This blog is a work in progress and members of the public are invited to contribute to it.
This is Version 9 - dated 21st January, 2025 (Addition in yellow.)
From Version 8:
THERE IS A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN THAT SURJIT TOUR HAS LEFT DEEPLY CORRUPT SANDWELL COUNCIL - ALLEGED VIA REDUNDANCY. THIS BLOG POST WILL CONTINUE, HOWEVER, SINCE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ONGOING ISSUES UNDER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING TOUR'S ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, THIS BLOG WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT AS EVIDENCE OF THE PROBLEMS ARISING WHEN A MONITORING OFFICER IS ALL POWERFUL AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FORM OF SCRUTINY. NOW READ THE LATEST SHOCKER IN THE TOUR SAGA!
BREAKING NEWS: Salford Employs Tour!!!
Anyone who has read the Sandwell Skidder over the years will now of the appalling behaviour of Surjit Tour as Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal at bent Labour Sandwell Council. As with Sandwell's former Chief Executive, the disgraced Jan Britton, Tour played a very larhe role in the events leading to Sandwell being plaved in Government "Special Measures" at a cost to the taxpayer. Even now there are outstanding matters where Tour's actions will feature in The Skidder and which will be added to this post. But no matter how bad you are you can always get another highly-paid job in local government as Britton, and now Tour are exemplars. This post does, of course, cover specific misconduct byTour in his role as Monitoring Officer and The Skidder has long reported on his other antics.
After he fell out with current Chief Executive, Shokat Lal, Tour went to Wolverhampton Council as Deputy Monitoring Officer. That was incredible enough, but now he has been appointed "City Solicitor" and Monitoring Officer at Salford City Council. Even more incredibly this appointment was allegedly after a "competitive process" which makes the mind boggle how absolutely awful the other candidates must have been!
Good luck Salford - you will need it!
[BTW a previous incumbent at Salford was Miranda Carruthers-Watt who was instructed by Tour in the standards investigation into the criminal Sandwell Council, Melia. More on this here soon ...]
The Monitoring Officer is a key person in every local authority - supposedly the policeman or woman of the legal and standards systems. But how do they use their powers and is there a case for Parliament to reassess their roles?
This is a case study which will be added to over the coming weeks relating to the Monitoring Officer at a West Midlands Council since late 2017.
Background
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) has been in existence for 47 years and has been a one-Party fief throughout that period. In recent years it has become infamous for corruption, cronyism and incompetence.
In February, 2016 a Labour Councillor called Simon Hackett committed a serious breach of confidentiality/data breach in respect of a minor and his/her parent. Following a complaint from Hackett's adult victim a standards investigation commenced via a small team under Monitoring Officer, Melanie Dudley (who was also the Council's Assistant Chief Executive) and which included a SMBC Solicitor, Maria Price. Ms Dudley and her team found that Hackett had breached the Code of Conduct for Councillors in respect of this incident. Ms Dudley proposed to deal with the matter by way of local resolution.
But Hackett was an acolyte of then Labour Party Deputy Leader, Tom Watson, who was malign but all-powerful in the rotten Borough of Sandwell (eventually placed into "special measures" in early, 2022).
The (then) Labour Leader at the corrupt Council, Cllr Eling, told Melanie Dudley to alter her findings and absolve Hackett from any breach of the Code. She bravely refused, which led directly to her dismissal (with a large payment of taxpayers' money). Immediately upon her departure, the feeble Chief Executive of the Council, Jan Britton, arranged to subvert the standards process - an action which ultimately led to his dismissal from SMBC - although not until 2019 after he had lost the protection of Eling (who had been suspended by the Labour Party and forced, kicking and screaming from the Council). Despite the overwhelming evidence, Hackett was suddenly exonerated. (If you are wondering why this is important, the taxpayer has paid hundreds of thousands of pounds via Sandwell MBC to conceal the truth. More revelations are imminent but Hackett has been reinstated as Labour's local Head of Children's Services!)
Thus this deeply corrupt Council was quite prepared to destroy any Monitoring Officer failing to do its bidding and to subvert due legal process and the rule of law.
An Interim Monitoring Officer held the reins until a replacement could be found. Cllr Eling and his sidekick, Cllr Marshall (a bankrupt who was also kicked out) told a local blogger in writing that they were seeing a "bastard" for the permanent role.
In due course, Surjit Tour (who had worked at Sandwell before) was appointed after his controversial tenure at Wirral Borough Council. It must be noted that Tour is also a Solicitor and so also bound by the conduct rules of that profession. Tour also occupies the role of "Head of Legal" at SMBC.
Below we will list as many examples as possible of Mr Tour's decisions. If you have had dealings with him (good or bad), in his role as Monitoring Officer, please send them to the email address below for inclusion herein.
*************************************************************************************
Standards Complaints:
Standards Complaint MC/10/1117 re Cllr Steve Eling & Cllr Richard Marshall
Complaint made: 20.11.17 (rec. 01.12.17)
Decision Notice: 31.05.18 (184 days)
Complainant: Julian Saunders
History
Cllrs Eling (the Leader of the Council) and Marshall (a Cabinet member) met a local journalist/blogger (the Complainant, Julian Saunders) in a pub and asked him to attack Cllr Eling’s enemies in exchange for the leaking of confidential information. The Cllrs set up a WhatsApp account promising “more leaks than Wales”, and began to pass information to Saunders.
Saunders became aware that Eling was conspiring with others, including the Monitoring Officer, Surjit Tour, to encourage West Midlands Police to prosecute Saunders. Saunders then made the vast majority of the WhatsApp feed public.
Saunders complained about (a) the transmission of confidential SMBC information and abusive behaviour on the WhatsApp feed and (b) an incident at the election count 2017 when Eling (and his wife) threatened him with violence (Sheet A).
On 23.01.18 Saunders added further allegations that (c) Eling and Marshall had “forced the disclosure” of a confidential document (the Wragge Report) despite ongoing legal proceedings; and (d) that Eling and Marshall publicly backed a proposed development when there were ongoing legal disputes involving SMBC concerning the site. Further, that they lied to Saunders in respect of the status of the site.
It is important to note that the pub meeting was attended by only four individuals, the “fourth man” being an ally of Eling and Marshall. Accordingly, Saunders was the only material witness. Further, Saunders was the ONLY witness who could confirm the details of the WhatsApp feed (which Eling and Marshall initially, and, maliciously claimed was fake).
Surjit Tour, the Monitoring Officer, acknowledged the complaint on 22nd December, 2017 stating that the Complaint would be “progressed to a formal investigation”. On the very same date, Tour wrote again saying:
“I have this afternoon been appraised of further information in relation to the matter of your complaint and the proposed investigation. As a result I have determined that my decision to investigate the complaint should be withdrawn pending further detailed consideration of the matter.”
This was a very obvious attempt to unlawfully suppress the complaint. Tour supplied no further information about the “further information” allegedly received.
But others also made complaints relating to the contents of the WhatsApp feed. Mr Jonathan Goolden of Wilkin Chapman, Solicitors, was appointed to investigate the complaints (Mr Tour and Sandwell Council seem to like to distance themselves from investigations by appointing allegedly “independent” third parties). Mr Goolden made no attempt whatsoever to interview Saunders despite the fact that he was (a) a Complainant and (b) the key and, in large part, the ONLY witness.
On 31st May, 2018 Surjit Tour blocked the Complainant’s claim with the absurd ruling that as there were three other complainants, the external investigator and the “independent person” had agreed with Tour that as the key witness’s evidence “principally covers the same evidential matters and issues” it was unnecessary to proceed with Saunders’s complaint. This was a blatant - and successful - ploy to simply exclude Mr Saunders’s critical and first-hand evidence from the investigatory process.
There were other matters outstanding. In respect of the incident at the count - which had been made public shortly afterwards, Tour stated that as the actual complaint was made several months later and since Saunders had not explained the delay (he had NOT been asked to explain it), Tour dismissed the allegation of a threat of assault actually inside an election count as “frivolous”.
