with you as complainant. If you as the complainant do not agree with the suggested resolution, the Monitoring Officer will take account of your views in deciding whether to proceed with the local resolution or refer it for a local hearing. It is however, the Monitoring Officer’s decision. The purpose of the local resolution is to ensure higher standards of conduct for the future. Such resolution may include the member accepting that his/her conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology, and/or other remedial action by the authority. The range of resolutions that can be imposed is wide and each resolution will be tailored to fit the particular behaviour that has resulted in a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, for example, training on a specific issue. The Monitoring Officer will set a reasonable timescale for compliance with the local resolution. If the member complies with the suggested resolution, within the timescale set by the Monitoring Officer, the Monitoring Officer will report the matter to the Standards Committee for information, but will take no further action. If the member fails to comply with the resolution within the timescale set, the mailer will be referred to the Standards Committee and Full Council for information. The breach of the Member Code of Conduct and the resolution imposed will be publicised on the member’s profile on the Council’s website for a period to be determined by the Monitoring Officer, which is to be no less than the time required for compliance with any sanction. If a member fails to comply with a sanction in the timescale set, the information will remain on the profile until compliance is achieved. [ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 8.2 Local Hearing If the Monitoring Officer considers that local resolution is not appropriate, or the member concerned is not prepared to undertake the suggested resolution, then the Monitoring Officer will report the Investigating Officer’s report to a Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee which will conduct a local hearing before deciding whether the member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and, if so, whether to take any action in respect of the member. The local hearing will normally take place within six weeks of the decision to proceed to a local hearing being made. The Monitoring Officer will conduct a “pre-hearing process”, requiring the member to give his/her response to the Investigating Officer’s report, in order to identify what is likely to be agreed and what is likely to be in contention at the hearing, and the Chair of the Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee may issue directions as to the manner in which the hearing will be conducted. If the mailer to be heard is particularly complex, consideration may be given, by the Monitoring Officer and the Chair of the Committee, to have the hearing in front of the full Standards Committee rather than a sub-committee. At the hearing, the Investigating Officer will present his/her report, call such witnesses as he/she considers necessary and make representations to substantiate his/her conclusion that the member has failed to comply with the Member Code of Conduct. For this purpose, the Investigating Officer may ask you as the complainant to attend and give evidence to the Sub Committee. The member will then have an opportunity to give his/her evidence, to call witnesses and to make representations to the Sub Committee as to why he/she considers that he/she did not fail to comply with the Member Code of Conduct. If the Sub-Committee, with the benefit of any advice from the Independent Person, conclude that the member did not fail to comply with the Member Code of Conduct, they may dismiss the complaint. If the Sub-Committee concludes that the member did fail to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Chair will inform the member of this finding and the Sub-Committee will then consider what action, if any, the Sub-Committee should take as a result of the member’s failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. [iLO: UNCLASSIFiED] November 2016 103 In doing this, the Sub-Committee will give the member an opportunity to make representations to the Sub-Committee and will consult the Independent Person. 9 What action can the Sub Committee of the Standards Committee take where a member has failed to comply with the Member Code of Conduct? The Council has delegated to the Standards Committee such of its powers to take action in respect of individual members as may be necessary to promote and maintain high standards of conduct. Accordingly a Sub-Committee, on behalf of the Standards Committee, will publish the breach of the code of conduct and the sanction imposed on the member’s profile on the Council’s website for a period of time to be determined by the Sub Committee, which is to be no less than the time required for compliance with any sanction. If a member fails to comply with a sanction in the timescale set, the information will remain on the profile until compliance is achieved. The Sub Committee will also report its findings to Council for information. The Standards Committee may — 9.1 Recommend to the member’s Group Leader (or in the case of un grouped members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub Committees of the Council; 9.2 Recommend to the Leader of the Council that the member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities; 9.3 Instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training for the member; 9.4 Recommend to Council to remove from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority; 9.5 Withdraw facilities provided to the member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access; 9.6 Exclude the member from the Council’s offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings. [ILO: UNCLASSIFIEDJ November2016 Take such steps as appropriate, reasonable and proportionate to the particular conduct that amounted to the breach of the code of conduct. The Standards Committee has no power to suspend or disqualify the member or to withdraw members’ or special responsibility allowances. 