In respect of the allegation that Eling had conspired to force the publication of the Wragge Report, Tour decided that this issue had been decided elsewhere and was “frivolous”.
Finally regarding Eling, the allegations relating to the property development were without merit and “frivolous”. No further explanation was provided save for the bizarre and wholly unnecessary statement that he had taken into consideration “the general conduct of the Complainant towards Cllr Eling”. Here is very clear evidence of Tour’s bias in the performance of his statutory duty.
The “independent person” was not identified. But Tour has relied on “independent persons” who have been appointed despite not being independent at all, such as John Tew, with whom Sandwell Council had often had direct dealings, some in highly controversial circumstances.
In respect of Cllr Marshall, the same reasoning was provided to dismiss the Complainant’s claim i.e. that the evidence of the key, and in many areas, the only witness, was unnecessary duplication of the three other complaints. This was a pure subversion of the standards process.
In terms, Cllr Eling was exonerated in respect of his involvement in the WhatsApp feed and Cllr Marshall carried the can. By then, Marshall had left the Council anyway whilst Eling was still desperately clinging on to power. There was no need to continue the Standards process against Marshall as he had, by then, left the Council but Tour did so purely so that Eling could be publicly "exonerated".
Concealment of a Police Investigation
Throughout the time Tour was dealing with this Complaint, he was conspiring with Eling, Marshall, Jan Britton (the Chief Executive), Jonathan Goolden, Soliciitor, and others to have the Police prosecute me in respect of alleged harassment of Eling and Marshall. This conspiracy had commenced in or around August, 2017 (?) and Tour was involved from the outset of his re-employment by Sandwell.
It has yet to be explained why Jan Britton and Surjit Tour became involved in promoting and supporting police complaints by two elected members at public expense. Tour assisted Eling and Marshall by supplying the Police with a “dossier” on Mr Saunders. Astonishingly, West Midlands Police referred the matter to its “Complex Crime Unit” and set up a “running Gold Group” chaired by an Assistant Chief Constable.
Saunders believes that one of the specific terms of Tour’s employment at Sandwell Council in late 2017 was to destroy Saunders and shut down his blog. Thus Tour immediately became involved as a taxpayer-funded employee in assisting Eling and Marshall with their Police complaints (as did other SMBC Solicitors under his direction). The view of Saunders is bolstered by a letter Tour wrote to him in late January, 2018 saying that the Council was employing “specialist Counsel” to bring Saunders to heel. (This is separate to the setting up of a £300,000 legal fund to destroy Saunders later in 2018 which will be described elsewhere.)
Tour - supposedly in charge of the Eling/Marshall Standards Complaint by Saunders pursuant to his statutory and contractual duty- did not reveal his involvement in the simultaneous conspiracy to have the journalist prosecuted and subjected to civil claims.
Even more incredibly, Chief Superintendent Richard Baker of West Midlands Police wrote this to Eling on 13th March, 2018:
“There is a Gold Group running chaired by an Assistant Chief Constable and attended by [Complex Crime] Investigations, CPS, LA Monitoring Officer and Wilkin Chapman Solicitors [presumably in the person of Jonathan Goolden the "independent Investigator"] …
We understand that the Local Authority have [sic] sought advice from a barrister about the potential to bring a civil claim against Saunders … this was briefed to the Gold Meeting …”
This is very clear evidence that Jan Britton and Surjit Tour were very much involved in using taxpayers funds to try and persuade the Police to prosecute Saunders in an effort to save the political skins of Eling and Marshall. The presence of Tour is incredible enough, but the presence of Wilkin Chapman too is truly astonishing. They were the supposedly “independent solicitors” dealing specifically with Standards complaints against Eling and Marshall (including the “live” complaints by three other individuals and yet they were directly - and covertly - engaged in meetings intended to save Eling's political career).
In the premises, Tour and Jonathan Goolden of Wilkin Chapman were - again, covertly - working to a different agenda and directly involved in a conspiracy to protect Eling and Marshall using taxpayers’s funds. This shows that they cannot possibly have been unbiased in the Standards investigations - as their deliberate exclusion of Saunders’s evidence clearly shows.
It should be said, of course, that the Police investigation came to nothing. Indeed, Chief Inspector Richard Baker wrote firmly to Eling stating, in terms, that he should stop wasting Police time. Neither were civil proceedings forthcoming (at this stage) following Tour’s instruction of “Specialist Counsel”.
Jan Britton was disgraced and dismissed without compensation when it was discovered that had been involved in rigging a different Standards investigation into Cllr Simon Hackett, had colluded with a colleague in respect of their statements in a criminal trial (for which misconduct Sandwell itself referred him to the Police) and had given false evidence under oath in a criminal trial (West Midlands Police, at the time the employers of Britton's son, declined to bring perjury charges against him).
Eling was eventually suspended by The Labour Party and was unable to contest his seat in Sandwell again. Despite his misconduct, he continues in his day job as a senior employee at Rotherham Council.
(At the same time that Tour was supposedly dealing with this Standards complaint pursuant to his Statutory and contractual duties he was also directly involved in the fallout from an incident on 18th January, 2018 when Saunders was unlawfully excluded from a Sandwell Council meeting. See further below.)
*************************************************************************************
Standards Complaint MC/03/0517 re Cllr Ian Jones
Complaint made: ?
Decision Notice: 24th January, 2018
Complainant: Sandwell Council
History
[We are sure that Mr Jones will wish to add to this section noting that he raised numerous allegations of procedural irregularity.]
Mr Jones faced a number of allegations in the Wragge Report. Leading Counsel was instructed and James Goudie QC opined that Jones had no case to answer.
As referred to above, Cllr Eling and Cllr Marshall set up a WhatsApp feed to pass information to Mr Saunders. Even a cursory glance at the feed shows that the pair were obsessed with destroying Cllr Jones (and his family which then included two other Labour Councillors).
In High Court litigation involving a third party, evidence was given that in 2016 Jones intended to stand against Cllr Eling for the leadership of the Council. It was stated in evidence that Eling’s wife, a local Party member, had phoned the third party threatening him and his family if he did not persuade Jones to step down.
Having failed to “nail” Jones via the Wragge Report, Eling’s cronies cooked up a new charge and commenced the process which led to a Standards hearing.
Jones could not afford proper legal representation and was assisted by a Union rep. It became apparent to Mr Saunders that the charge was farcical. The former Leader of the Council, Darren Cooper, had withdrawn a property from auction which was sought by another Councillor, Cllr Rouf. It was accepted by Jones that all he had done was pass on the message from Cooper to the relevant officers. He had not been involved in the decision-making process in anyway. Although there remain serious concerns considering the deal eventually done - to one of Cllr Rouf’s sons - Sandwell itself claimed that Jones’s supposed actions had not resulted in financial loss.
Cllr Jones communicated with Mr Saunders when the latter published the vast bulk of the WhatsApp feed noting the astonishing attacks of him and his family by Eling and Marshall. Saunders became concerned about what he perceived to be a “stitch-up” and wrote to Mr Tour quoting statutory provisions which appeared to show that Jones was not culpable simply by reason of passing on an instruction from the Leader. Jones asked Saunders to give evidence at the Standards hearing and Saunders wrote to Tour accordingly. Tour responded that this was not acceptable since a witness could only give evidence if requested by the “defendant” Councillor whereas it should have been absolutely clear to him that that was what Jones wanted. In any event, Saunders wrote saying that Jones DID want him to give evidence.
This was all very close to the actual hearing and Saunders turned up at The Council House in Sandwell early on the morning of the hearing. Tour stated that Saunders could not sit in on the hearing before giving evidence. Bizarrely, Tour had Saunders escorted to a room upstairs where the door was closed and security staff posted on the door. Saunders even had to ask permission to use the lavatory. Even more strangely, Saunders had access to the live feed of the hearing even though he could not sit in on the actual hearing.
Part-way through the hearing, Jones and his Union rep considered the whole process was infected by bias and simply walked out. Saunders met them in the lobby having seen what had happened via the live feed. Tour appeared and confirmed to Jones that the hearing would proceed in his absence. Saunders asked Tour what would happen about his evidence and Tour laughed and said, “don’t worry, I wasn’t going to allow you to give evidence anyway”.