10 What happens at the end of the hearing? At the end of the hearing, the Chair will state the decision of the Sub Committee as to whether the member failed to comply with the Member Code of Conduct and as to any actions which the Sub-Committee resolves to take. As soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, the Monitoring Officer shall prepare a formal decision notice in consultation with the Chair of the Sub-Committee, and send a copy to you, to the member and make that decision notice available for public inspection and report the decision to the next convenient meeting of the Council. If the member complies with the sanction imposed by the Standards Committee, within the timescale set, the Monitoring Officer will report the matter to the Standards Committee for information. If the member fails to comply with the sanction within the timescale set, the mailer will be referred to the Standards Committee and Full Council for information. 11 Who are the Standards Committee? The Standards Committee is appointed each year by the Council. Details of the current membership of the Committee can be found on the Council’s web site on the Committee Management Information System. The Independent Person(s) is/are invited to attend all meetings of the Standards Committee and his/her/their views are sought and taken into consideration before a Sub Committee of the Standards Committee takes any decision on consideration of an investigation report on whether the member’s conduct constitutes a failure to comply with the Member Code of Conduct and as to any action to be taken following a finding of failure to comply with the Member Code of Conduct. 12 Who is the Independent Person? The Independent Person is a person who has applied for the post following advertisement of a vacancy for the post, and is appointed by a positive vote from a majority of all the members of Council. [ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 JO) A person cannot be “independent” if he/she — 12.1 Is, or has been within the past 5 years, a member, co-opted member or officer of the authority; 12.2 Is a relative, or close friend, of a person within paragraph 11.1 above. For this purpose, “relative” means — 12.2.1 Spouse or civil partner; 12.2.2 Living with the other person as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners; 12.2.3 Grandparent of the other person; 12.2.4 A lineal descendent of a grandparent of the other person; 12.2.5 A parent, sibling or child of a person within paragraphs 11.2.1 or 11.2.2; 12.2.6 A spouse or civil partner of a person within paragraphs 11.2.3, 11.2.4 or 11.2.5; or 12.2.7 Living with a person within paragraphs 11.2.3, 11.2.4 or 11.2.5 as husband and wife dr as if they were civil partners. 13 Publication of Standards Investigations The Council acknowledges that there is a need to balance the public interest in transparency of these types of matters with the requirement of fairness to a member who is subject to an allegation. The contents of the initial assessment of a complaint and the investigation will remain confidential. When a matter progresses to a local hearing before a Sub Committee of the Standards Committee, the hearing will be in public, unless there is a particular reason for the information that will be disclosed during it, to be exempt. The Monitoring Officer will make this decision prior to the hearing in consultation with the Independent Persons and the Chair of the Committee. Each case will be determined on its own merits. [~LO: UNCLASSiFIED] November 2016 )O~j In making this decision, particular consideration will be given to the necessity of transparency, the requirements of witnesses, any Data Protection issues that may become relevant and schedulel2A of the Local Government Act 1972 which outlines what exempt information is. Consideration will also be given to the disclosure of the papers prior to and or after the hearing and whether any redactions of the papers need to be made. 14 Access to Information during an Investigation During an investigation and any subsequent hearing, it is important to ensure that information and evidence that has been gathered, is kept confidential in order to protect the integrity of the process. With that in mind, the access to certain information will be restricted. 13.1 Subject Access Requests The Data Protection Act 1998 entitles individuals (both members of the public and employees) to access personal data held about them by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. These requests are referred to as Subject Access Requests. There are certain circumstances where the Council can legitimately withhold personal information, if one of the exemptions within the Data Protection Act applies. Information which has been obtained during an investigation under these arrangements is likely to be exempt, under the Act, as it is likely that disclosure would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and/or prejudice certain regulatory functions. Therefore, if a Subject Access Request is made during an investigation, relating to information relevant to the investigation, it is unlikely that it will be granted. The final decision will be made by the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Information Management Unit of the Council. 13.2 Freedom of Information Requests The Freedom of Information Act 2000 places a statutory requirement on Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to provide information to the public. Any individual has a right to request information held by the Council, regardless of where they reside. This right also extends to employees, pressure groups, businesses, politicians and members of the press. [ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 There are certain circumstances where information is exempt from disclosure. Information which has been obtained during an investigation under these arrangements is likely to be exempt as it is likely that the information is being held for the purposes of a criminal investigation; is or has been held for criminal proceedings conducted by a public authority; or was obtained or recorded for various investigative functions and relates to the obtaining of information from confidential sources. The information described is exempt only where the public authority has a duty, or the power, to carry out investigations. The Council does have a duty and/or power to carry out an investigation in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, therefore, if a Freedom of Information Request is made during an investigation, relating to information relevant to the investigation, it is unlikely that it will be granted. The final decision will be made by the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Information Management Unit of the Council. 15 Revision of these arrangements The Council may by resolution agree to amend these arrangements, and has delegated to the Chair of the Standards Committee in consultation with the Monitoring Officer and/or Independent Person as appropriate the right to depart from these arrangements (as far as they relate to the business of a Sub Committee of the Standards Committee) where he/she considers that it is expedient to do so in order to secure the effective and fair consideration of any matter. 16 Appeals There is no right of appeal for you as complainant against a decision of a Sub Committee of the Standards Committee. If you feel that the authority has failed to deal with your complaint properly, you may seek independent legal advice or contact the Local Government Ombudsman. [ILO: UNCLASSIFIED] November 2016 ~~ZJL#1 Sandwell r4atropofltnn El o.a..sgh Cou nail COMPLMNT FORM Allegation of Breach(es) of Code of Conduct for Members (Please read the INFORMATION FOR POTENTIAL COMPLAINANTS’ before completing this Form). Your details 1. Please provide us with your name and contact details. Anonymous complaints may be investigated if they indicate a potentially exceptionally serious or significant matter and the complaint is accompanied by sufficient documentary or other supportive evidence. The Council’s policy on anonymous member complaints is set out in the Initial Assessment of Standards Complaints Assessment and Review Criteria which is available from the Monitoring Officer Title: First name: Last name: Address: Contact telephone: Email address: Signature: Date of complaint: Your address and contact details will not usually be released unless necessary or to deal with your complaint. The following people will see this Form: • Members of the Assessment Sub-Committee The Monitoring Officer of the authority and appropriate officers supporting the Monitoring Officer. A summary of your complaint may also be shared, by the relevant Assessment Sub-Committee or the Monitoring Officer, on the Sub Committee’s behalf, with the Member(s) you are complaining against. If you have serious concerns about your name and a summary, or details of your complaint being released, please complete Section 6 of this Form and you may also discuss your reasons or concerns with the Council’s Monitoring Officer. 16>1. 2. Please tell us which complainant type best describes you: LI A member of the public LI An elected or co-opted Member of the Council El An independent member of the Standards Committee LI A Member of Parliament LI Chief Executive or other Council employee, contractor or agent of the Council. El A Monitoring Officer LI Other( 3. Equality Monitoring Form - Please complete the Form attached at the back. 4. Please provide us with the name of the Member(s) you believe have breached the Code of Conduct for Members of the Council: Title First name Last name 5. Please explain in this section (or on separate sheets) what the Member is alleged to have done that you believe breaches the Code of Conduct. If you are complaining about more than one Member you should clearly explain what each individual person has done that you believe breaches the Code of Conduct. You should also supply dates, documentary evidence and details of any witnesses that you believe would substantiate the alleged breach(es). It is important that you provide all the information you wish to have taken into account by the Assessment Sub-Committee when it decides whether to take any action on your complaint. For example: You should be specific, wherever possible, about exactly what you are alleging the Member said or did. For instance, instead of writing that the member insulted you, you should state what it was they said or did to insult you. • You should provide the dates of the alleged incidents wherever possible. If you cannot provide exact dates it is important to give a general timeframe. You