Saunders took this as gross misconduct by Tour and tantamount to false imprisonment by shutting Saunders in the guarded room when he had no intention of permitting him to present his evidence. There was also an “independent legal adviser” present at the hearing and there is a further question whether, as the hearing had started, Tour had the legal power to debar Saunders’s evidence.
Saunders opines that Tour’s egregious behaviour was further evidence of bias and animosity on Tour’s part (again at a time when, as above, he was actively conspiring with others to bring down Saunders and his blog and when he was deliberately blocking him from giving evidence in the Standards investigations concerning Eling and Marshall).
There was yet another twist to this extraordinary set of affairs. On the previous afternoon, Tour was seen in cahoots with members of the Standards Committee who were due to adjudicate on Jones the following day. Tour had not advised the independent person that he planned to hold the meeting and the independent person was not invited. Jones was not informed about the meeting but a Union rep saw what was going on and reported this to the colleague who was assisting Jones.
The Rep wrote to Tour asking what on earth was going on. When Cllr Eling discovered that the fact of the meeting had been leaked he sought immediate retribution against the leaker. The finger was (wrongly) pointed at the six/seven secretaries who worked for the Cabinet members and they were all suspended forthwith by the s.151 Officer, Darren Carter (it is said, on the direct instructions of Eling who was not, of course, a member of the paid service).
This shocking error, which arose directly as a result of Tour mysteriously choosing to “brief” the Committee, was soon discovered and the unfortunate, bullied, women (who had collectively worked for the Council for over a century) were reinstated with an apology and a small payment each from the taxpayer.
*************************************************************************************
Standards Complaint - Preet Kaur Gill
13/12/17
The Complaint was that (a) Cllr Gill had failed to declare her position and income as an MP on her Register of Interests, and more importantly, (b) that she had failed to declare that she had taken a three year lease on offices at Lightwoods House, within the Borough of Sandwell (but outside her parliamentary constituency).
Surjit Tour dealt with this by way of a "chat" with Cllr Gill who then updated the Register. Even though she had personally entered into the lease, Tour decided that the omission was simply "an oversight" by Gill so that he would be taking no further action.
*************************************************************************************
Standards Complaint - Cllr Kerrie Carmichael
MC/171221 - 17/12/21
Cllr Carmichael has breached the Nolan Principles of, at least, honesty, objectivity (as she has a clear bias against ex-Cllr Hussain and for former “Leader” ex-Cllr Eling), integrity, openness (in attempting to conceal a Review which discloses racism and serious wrongdoing at SMBC) and leadership (having lied to a full Council and the public at large within approximately 20 minutes of becoming SMBC’s political leader).
Allegation 1:
At the Labour Group Online meeting preceding the December full Council meeting she advised Labour Councillors that she would suppress publication of the Cox Review and an accompanying Opinion of Jenni Richards QC. This is a clear dereliction of her duties of objectivity, integrity and openness before she actually became “leader”. It is also a breach of honesty and integrity given that she claims not to know anything about the Cox Review and Opinion. (It may also be unlawful.)
Allegation 2:
The facts here speak for themselves. At the Full Council meeting on 7th December, 2021, within approximately 20 minutes of becoming “leader”, Cllr Carmichael answered a question from Cllr Yvonne Davies. She said - direct quote - “I don’t know what the Cox Report is. I haven’t read it.”
This is, quite simply, an appalling lie to the full Council, the people of Sandwell and the public at large.
Cllr Carmichael was well aware of the Cox Review and so openly mocked Cllr Davies and the democratic process.
On the balance of probabilities, Cllr Carmichael knew of the Cox Review for some time before she lied at the meeting - probably several months. But, in particular, the Cox Review and QC’s Opinion were sent to her on 28th September, 2021 at 10.28pm:
“Date: Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: URGENT RELEASE OF (MAHBOOB HUSSAIN) SANDWELL COUNCIL DOCUMENTS - WRAGGE REVIEW, COX,RICHARDS
To: <rajbir_singh@sandwell.gov.uk>, <ahmad_bostan@sandwell.gov.uk>, <kerrie_carmichael@sandwell.gov.uk>, <Maria_Crompton@sandwell.gov.uk>, (and other Cabinet members).
I am informed that further copies were sent to her on:
29th September, 2021;
1st October, 2021;
8th October, 2021;
23rd October, 2021;
6th November, 2021;
17th November, 2021;
20th November, 2021; and
30th November, 2021.
I am informed that none of these emails were “returned” and so she did receive them.
Further, on 30th November, 2021 at 3.39pm, I wrote to her myself given the allegation of what she said at the Labour Group meeting:
“Dear Cllr Carmichael,
THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION - PRESS ENQUIRY
I have just been copied into an email to all Councillors concerning the Cox Review. I have also been informed, rightly or wrongly, that you told the Labour Group last night that the Cox Review will never be published.
Do you agree that you made those comments?
If yes, is this matter not still within the remit of the Audit Committee? What is your legal power to intervene at this stage?
And why do you personally wish to prevent the public from seeing a Review which shows bias, incompetence and racism?
If you did not say that you will suppress the Review what in the current process and it's timescale for its release?”
I did not receive the courtesy of a reply.
Following her brazen lie at the full Council meeting I wrote to Cllr Davies again with a copy to Cllr Carmichael (14.12.21 at 3.50pm) giving Cllr Carmichael the opportunity to explain her misconduct:
Email to Cllr Davies copied to Cllr Carmichael:
“THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION - PRESS ENQUIRY
“Like you, I was stunned by the comments of Cllr Carmichael at the full Council meeting last week in respect of the Cox Review/Report.
“You may be aware of a recent post on The Skidder where it was put to Cllr Carmichael via email dated 30th November, 2021 that she was purported to have told the Labour Group meeting that the Cox Review would never see the light of day. If that is true, then her comments at full Council raise very serious issues as she specifically stated, "I don't know what the Cox Report is. I haven't read it."
“It strains everyone's credulity to suggest that she has not heard of it and even if she did not make the comments attributed to her at Labour Group, is she now also saying that she did not read my email of 30th November sent to her (and then placed in the public domain)? Some sort of explanation is required here, and I am copying her to this email to, once again, give her the chance to explain herself.
“Another matter arises. Cllr Carmichael stated that Surjit Tour would be asked to provide you with a briefing paper on this. Leaving aside my view - which I have expressed to you - that Surjit Tour should not still be in the employ of SMBC, my understanding is that Tour was directly involved in the commissioning of the Cox Review and also in respect of briefing Jenni Richards QC. Surely there is a clear conflict of interest in one of the same people involved in trying to shine a light on this scandal being involved in suppressing its release?
“You were right in describing the comments of Cllr Carmichael concerning "personal data" as the reason for suppression of the Review, as "ridiculous". This was an issue raised in ex-Cllr Mahboob Hussain's objections to the publication of the Wragge Report and was given very short shrift by SMBC's QC, James Goudie (employed at colossal expense to the taxpayer). It would seem that this is another document that Cllr Carmichael hasn't read. Further, it is clearly a matter of intense public interest if Tour is saying that the Opinion of James Goudie - which is proudly displayed on the SMBC website - was wrong.
“If you have received Tour's briefing paper can you please send me a copy (and I am sure Cllr Carmichael can have no objection to that).”
Once again, Cllr Carmichael has chosen not to respond.
Julian Saunders
17th December, 2021
Standards Complaint re Cllr Kerrie Carmichael
Sheet B
In Sheet A I set out a standards complaint against Cllr Kerrie Carmichael in respect of her lies to a full Council meeting concerning the Cox Review.
It has now come to my attention that she lied again in the very same meeting and so make this additional complaint which I assume will be dealt with together with the original one. Once again the facts show clear - further - breaches of the duties of honesty and integrity.
Complaint 2
At the full Council meeting of 7th December, 2021, Cllr David Fisher asked a written question (of which Cllr Carmichael had notice) concerning SMBC’s unlawful payment of an employee, Lisa McNally’s, legal costs.
Cllr Carmichael stated that she was unable to comment as the matter was subject to an “independent review”.
I have had correspondence with SMBC’s Interim Chief Executive, Kim Bromley-Derry and he has confirmed that there is no “independent review”. In fact there is a supposed review by Messrs Grant Thornton who are (a) not independent by reason of their relationship with SMBC; (b) non-lawyers and, most importantly, (c) were directly involved when McNally’s failed case was live and when they refused to stop the unlawful funding.
In the premises, Cllr Carmichael’s response to an official written question was a second blatant lie to Councillors and to the public.
20/02/22 Julian Saunders
SMBC legal team exonerate Carmichael
Surjit Tour, SMBC's highly controversial Head of Legal and it's Monitoring Officer, handed this matter over to a Deputy Monitoring Officer, the equally controversial Maria Price.
Price reported that:
"The subject member was provided with a copy of the complaints. She does not accept that she has been dishonest … at the time of [the full Council meeting] she had not been provided with a copy of the Cox Report from the council and states that she has not read it."
As will be seen from the complaint itself set out above, multiple emails were sent to Carmichael enclosing the Cox Review. These were all sent to her official SMBC email address and none of them were apparently returned. Note the words that she was not provided with a copy "from the Council". Leaving aside the question of whether she made the comments that she did as a Labour group meeting, this is her "get-out" excuse - and a very feeble one it is.
Price quoted Carmichael as saying that she could not release"personal information" since this would leave SMBC "open to legal action". If she had never read the Cox Review, how could she know this?
Price stated that any comment made at the Labour Group Meeting about the Coc Review was not a matter for her as it was a purely party political matter. The problem with this is that Carmichael has not officially denied making these comments which are clear evidence, if found to be correct, that she was lying at the full Council Meeting on a later date.
The laughable Price decided that the statement that Carmichael had not read the Cox Review was not dishonest, and therefore not a breach of the Member's Code of Conduct. In the circumstances she would not refer it for formal investigation.
In the most ludicrous section of Price's findings she states that the email referred to in the complaints was not provided to Carmichael from an official Council email. The email was, of course, sent from an anonymous leaker of the Cic Review. Price states that there is no evidence that vet Carmichael read the email or any information reportedly attached to it. But equally there is no evidence that Price actually asked Carmichael whether she read the email or not - or indeed the other emails listed in the complaint, also sending the documentation to her. Price hasn't even made elementary enquiries before coming to a decision which is unappealable and to which the Independent Member agreed.
With regard to the second part of the complaint, Price says that Carmichael's comments that the McNally costs indemnity was being looked at by an "independent review team" was not dishonest. This is even though Grant Thornton were involved in the question of the indemnity at the time the McNally case was live and refused to take any action. Appropriate action by them could have saved taxpayers a considerable amount of money and so Grant Thornton are neither independent not in a position to "review" a matter in which they were directly involved themselves. Furthermore Grant Thornton are not lawyers and so it is a mystery why Carmichael thinks they should be reviewing the question of a legal indemnity.
Incidentally, Price herself was directly involved, with Tour and two other SMBC solicitors, in the McNally litigation and fully supported the unlawful use of taxpayers' money to provide the so-called indemnity. Quite why she was involved in this aspect of the matter when there is a clear conflict of interest is not explained.
*************************************************************************************
Standard Complaint - Cllr Iqbal Padda.
MC080720
Complaint 08/07/20
Labour Councillor Iqbal Padda set up an elaborate scheme to provide himself with an address in the Borough of Sandwell so that he could stand in the the 2017 local election.
At all material times he was living outside the Borough at xx Parkview Crescent, Walsall so that he was in eligible to stand for Sandwell Council. He continues to live at that address.
With the assistance of others he was provided with a "fake" tenancy for a property at xxx Bromford Lane, West Bromwich dated 1st February 2017. He falsely claims that he was residet at that address and was duly elected.
Julian Saunders made a standards complaint against Padda that he had lied to the Election Officer in respect of his address and lied about his address on his register of interests. Later, he placed himself on the electoral register at the Bromford Lane address when he was not resident there (see further below).
Decision 22/07/20
The Monitoring Officer stated that had I had provided him with a copy of a signed tenancy agreement clearly he was satisfied that it was a "genuine" document. He did not see evidence of the payment of rent. However, without further investigation other than a "chat" with Padda, Surjit Tour also made the bold claim that the Cllr had also lived at the address since 1st February 2017 (despite being provided with evidence to the contrary).
Tour claims that the Independent Member was also satisfied that Padda had lived at the address based solely on the Councillor's verbal say so.
In an even more extraordinary twist Tour claims that the Independent Member stated that Padda needed to register on the electoral roll at his main residence being the Bromford Lane address. This is totally inappropriate conduct by the Independent Member and should have formed no part in Surjit Tour's decision.
The very fact that Tour and the Independent Member refer to the Bromford Lane address as Padda's "main residence" seems to be an acceptance by them that they were also aware that he was living elsewhere too. (In any event, Padda was not living at Bromford Lane and the Independent Member and Surjit Tour openly encouraged him to commit a potential criminal offence in that he apparently duly did make a false legal declaration that he was resident at that address.)
The Independent Member stated that Padda had satisfactory clarified his residential history and status although he had clearly done no such thing. The Monitoring Officer accepted the view of the Independent Member and refused to investigate further.
Bizarrely, the Monitoring Officer went on to say that there was no financial disadvantage to Walsall Council as a result of Padda allegedly residing in two different boroughs, thus clearly accepting again that Padda had another address.
End
*************************************************************************************
Standards Complaint re Cllrs Eling, Hackett, Horton (Linda) and Moore
Re: Lion Farm Fields
Complaint - 12th June, 2018
Special Note - this is a long and detailed pair of documents dealing with aspects of a massive fraud. It is noteworthy that in his response, the Monitoring Officer refers to Sandwell Council being alarmed enough about this case to seek Counsel's Opinion (which has not yet been disclosed). More particularly, the response confirms a major aspect of Sandwell corruption in that the Council believes itself to be immune from Judicial Review proceedings and no-one in the corrupt Borough has any money. In this particular case Sandwell Labour went to massive trouble to hide the fact that this arrangement even related to Lion Farm Fields - misleading the public by referring the project as "Junction 2 Regeneration" and heavily redacting all Council minutes relating to it. The Sandwell Skidder blog exclusively disclosed details of this fraud in 2015 but it appeared that the "deal" had gone dead. It revived in 2017.
General principles of conduct relevant to this Complaint:
1. Cllrs must not bring their office into disrepute;
2. When carrying out their public duties such as awarding contracts of recommending individuals for rewards or benefits, Councillors must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias;
3. Cllrs must promote and support high standards of conduct when serving in their office; 4. Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest; 5. Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent
manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
6. Holders of public office should be truthful.
Background to the Complaint: Period to 19th December, 2012.
In 2012 certain Councillors, including Cllr Eling, decided to make the disposal of publicly-owned land “easier” by forming the Asset Management and Land Disposal Committee (AMLDC) at the urging of ex-Councillor Mahboob Hussain who was then appointed as the Committee’s Chair.
On a date unknown, ex-Councillor Hussain introduced a property developer to Sandwell Council with a view to him purchasing various plots of Council land. A series of secret meetings took place between Sandwell Council and Jeremy Knight Adams. At one such secret meeting Sandwell Council officials agreed to grant an option to Jeremy Knight Adams to develop a colossal 19ha of green space in Oldbury known as Lion Farm Fields subject to member approval. The said Fields had not been marketed to the public at large nor otherwise offered to other developers or individuals.
(It is not known whether any of the Councillors complained of in this complaint were party to these secret meetings and subsequent “deal”. If they were then I make the complaint that they failed to comply with all 6 principles of conduct set out above and also failed to register their interest in this matter when subsequently voting for it.)