should confirm whether there are any witnesses to the alleged conduct and provide their names and contact details if possible. • You should provide any relevant background information or other relevant documentary evidence to support your allegation(s). • If your allegation(s) relate to behaviour or conduct that occurred some time ago clearly explain why your complaint was not made earlier. Please provide us with the details of your complaint. Please idenfify, if possible, which part of the Members Code of Conduct you consider has not been complied with. (Complete on separate sheet(s), as necessary) a Only complete this next section if you are requesting that your identity is kept confidential 6. In the interests of fairness and natural justice, we believe Members who are complained about have a right to know who has made the complaint. We also believe they have a right to be provided with a summary of the complaint. We are unlikely to withhold your identity or the details of your complaint unless there are exceptional circumstances that indicate that this should be done (please see Information for Potential Complainants). Please note that requests for confidentiality or requests for suppression of complaint details will not automatically be granted. The Assessment Sub Committee will have regard to issues referred to in the flowchart attached as Appendix 2 to the Initial Assessment of Standards Complaints Assessment and Review Criteria. The Monitoring Officer will then contact you with the decision. If your request for confidentiality is not granted, we will usually allow you the option of withdrawing your complaint. However, it is important to understand that in certain exceptional circumstances where the matter complained about is very serious, we can proceed with an investigation or other action and disclose your personal and complaint details even if you have expressly asked us not to. Please be aware that there is a Confidential Informant Process for Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council employees; any member of staff within Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council can report information anonymously to the Monitoring Officer who may authorise an investigation. The Informant may be interviewed as part of the investigation process, but will not need to reveal that they are the complainant. It will then be for the Investigator to confirm or otherwise the facts of the matter and come to a conclusion. Please see a copy of the Council’s ‘arrangements for dealing with standards allegations under the Localism Act 2011’ or speak to the Monitoring Officer for full details. Please provide us with details of why you believe we should withhold your name and/or the details of your complaint: 7. Please indicate the remedy or remedies you are looking for or hoping to achieve by submitting this complaint. (Continue on separate sheet(s), as necessary) 7. Please indicate whether you have raised your complaint directly with the member concerned and if so what response you received. (Continue on separate sheet(s), as necessary) Additional Information 8. Complaints must be submitted in writing. This includes fax and electronic submissions. Please use this Form to submit your complaint. 9. In line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000, we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you if you have a disability that prevents you from making your complaint in writing. We can also help if English is not your first language. 10. If you need any support in completing this form, please contact the Monitoring Officer as soon as possible. Once a valid complaint relating to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Members has been received by the Monitoring Officer, it will be presented to a meeting of the Assessment Sub-Committee for consideration and decision. You and the Member against whom the complaint has been made will not be allowed to attend the deliberations of the Sub-Committee as the matter will be considered in private. You will be notified of the decision and any further stages in the process. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Equality Monitoring Form Information for Monitoring Purposes Only Ethnic Classification Categories to be used by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough: 1. White C British C Irish C Any other White background (please write in) 2. Mixed C White and Black Caribbean C White and Black African C White and Asian C Any other mixed background (please write in) 3. Asian or Asian British C Indian C Sikh C Pakistani C Bangladeshi C Any other Asian background (please write in) 4. Black or Black British C Caribbean C African C Any other Black background (please write in) 5. Other ethnic group C Chinese C Yemeni C Any other (please write in) H ISbaroLeqa~\GEi~JERRL~WPSPEC’A’AR0S ~ ccdure~Sandw Profoms~LocalAsseswu3nI~C0mp!ahntF0,mF* 10 J %] Sandwell J Metropolitan Borough Council Protocol for Dealing with Investigations into Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 Context This protocol is to be used when conducting investigations into standards allegations under the Localism Act 2011. It should be read in conjunction with the ‘arrangements’ made under the Localism Act 2011. 2 Steps of the investigation Initial Decision The Monitoring Officer will review every complaint received and take a decision as to whether it merits formal investigation. This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of the complaint. The Monitoring Officer must consult with the Independent Person before deciding whether a formal investigation should be undertaken. The Monitoring Officer will complete a decision notice, which can be found at appendix 1, whether or not a mailer is to be investigated, which will outline the reasons for the decision. This will be sent to: • Complainant • Member against whom the complaint was made • Investigator If the Monitoring Officer decides that the complaint merits investigation, investigators will be appointed. Investigation Procedure At the beginning of the investigation an investigation plan will be completed by the investigators overseen by the Monitoring Officer, which can be found at appendix 2. The plan will identify key dates, behavior alleged, the relevant parts of the code of conduct, issues for determination, evidence required/obtained and the witnesses to be interviewed. When witnesses are interviewed, a statement will be taken from them which they will be able to check and sign. The format for such a statement can be found at appendix 3. 1 1L2 PROTECT It is likely that the subject member will be interviewed at the end of the investigation; however this will be decided on a case by case basis. The interview will normally be tape recorded, unless the member objects to this. This ensures that there is no ambiguity as to the matters discussed in interview. A template interview plan can be found at appendix 4 The investigation will be reviewed on a weekly basis by the investigators, in consultation with the monitoring officer. The investigation review sheet will be completed on each occasion, which can be found at appendix 5. If at any point during the investigation, the Investigating Officer forms the opinion that the investigation should cease, he/she will consult with the Monitoring Officer, who may consult the Independent Person and take a decision to stop the investigation at any stage. The Monitoring Officer will complete a Decision Notice to Cease an Investigation, which can be found at appendix 6. Completion of Investigation At the end of his/her investigation, the Investigating Officer will produce a draft report and will send copies of that draft report, in confidence, to the Monitoring Officer, the complainant and to the member concerned. At this stage the complainant and the subject member can identify any matter in that draft report which they disagree with or which they consider requires more consideration and will be given a period of 14 days to comment on the draft report. Having received any comments, the Investigating Officer will assess them and complete a Comments Assessment Form which can be found at appendix 7. Once the Investigating Officer has completed this analysis and made any necessary amendments to the report, the Investigating Officer will send his/her final report to the Monitoring Officer. 2 1L2 PROTECT it El ~ Sandweil 1 Motrapolllsn Borough CouncU Decision Notice of The Monitoring Officer for Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011 Reference: Complainants: Subject Member: Person Conducting the Assessment: Date of Assessment: Complaint On [insert date], the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from [insert name of complainant] concerning the alleged conduct of [insert name of councillor], a member of [insert authority name]. A general summary of the complaint is set out below. Complaint summary [Summarise complaint in numbered paragraphs] Consultation with Independent Person [Summarise the Independent Person’s views in numbered paragraphs] Official Capacity The Monitoring Officer has considered whether the conduct alleged occurred when the subject member was acting in his/her official capacity and has at this stage determined that he/she [was] [was not]. Decision Having consulted and taken into account the views of the Independent Person, the Monitoring Officer decided to [refer the complaint for investigation] [take no further action]. At this stage, the Monitoring Officer is not required to decide if the Code of Conduct has been breached. They are only considering if there is enough information which shows a potential breach of the Code of Conduct that 3 1L2 PROTECT APPENDIX 2 Sandwell iii Motropolitfln Borough Council Investigation Plan For Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011 Case No: Target for monitoring officer’s receipt of draft report bat~due:~ - Explanation:~ -.~...-.“-~-.--- Target for issue of draft report Datedue I - - - Explanation - Target for issue of final report Date due: -. Explanation: 5 1L2 PROTECT warrants referral for investigation. The Monitoring Officer considers that the alleged conduct, if proven, may amount to a breach of the following paragraphs of the Code of Conduct. The Monitoring Officer has appointed [insert name] as the Investigating Officer. Please note that it will be for the Investigating Officer to determine which paragraphs are relevant, during the course of the investigation. Parameters of Investigation [Include brief instruction to investigators on the scope of the investigation; possible witnesses, relevant documents, issues to focus on and timescales] Notification of decision This decision notice is sent to the: o Complainant • Member against whom the complaint was made • Investigator What happens now? The complaint will now be investigated under the Borough Council’s Arrangements for Dealing with Code of Conduct Complaints under the Localism Act 2011. Appeal There is no right of appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decision. Signed: Date: Print name: Monitoring Officer of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. The Monitoring Officer Governance Services Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Oldbury