The matter was listed on the agenda for the meeting of the AMLDC on 19th December, 2012 under the misleading and untrue title of “Junction 2 Regeneration.” The Report to the Committee nor any other information about this agenda item were made available to the public prior to the Committee meeting. At the meeting only Cllrs Hussain and Hackett were in attendance and promptly excluded the public from the meeting. The Report was not disclosed by SMBC until15th February, 2018 - over SIX YEARS after the event! The two Councillors held the entire meeting with a lengthy agenda in just 7 minutes.
Part One of the Complaint:
No complaint can now be brought against Cllr Hussain as he has left the Council. Thus all complaints in this section relate to the failures of Cllr Hackett in that he:
Failed to question Cllr Hussain’s involvement in introducing Jeremy Knight Adams to the Council to do this deal and his connections to him; failed to question why this land had not been marketed to others; failed to question why all meetings with Jeremy Knight Adams were held in secret and were unminuted; failed to secure the best evidence when recommending an individual - ie Jeremy Knight Adams - for reward or benefit; failed to allow the disclosure to the public of the report to the committee and excluded the public from the meeting.
These failures constitute breaches of principles 1 to 5 inclusive above.
Further, the fact that Cllrs Hussain and Hackett dealt with the whole agenda (including another land disposal which eventually benefitted the Hussain family) was contempt for the public, the constitution of the Council and the proper and efficient conduct of its business. Cllr Hackett breached principles 1 and 3 above in this regard.
Background to the Complaint: Period: 20th December, 2012 to 9th January, 2013:
On 9th January, 2013 the crucial disposal of this huge piece of land to someone introduced to SMBC by Cllr Hussain came before the Cabinet when the report of the AMLDC of 19th December, 2012 was received. No Councillor present raised any objection to the unusual circumstances of this proposed transaction but then those present got through a lengthy agenda in just 2 (two) minutes!
Part Two of the Complaint:
The following Councillors (excluding members who are no longer on the Council) were present at the important two-minute long meeting:
Eling; Hackett; Horton (Linda); Jones (Ian) and Moore.
Please note that although he was present at the meeting I am specifically excluding Cllr Ian Jones from this complaint as I am aware that he has been (and still is) subject to unwarranted persecution by certain members and officials within SMBC and it is, therefore, highly unlikely that SMBC would give him the opportunity of a fair hearing in respect of this issue.
Obviously Cllr Hackett is again guilty of the failures set out in Part One above and those are repeated against him here in respect of this Cabinet meeting and the breaches of conduct principles that arise therefrom.
Cllrs Eling, Horton (Linda) and Moore did not apply their minds to the unusual circumstances of such a significant transaction either adequately or at all during the two minute meeting (assuming that their poor conduct was not deliberate.) In the premises and noting the size of the land concerned and that it was public open space (part of which was - and is - held by Fields in Trust) they failed to consider the matters Cllr Hackett should have considered as set out in Part One above and are guilty of breaching the principles 1 to 5 set out above. The fact that the entire meeting with a full agenda lasted just two minutes is evidence thereof.
Further, the fact that the Cllrs complained of got through a full agenda in just two minutes is, in itself, breach of the code of conduct as well as showing utter contempt for the people of Sandwell, the Constitution of the Council and the proper and efficient conduct of the Council’s business. Thus Cllrs Eling, Hackett, Horton (Linda) and Moore are further guilty of breaching principles 1 and 3 above.
Background to the Complaint: Report to Cabinet 15th November, 2017:
This section relates to the failures of Cllr Paul Moore. He approved and then presented a Report to Cabinet on the above date riddled with inaccuracy and falsehoods. Whilst Cllr Moore was not the author of the Report he failed either adequately or at all to assess its truthfulness and accuracy. Once again the Report and the agenda item was deliberately intended to mislead the public as it was again spuriously headed as “Junction 2 Regeneration”. In particular the report:
Failed to refer to the highly unusual (and possibly unlawful) circumstances in which the option was initially granted to Jeremy Knight Adams; referred to this proposed development as a regional attraction whilst failing to refer at all to the planning permission given for a similar major development at Cannock since the original option was granted; stated that Jeremy Knight Adams had, as at 15th November, 2017 made “significant progress” in respect of preparatory steps in respect of the (still) secret option agreement whilst failing to state what those steps were or to make them public; alleged that Jeremy Knight Adams had incurred “significant expenditure in securing adjoining land to develop the scheme” without specifying what land had then been secured or making the details public; stated that Jeremy Knight Adams had - as at 15th November, 2017 - “undertaken numerous feasibility studies” but failed to state or make public what these were; relied of spurious unverified figures that the development would create “more than 2,000 jobs” and bring circa £200m extra investment in to the area when these were the figures mentioned in 2012 in a very different environment; failed completely to mention that since 2012/13 SMBC itself had granted planning permission in 2016 to Hammerson Plc for an alternative high-end shopping development ALSO IN OLDBURY at The Junction site to be known as Fountain Retail Park.
The Report was so blatantly flawed that Cllr Moore either knew that the contents were likely to deceive fellow Cabinet members or was reckless in that regard. Ditto with regard to members of the public. In the premises Cllr Moore was in breach of the principles 1 to 6 set out above. The fact that he was an attendee at the 2013 Cabinet Meeting (see above) makes his egregious conduct in withholding facts from fellow Councillors and the public all the more culpable.
End. 12/06/18.
Decision dated 17.08.22
Person Conducting the Assessment : Surjit Tour
Date of Assessment: 17 August 2018
Complaint
On 17 August 2018, the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Julian Saunders concerning the alleged conduct of the above-named members of Sandwell MBC.
Complaint summary and findings
Details of the complaint are attached to this Decision Notice. [See above]
I have reviewed the complaint to determine whether or not any aspect of the allegations made merit formal investigation. In addition, I have spoken to Councillor Hackett as part of my preliminary enquiries.
In relation to Allegation 1 – Councillor Hackett’s role in the Asset Management and Land Disposal Cabinet Committee of 19 December 2012.
Councillor Hackett cannot recall the Committee meeting in question which took place over 5 years ago. In addition, it is important to note that this meeting took place at a time prior to the separate Code of Conduct matters that have subsequently come to light in relation to Councillor Hussain’s standards of behaviour and actions. The Council has carried out a due diligence exercise in relation to the history of decision making in relation to the matter as a whole and sought Counsel’s advice on the legality of the process. This decision was a lawful one and was not challenged through an application for judicial review. In addition, the length of the meeting of the Asset Management and Land Disposal Cabinet Committee does not give rise to a breach of the Code of Conduct.
As a result, I do not believe that this aspect of the complaint in relation to Councillor Hackett requires formal investigation.
In relation to Allegation 2 – Cabinet meeting 9 January 2013 – Councillors Eling, Hackett, Linda Horton, Paul Moore. This element of the complaint concerns the Cabinet’s collective receipt of the minutes of the Asset Management and Land Disposal Cabinet Committee of 19 December 2012.
The complainant has sought to exclude one Cabinet Member, Councillor Ian Jones, from his complaint. Given that Cabinet decision making is collective and the complainant offers no good reason for the exclusion of Councillor Jones from his complaint, I believe that this element of the complaint is vexatious.
In addition, the length of the Cabinet meeting does not give rise to a breach of the Code of Conduct.
In any event, a due diligence exercise has been undertaken in relation to the history of decision making in relation to this matter, which has considered in particular the legal impact of any deficiency (if any) arising from the possibility of a Member of the Asset Management and Land Disposal Cabinet Committee (at its meeting on 19 December 2012) failing to disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest (‘DPI’). Whether the relevant Member actually had a DPI at the material time is not clear. The due diligence exercise has included the obtaining Counsel’s opinion on:
(i) whether the meeting was quorate if a Member of the Committee had a DPI (assuming one did exist) and failed to disclose it;
(ii) Assuming the meeting was rendered inquorate, whether the decision of the Committee was ultra vires after the event; and
(iii) whether the failure to declare a DPI (assuming one did exist) invalidates the decision(s) taken by the Committee on 19 December 2012 and the subsequent legal Option.