Council House Freeth Street Oldbury B69 3DE 4 1L2 PROTECT Case analysis Possible witnesses 6 L2 PROTECT Possible witnesses Possible witnesses 7 1L2 PROTECT ‘a Other Matters Completed by: Date: 8 L2 PROTECT APPENDIX 3 Statement of Place of Interview Date: Interview: People Present: This statement consisting of ... page is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that I may be required to give evidence should a hearing be held. I also understand that this statement may be used in all procedures related to this matter and other connected matters. I am aware that a copy of this statement may be disclosed to others as part of these and related proceedings. I am the above named person and understand that I have been asked to provide this statement in relation to allegations made against I have been asked about the allegation that Signed Dated 9 1L2 PROTECT Iêflh APPENDIX 4 J Sandwell J Metropolitan Borough Council Interview Plan For Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011 Case No: lnterviewee Subject member: Interviewer. Authority: Date 10 1L2 PROTECT ii 1L2 PROTECT ‘IC ?~4( r F’) -u C m-I C) -1 2; p “a 1~ APPENDIX 5 M Sandwell 24 NtottopOIitSfl Borough Council Investigation Plan Review Sheet For Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011 Case No: Reason for Review Details relating to above Review of Targets aevised diaft report target: Revised date of final report target: 13 1L2 PROTECT Reasons for revisions Completed by: Date: 1L2 PROTECT APPENDIX 6 ~. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Decision Notice of The Monitoring Officer for Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011 to Cease an Investigation Reference: Complainants: Subject Member: Person Conducting the Assessment: Date of Assessment: Complaint On [insert date], the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from [insert name of complainant] concerning the alleged conduct of [insert name of councillor], a member of [insert authority name]. A general summary of the complaint is set out below. Complaint summary [Summarise complaint in numbered paragraphs] Original Decision Having consulted and taken into account the views of the Independent Person, the Monitoring Officer decided to refer the complaint for investigation on the [insert date]. Investigation Summary The investigation began on the [insert date]. To date, the investigation has revealed that [insert brief description of what has happened in the investigation so far]. Decision to Cease Investigation Having consulted and taken into account the views of the Independent Person, the Monitoring Officer decided to cease the investigation. The reasons for this decision are as follows [insert reasons]. 15 L2 PROTECT Consultation with Independent Person [Summarise the Independent Person’s views in numbered paragraphs] Notification of decision This decision notice is sent to the: • Complainant • Member against whom the complaint was made • Investigator Appeal There is no right of appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decision. Signed: Date: Print name: Monitoring Officer of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. The Monitoring Officer Governance Services Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Olcibury Council House Freeth Street Oldbury B69 3DE 16 1L2 PROTECT E] El APPENDIX 7 SandweB U] MotropoIItz~n Sorough CouncU Comments Assessment Matrix For Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011 Case No: Date~ - . lnvéstigatdr~H . - -~ Subject I ...~...... -~~1 Complainant: member: I .~. . . - ...... , Comment Received Response Amendment Necessary? 17 L2 PROTECT Appe&cWo z_. [Proposed] Chair of the Sub-Committee’s directions for the hearing of Jan Britton’s complaint dated 3 June 2016 Procedure before the hearing No. Action Deadline 1. dIr Hussain to provide the Council’s Monitoring Officer (“Mo”) Completed with his written response to Maria Price’s Investigation Report dated 20 February 2017 2. CIIr Hussain to confirm in writing to the MO: 27/10/17 1. Whether or not he intends to refer to the contents of the Wragge Report before the Standards Committee; and, if so, to specify the paragraphs to which he intends to refer; and 2. The name(s) of any legal representative(s) who will represent him at the hearing 3. ClIr Hussain and the Investigating Officer (“10”), Ms Maria Price, MP to provide each other with copies of any documents on which completed they intend to rely at the hearing claimant to complete 27/10/17 4. If ClIr Hussain or the 10 intend to rely on any evidence from a• 30/10/17 witness who has not yet given a written statement in respect of the allegations against Cur Hussain, or to rely on further evidence from a witness who has done so, they must provide the other party with a copy of that witness’ evidence in the form of a written statement. The parties should use the standard form in Appendix 3 to the Arrangements 5. Cur Hussain and the IC to agree a paginated bundle of the 6/11/17 witness statements and other documents to be used during the hearing 6. ClIr Hussain and the MO to agree a statement of facts to be 6/11/17 provided to the Standards Sub-Committee (hereafter, “the Cmte”) before the hearing 7. The MO to provide each member of the Cmte with: 3 days before the 1. A further copy of the statement annexed to Mr Justice Green’s hearing Order in Hussain vSandwell Metropolitan BC [2017] EWHC 1641 (Admin) dated 29 June 2017. 2. The agreed bundle for the hearing referred to in point 5 above; and [1L2: PROTECT] 3. The agreed statement of facts referred to in point 6 above. [1L2: PROTECT]