The advice received from Counsel confirms that the meeting was quorate when it commenced. Any failure by a Member to recuse him/herself from a Committee meeting, when dealing with a specific Agenda item in which they have a DPI, does not render the meeting inquorate. This is consistent with paragraphs 43 and 44 of Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972, and because there is no principle whereby a Member’s attendance is to be treated as a nullity.
Moreover, with regards (ii) above, Counsel confirmed that if the meeting was inquorate, the decision would not be ultra vires which is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Charles Terence Estates Ltd v. Cornwall Council (2013).
With regards to (iii) above, Counsel advised that the decision is not invalidated by virtue of a DPI not being disclosed. Even if the decision were to be invalidated, it does not follow that the legal Option would be invalidated given that there is no reason to conclude that Jeremy Knight Adams was anything other than a bona fide purchaser. In any event the Council’s general powers were sufficient to entitle the Council to enter into the contract/Option.
Cabinet acted both reasonably and lawfully in relation to this matter. Due process was followed and again, no challenge was made through judicial review at the time. As a result, I do not believe that this aspect of the complaint in relation to Councillors Eling, Hackett, Linda Horton and Paul Moore requires formal investigation.
In relation to Allegation 3 – Report to Cabinet 15 November 2017, Councillor Paul Moore.
As previously indicated a due diligence exercise has been undertaken in relation to the history of decision making in relation to this matter and Counsel’s opinion sought. The Cabinet report of 15 November 2017 is accurate. In addition, Cabinet resolved to vary the Options Agreement and require that the Council and developer undertake extensive work in relation to this matter including:-
• Local consultation with residents and stakeholders;
• re provision/improvements to the existing playing fields offer; • preparation of a detailed case for development to highlight economic impact locally and differentiate nature of the offer from local centres;
• submission of a full planning application;
• development of a premier retail/leisure facility;
• undertake works with the Black Country LEP, Highways, Transport Authorities and statutory bodies to ensure proper management of access points and traffic flows.
The process going forward is therefore both open and transparent involving full public consultation and engagement as well as public scrutiny through the planning process; and involvement of outside
bodies such as Sport England.
As a result, I do not believe that this aspect of the complaint merits formal investigation.
Consultation with Independent Person
I have consulted with the Independent Person appointed in accordance with the Arrangements for dealing with Standards allegations under the Localism Act 2011 and they agree with my decision and assessment of the matters.
Decision
Having consulted and taken into account the views of the Independent Person, the Monitoring Officer has decided to deal with the matter as indicated above.
Notification of decision
This decision notice is sent to the:
• Complainant
• Members against whom the complaint has been made
Appeal
There is no right of appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decision.
Signed:
Date: 17 August 2018
Surjit Tour
Monitoring Officer of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council.
*************************************************************************************
Standards Complaint - Cllr Pam Randhawa
MC/191121 - 03/12/21
The Monitoring Officer took it upon himself to advise Labour Councillors that they could conceal information from the public Register of Interests by claiming that there were "security" implications.
Cllr Randhawa used her personal address quite publicly when standing for election to the Council in 2021. She then sought to conceal it on her Register of Interests "for security reasons".
More importantly, Randhawa boasted on her Twitter account of being a member (indeed, Chair) of the Sandwell Police Independent Advisory Group. There is considerable public concern in Sandwell that the close relationship between Labour and the local Police is, to put it mildly, unhealthy.
Labour's Randhawa sought to withold her position on her Register of Interests. This was allowed by the Monitoring Officer who claimed that the information - openly available on Twitter - constituted "sensitive information" pursuant to s.32 Localism Act 2011.
Once again the Monitoring Officer acted in a partisan manner to subvert the whole legal framework of the Register of Interests scheme on behalf of his political masters.
NOTE: aspects of the Monitoring Officers attempt to conceal information from the public via the Register of Interests are currently being investigated by the Information Commissioner.
*************************************************************************************
OTHER MATTERS
This section deals with issues other than standards investigations in which The Monitoring Officer has regularly intervened to assist his political masters.
Interference with Civil Claim and Failure to disclose omission of evidence
In The High Court of Justice - Case No: F90BM018
Julian Saunders v Kerrie Carmichael & Others
History
On 16th January, 2018 Saunders (and another) were asking questions of elected Councillors as they arrived to attend a full meeting of Sandwell Council (a regular practice over many years). A Councillor made a malicious complaint about the pair. Jan Britton (the Chief Executive) and David Stevens (who became Chief Executive after Britton) arranged for security to unlawfully debar the pair from attending the public meeting.
Saunders immediately - on the same night - requested the CCTV footage of the pair outside the Council House.
When Saunders set about trying to establish the identity of the malicious complainant many Councillors informed him that Tour had told them not to communicate with him. It has never been clear why Tour thought it appropriate to intervene in matters between Saunders and individual Councillors. As things transpired, the appropriateness of the advice Tour saw fit to provide the Councillors at public expense was dubious to say the least.
Tour’s advice led to a number of the more stupid Councillors (and the guilty party) playing “I am Spartacus” and refusing to confirm their involvement or otherwise. Indeed, on 26th September, 2018 Tour wrote and specifically refused to identify the malicious complainant though he declined to explain why he was deliberately withholding this information. Accordingly, Saunders issued High Court proceedings against 19 Labour Councillors.
This led eventually to a settlement of the High Court action upon Sandwell acknowledging that the exclusion was unlawful, providing a public apology and paying Saunders’s costs (payable, of course, by the taxpayer).
Having advised Councillors not to respond, Tour wrote on 26th February, 2019 (following the issue of the High Court) specifically stating that he was writing “on behalf of” the errant Councillors accusing Saunders of trying to apply unwarranted pressure on them and intimidating them.
The issue of proceedings eventually brought some of the Councillors to their senses and a number confirmed that they had not been guilty of making the malicious allegation (curiously, one of those appears to be the Councillor who did make the false claim!) Thus the proceedings were issued against nine “holdout” Councillors.
The case was hampered by the gross delay by Tour in providing the crucial CCTV evidence. It took him 253 days to provide this. He is a Solicitor and officer of the Court but upon serving the tape failed to inform me that 35 seconds of the footage had been cut. This alone is, at best, very bad practice.
Saunders only noticed the cut by pure chance. This caused further delay and costs.
This is what I wrote in an Application to the High Court for an extension of time:
“I wrote to Mr Tour in very strong terms about the fact of the doctoring of the tape and the fact that he had not told me about this (his excuse was that the tape had been released under a subject access request and the tape was cut as I was not in view for 35 seconds. I say frankly that I do not believe this.”
Tour had been withholding the tape which had specifically not been requested as part of a subject access request but in contemplation of legal action from the very night of the incident, 16th January, 2021.
Later, David Stevens (by them Interim Chief Executive) provided Saunders with a different version of events i.e. that the cut footage showed a Councillor, Mohammed Rouf, who was not the malicious complainant, walking past Saunders with a “civilian” female and that the footage had not been disclosed for “data protection reasons” to protect the identity of the civilian.
One of these versions of events cannot be true but, in any event, it was incumbent on Tour to inform Saunders that the cut had been made and the reason for it.
Tour knew that Cllr Rouf was not involved but due to the doctoring of the tape and the fact that Rouf had foolishly refused to confirm his innocence when given several opportunities to do so, he was one of the nine Councillors served with the High Court Claim Form.
On appointment, Tour had set himself up as the "Defence Counsel" for errant Councillors contrary to his Statutory role, his professional conduct rules as a Solicior and in breach of his contractual duties to act ion the best interests of the Borough of Sandwell. Here is yet another example of wholly inappropriate behaviour by him.
*************************************************************************************
Concealment of documents pursuant to a Subject Access Request
Subject Access Request of Julian Saunders dated 6th November, 2018
There was a gross delay in dealing with the Request. In 2019 Mr Saunders was involved in litigation with Sandwell Council. At one stage, the Monitoring Officer (presumably in his capacity as Head of Legal at the Council) instructed Messrs Howard Kennedy, Solicitors, of London to defend the potential legal action.
Mr Tour was well aware that Saunders was anxious to obtain the SAR results to bolster his potential claim. In view of the delay, Mr Saunders sought assistance from the Information Commissioner (IC). Tour was well aware that there were potential limitation issues in respect of Saunders’s potential claim which heightened any likely prejudice to him by delay and/or incomplete disclosure.
For reasons which have never been explained, Tour (now acting as Monitoring Officer) instructed Howard Kennedy to serve the SAR results on Saunders’s solicitors in the prospective litigation. Those solicitors were not instructed to accept service of the SAR documents but emailed Mr Saunders to ask for instructions. Unfortunately, Mr Saunders was on holiday and missed this email.
Saunders continued to press Sandwell Council directly and through the IC for disclosure which should have caused Sandwell to confirm that the documents had been sent to his solicitors.
Saunders was trying to avoid solicitors fees and kept contact with them to an absolute minimum. Eventually, in June, 2019 the solicitors asked Saunders what he wanted them to do with the four lever-arch folders that were sitting in their office. Saunders immediately collected the documents.
Upon examining the 4 files it became immediately apparent that Tour had only disclosed inter partes correspondence which Saunders had retained and was obviously aware of. Saunders formed the view that Tour had deliberately concealed documents from the SAR disclosure and had crudely attempted to hide his own culpability by “sub-contracting” the service to Howard Kennedy. Even if he is wrong on this, it is clear that Tour had, deliberately or otherwise, concealed relevant documentation. It is worth noting that Tour was very well aware that Saunders was also involved in litigation with a trade union representative and that Sandwell held disclosable documents relating to that case. This is hardly likely to have been coincidental as the importance of those documents to Saunders would have been immediately obvious to Tour.
On 17th June, 2019 Saunders wrote to the IC with copies to Tour and the (then) Leader of the Council, Cllr Davies:
“I have now received four lever arch folders of papers which purport to have been sent to me pursuant to my SAR. The disclosure is wholly inadequate.”
He went on to state specific classes of documents which had been omitted.
In October, 2019 Mr Stevens expedited disclosure of documents relating to the trade union case which Tour had failed to disclose. On 2nd December, 2019, he then served Mr Saunders with a large number of other documents which Tour had hitherto concealed.This was over one year from the original request.
It should be said here - and this will be fully chronicled elsewhere - that during the leadership of Cllr Davies, hundreds of documents were also suddenly “found” in respect of a number of Freedom of Information requests submitted by Mr Saunders. This shows that there was a deliberate policy of concealment of material documents to him rather than the odd “one-off” mistake.
*************************************************************************************
Dealing with other Complaints - McNally - Linda Clarke
(The links to the full story of the corrupt McNally litigation will be put up in due course.)
Complaint Handling - McNally - Linda Clarke
The unlawful funding and representation of Lisa McNally, Sandwell Council’s Director of Public Health, in a failed legal action which cost the taxpayer in excess of £100,000 is dealt with elsewhere. But there is some overlap here between the two subjects and the dates of communications are relevant here.
On 3rd January, 2021 a formal complaint was submitted to SMBC by Julian Saunders that Lisa McNally was involving herself in political debate and discussion when she was, by law, in a politically restricted post.
Having unlawfully decided to fund and represent McNally in a legal action against Saunders SMBC sent a Protocol Letter of Claim to him on 11th February, 2021.
At the end of February/beginning of March SMBC started a disastrous legal action against Saunders whose Solicitors applied to the High Court to strike out McNally’s malicious action as having no prospects of success. The application was listed for a hearing in London on 21st June, 2021.
At least four Solicitors at SMBC (Tour, Price, Lynch and Maher-Smith) were acting in concert to “support” McNally’s case (as detailed elsewhere and were confident that they would win the case and/or financially ruin Saunders in the process.
On 22nd February, 2021 Linda Clarke, who purports to be a Solicitor, sent the following response to the formal complaint of 3rd January, 2021.
“Dear Mr Saunders,
David Stevens has asked me to respond to your formal complaint against Lisa McNally, Sandwell’s Director of Public Health.
You begin by making allegations that Ms McNally has breached Regs 6 and 7(i) of the Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990. Your assertion is based upon her Tweet about teachers, school and childcare staff being prioritised in relation to the Covid-19 vaccination programme. As you are aware, in order to fall within those two regulations, the “speaking” or “written work” needs to, “intend to affect public support for a particular party”. Having reviewed the Tweet in question, I cannot see anything that indicates any intention, either expressly or implied, that meets this criteria. The Regs have therefore not been breached by Ms McNally.
You go on and make further allegations about Ms McNally regularly communicating with “virulent anti-Tory journalists” etc., but you provide no evidence in support of this. I do not think that it is incumbent on me to respond to such allegations where no evidence has been provided and where it appears to be a malicious and unjustified attempt by you to discredit her.
I would further advise you that if you are dissatisfied with this response, please let me know and I will progress it to stage 2 of our complaints procedure.
Kind regards
Linda”
It is highly improbable that Clarke was unaware at this stage of the pending litigation against Saunders. The merits of the actual complaint are immaterial here (and in the High Court McNally stated that whilst she is in a politically restricted post the law does not apply to her personally as she has a “duty” to speak out against what she perceives to be defects in [Tory] Government policy. And so Clarke took the opportunity not only to dismiss the complaint but to be gratuitously offensive in doing so, accusing Saunders of being “malicious” and seeking to “discredit” McNally - two themes of the pending litigation.
As with other SMBC lawyers - they do like to insult people and then sign-off “Kind Regards”!
I replied to Clarke on 22nd February, 2021, copying in Chief Executive David Stevens (subsequently sacked by SMBC):
“I strongly object to the tone of your email.
You have not asked for further evidence. The two journalists are Jane Haynes and George Makin.
I strongly object to the words that my complaint is a "malicious and unjustified attempt by you to discredit her.
Are those your words or those of the Chief Executive?
Would you care to repeat those words in public?”
Bearing in mind that Clarke sent her insults when she must have known legal action was imminent. She was quick to respond on 23rd February, 2021:
“Thank you for your email. I note that you are dissatisfied with the response that I sent you. As I said, you can request to escalate the Stage Two. I would advise you that you must specify the reasons for wanting to proceed to Stage Two. Simply stating that you are unhappy with the response received or just exercising the right to escalate to the next stage are not justified reasons to initiate a Stage Two investigation.
Here is the link to the Council’s Complaints Policy to assist you:
https://www.sandwell.gov.uk/downloads/file/3742/comments_complaints_and_compliments_procedure
Kind regards
Linda”
Saunders responded making Clarke’s original offensive tone the subject of a complaint in itself:
“I wasn't commenting about the response (yet) I was complaining about your insulting and abusive language.
Can we now log that as a formal complaint in its own right please (unless you were simply quoting the Chief Executive in which case please log the complaint about him).”
(It was obvious, by this stage, that David Stevens himself was heavily involved in the McNally conspiracy.)
The McNally hearing took place on 21st June. SMBC’s unlawfully funded QC was very poor on the day but the conspirators obviously fancied that they would still defeat the strike-out application. Thus Maria Price, one of at least four Solicitor conspirators in the McNally affair but who clearly did not perceive any professional issues in dealing with this matter herself, wrote this on 28th June, 2021 before the Court judgment was given:
“This matter was passed to me to review by David Stevens. I note that you have been allocated a single point of contact but, I will deal with you directly in relation to this matter.
You have requested that a formal complaint be made against Linda Walker for her dealing with another complaint that you made regarding a Council Officer, Lisa McNally.
You alleged that Linda’s dealing with your complaint used insulting and abusive language when she stated your complaint was not substantiated with evidence and “appears to be a malicious and unjustified attempt by you to discredit her” (referring to the council office concerned).
In considering the complaints procedure, Linda’s findings were clearly in relation to your complaint regarding the Council Officer. You were provided with an opportunity to appeal the stage one findings but chose not to do so.
The complaints procedure is explicit that “a complaint that has been previously investigated, responded to and concluded” will not be considered under the complaints procedure.
That said I have reviewed the correspondence between Linda and Yourself and the language used.
I am sorry that you feel that Linda’s correspondence was abusive and insulting.
In relation to whether the language used was abusive I find no evidence to support this assertion.
I then considered whether the language used was insulting to you. Having reviewed the conclusions I can appreciate why they may not be the conclusions that you were seeking but this does not mean that the conclusions were unfounded or insulting in nature.
Whilst making no finding in relation to the original allegations you raised I have considered the language that was used by Linda and I find that she was entitled as investigator to find that that the allegations appear to be malicious and unjustified in the absence of any evidence been presented to substantiate them. As such I will be closing this matter.
This now completes my review of this matter and I will not be progressing it any further.
Maria Price”
Price actually condones the words used by Clarke! There is no way she was in anyway “independent” in dealing with this supposed investigation and she features regularly in this dossier being prepared on her and Surjit Tour.
On 16th July, 2021 the High Court struck out McNally’s malicious and unlawfully funded case. The McNally conspiracy, in which Price herself was directly involved, collapsed.
Once again a supposedly proper investigatory process was improperly handled by Tour’s team due to an ongoing vendetta against Saunders, and infected with bias.
*************************************************************************************
Freedom of Information - Sandwell Monitoring Officer tries to unilaterally change the law!
When Surjit Tour does not like the law of the land he simply changes it at Sandwell Council. The corrupt Authority has shown utter contempt for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) for many years with impunity - despite the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) receiving numerous complaints and being fully aware of the position.
There have been gross delays in dealing with FOIA requests and the replies are usually wholly unsatisfactory. This entitles the requester to apply for an internal review within 40 days. Tour unilaterally changed this to 14 (fourteen) days and Tour's staff started rejecting valid review requests once that shortened period had expired.
For once the ICO was galvanised into action following a complaint and obliged Sandwell to comply with the law!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is a post from our associated blog, "Rotten Councils" dealing with Surjit Tour's abuse of non-legally-binding "Guidance" on standards cases from the LGA:
The Local Government Association (LGA) is an unaccountable “guild” involved in the administration of local government - yet it is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Its diktats are proving a boon for corrupt councils such as Labour’s Sandwell MBC in the West Midlands (currently in Government special measures).
Sandwell has a long history of deliberate concealment of information to hide its corrupt practices - including actively lying to the Information Commissioner and the Information Rights Tribunal. Solicitors at the Authority routinely delete email files and other documentation and then tell the ICO they are having difficulty “interrogating” the computer system to locate deleted files. The use of WhatsApp and other messaging services are extensively used by the paid service to conceal misconduct.
Two recent Chief Executives in Sandwell, Jan Britton and David Stevens, were forced out in disgrace although surely the UK’s most controversial Monitoring Officer (MO), Surjit Tour, currently remains in post despite pleas to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, and the Commissioners for his summary dismissal. Some of Tour’s handiwork can be seen in the Crow Multimedia Blog “As The Crow Flies” notably the ongoing post, “Monitoring the Monitoring Officer - a case study” at [this blog] and also in posts in this blog concerning his unlawful funding of an employee’s High Court action in respect of her personal Twitter account (which failed and cost the taxpayer £100,000).
The LGA “6-month” guidance for standards complaints
On 21st September, 2021 The LGA published guidance notes to “assist” Monitoring Officers and others dealing with Standards Complaints against councillors:
https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/guidance-member-model-code-conduct-complaints-handling
This “assistance” consisted of guidance to Monitoring Officers to “knock-back” complaints made later than six months from the incident complained of. It is very important to note that the LGA itself states that this helpful steer to bent councillors and Monitoring Officers is for guidance only and NOT a rule of law. Further, the MO should bear in mind any reasons why the complaint was “late” (by the LGA’s own definition) and specifically mentions the situation where the complainant has only recently been made aware of past matters of concern.
Tour’s interpretation of the “6-month” guidance:
Sandwell Labour Councillors Peter and Pam Hughes (husband and wife) became friendly with a property developer. Peter Hughes generally supported his proposed developments in his ward. He also was aware that planning permission had been granted to the developer to convert a large former industrial building into a residential care home and that soon after receiving planning permission this was unilaterally converted into flats for property rental, contrary to the original permission.
There is an ongoing investigation into the sale by the Council of a plot of land to the developer which Hughes is said to have supported. Peter Hughes certainly supported the erection of five bungalows on the plot (against overwhelming local opposition) and the planning permission was approved with Pam Hughes being on the planning committee (as she also was when the Committee approved amendments to the plans). Pam Hughes made no declarations of interest in respect of her and her husband’s lengthy dealings with the developer. She subsequently stood down from the Council so that, unfortunately, no standards complaint can be made against her.
As soon as the bungalows were built the Hughes’s moved in to one (on a rental basis).
At this time Tour was using s.32 Localism Act 2011 to unlawfully allow a host of the Labour councillors to conceal their home addresses and details of other property ownership from the public. Tour allowed them to redact this information in their Register of Interest entries on the basis of fallacious claims by the Councillors that they feared violence or intimidation - and he had presented this option to them as a method to avoid unfortunate disclosures.
Hughes was under no risk of violence etc., yet Tour permitted him to conceal his move to the new bungalow on the Register of Interests via s.32. As the property was rented it remained on the developer’s freehold entry for the site at HM Land Registry (which also included adjoining land) so that there was no indication of the Hughes’s occupancy of the brand-new property.
In late April, 2022 a local journalist became aware that Hughes was hiding his address and wrote to him. Hughes failed to reply and the journalist placed the information in the public domain pointing out that Hughes has no legal basis for s.32 protection. At this time the journalist was unaware that the Hughes’s had actually moved address. Following a tip-off in late June, the journalist attended the new bungalow on 1st July, 2022 and established that the Hughes’s were in residence. He then contacted the property developer who responded that the Hughes’s were renting the property and he was their landlord. The developer said he would respond to other queries when he returned from abroad but never did.
On 8th August, 2022 Hughes - having been publicly exposed - amended his Register of Interests to show his residence at the new bungalow (further evidence, if any was needed, that he was not, and never had been, in fear of violence/intimidation). When, in December, it became clear to the journalist that the developer was unlikely to respond further to him (despite assurances to the contrary) he submitted a standards complaint regarding, inter alia, (a) Hughes’s misuse of s. 32 to conceal his address, and (b) his failure to disclose his involvement with the developer during planning matters including relating to the bungalow he moved into. (By now, and as above, Pam Hughes was immune from a formal Complaint having left the Council.)
Surjit Tour (and Deputy Monitoring Officer Charmain Oliver) dismissed two of the complaints on the basis they were made over 6 months after the matter complained of: “Allegation 1 [and 2] is outside of the six month’s timescale to bring a complaint and should be progressed no further.” Incredibly, the (unidentified) Independent Person agreed with this absurd decision.
This is absolutely wrong. The journalist could not have known - and didn’t know - until the end of June that Hughes had moved into the bungalow. He made timely investigation including visiting the property on 1st July, 2022. The Complaint was made on 14th December, 2022 within 6 months of that “date of knowledge”. Further, Hughes and Tour had very deliberately concealed the fact the Hughes’s had moved into the bungalow until 8th August, 2022 when Hughes amended his Register of Interests so that, arguably, the six month period ran from that date. And the journalist had also made timely investigations with the property developer prior to making the complaint. Tour was part of the deliberate concealment of the facts until 8th August and the Complaint was made four and a half months thereafter.
This has all been totally disregarded by Tour, Oliver and the Independent Person and, in any event, their so-called “timescale” is, as above, for guidance and not a rule of law. Did the LGA imagine that corrupt councils would twist their guidance in this way? Perhaps they will now amend the guidance notes appropriately or (although this is improbable) the Government will step in to amend the legal framework surrounding the misuse of s.32 and the appropriate limitation periods for standards complaints. Clearly the Local Government Ombudsman should also be aware that corrupt councils are attempting to “game” the rules.To be continued ...
iancrowmultimedia@gmail.com
V1 - 04.12.21; V2 - 25.12.21; V3 - 28.02.22; V4 - 28.03.22; V5 - 24.04.22; V6 - 05.09.22; V7 - 15.08.23;
V8 - 04.01.24; V9 - 21.01.25.
