Hounslow Homes Tucker Report - detailed queries
Tucker Report of Independent Investigation into Hounslow Homes DLOQueries regarding published version of report The Tucker Report into Hounslow Homes covers a range of misdeeds and incompetence by staff stretching back several years from 2013. The council has been unable to bring any criminal charges against anyone despite substantial reports of fraud being provided to Mr Tucker. In one case a fraudster was allowed to resign and thus could not be disciplined and sacked, in what Tucker reveals was clearly a bad mistake by Hounslow Homes HR. But it wasn’t just criminal behaviour by staff that was going wrong. The whole organisation was clearly very badly run and yet CE Bernadette O’Shea was allowed to depart with what we estimate was over £300k in redundancy and extra pension benefits rather than facing any kind of disciplinary action. This is on top of what we estimate to be the £2.3m losses from mismanagement and fraud. The ICG has prepared a list of questions below about how Hounslow Homes was run which you can copy and paste and send to your local councillor. You’ll need to refer to the report, a copy of which I can send you if you privately message me or email the icg on icg@community.org. The report was on the council’s website at one point but is not easily found. 1. Section 1 Introduction Para 1.4 –• Why was a measure of productivity not introduced regarding the increased number of agency operatives? • Why did managers not anticipate the requirement of resources necessary to do this and create resources accordingly? 2. Section 2 Executive Summary Para 2.3• How did managers try to establish proper oversight in the running of the DLO? Why was this so unsuccessful that the organisation was ‘reluctant to identify and repudiate wrongdoing’?• Why did managers ignore the issue of high earnings not being justified via a productivity scheme and why did they not challenge or reform the defunct scheme? • Did finance managers try to establish why members of staff who ‘rocked’ the boat found themselves former employees? Was this not obvious through payroll and salary cost records? Para 2.7• Why did finance managers overlook the principle that the DLO was supposed to operate in a commercially viable manner and cover its costs through income generated? • Why were the usual checks and balances associated with trading account reconciliation of cost, income and productivity not in place? 3. Section 3 Summary of Investigation Findings. Para 3.4• What procedure is there to ensure proper write-offs of materials? Was this followed in the instance referred to in the paragraph? Para 3.5• Given the extremely sensitive nature of this issue ( expected disciplinary action for fraud) , what action was taken to ensure that the correct procedure was followed in the case of the serious HR error regarding the suspect member of staff’s disciplinary? When the employee was allowed to quit instead of being sacked, was any disciplinary action taken against the member of staff who made the error? 4. Strategic Direction Para 4.1 • Why did managers allow a situation to develop whereby the organisation expanded into other areas of work ‘without effective controls in place to ensure accountability’? • Why did they allow a situation whereby there was no testing as to whether the new work could be undertaken at a profit? • Why did they not ensure labour and material costs were actively managed and productivity measured (section 4.9) to avoid the situation of spiralling costs? Para 4.2 • Why did managers allow a situation to develop whereby decisions were made autocratically and without openness and effective scrutiny? • Why did managers allow a situation to develop whereby ‘critical analysis and evaluation of performance had been compromised and subordinated to a question of loyalty to the party line’? • Why did managers allow a situation to develop whereby ‘the management arrangements within the DLO had been consciously dismantled?’ • Why did managers allow a situation to develop whereby ‘there was a hectoring and threatening approach’ to management, and ‘unrealistic demands and targets’ were set? • Why did the managers allow a situation to occur where Performance figures were manipulated so that they showed a positive trend? Why did the managers not introduce something akin to the new suite of performance indicators now being recommended? • Why did managers allow a situation to occur where disclosure or speaking to officers outside of the DLO was condemned as disloyalty? • Why did the managers allow a situation to occur whereby budgets were only made available to a certain officer(s) and thus inconvenient matters and issues possibly subject to challenge could be concealed? • Why did managers not encourage ‘an atmosphere of openness, honesty and transparency’, as is now believed necessary under the new management team? Para 4.3• Why did the managers not prevent the employment of staff with extended family connections within the DLO? • Were managers aware of this happening? What efforts did they make to ensure core public service values of equality of opportunity and modern management standards were being adhered to? • Did managers carry out their responsibility to challenge and eliminate such favouritism? • Why did managers not ensure the Code of Conduct was promoted and supported? • Why did managers not ensure that management meetings and contract meetings were minuted? • Why did the managers not ensure that one to ones and appraisals were properly documented? Section 4.4• What action did managers take to ensure the Systems Thinking project was selected and implemented properly and that the problems outlined by the para 4.4.1 did not occur? Section 4.5 • What action did managers take to review the high cost of materials and prevent the misappropriation of stock? • The difference between the 39% of turnover that the £6.5m cost of materials in the report represents, and the industry average of 25% implies that £2.3m worth of materials has been used inefficiently or misappropriated. Is this analysis correct and how many financial years are represented by these figures? Does this figure not represent over £175 per council dwelling household in the borough? Section 4.6• Why did managers not arrange for checks and audits to be performed on the performance monitoring data for the contracts? Has any estimate been done as to the loss to the council from this? • What action did managers take to ensure that procurement practice should be undertaken to ensure it matched and supported strategic objectives and is in accordance with procurement law? Section 4.7• Why did managers not arrange for the DLO to meet ‘important business process’ requirements across a wide range of the DLO’s activities? • Why was the repairs contact centre not ‘fit for purpose’? • Why did the managers allow incidents like the huge changes in job prices and materials costs occur? • Why did managers not ensure that the ‘inexperienced administrator’ referred to in section 4.7 was fully trained up and imbued with skills equivalent to their predecessor? • Why did managers preside over a situation where the trading account was largely hidden in the Hounslow Homes DLO? Why did the council’s own Director of Finance not take charge of this situation? Section 4.8• Why did managers allow a situation to occur whereby operative pay levels were very high in comparison with other London DLOs, and the productivity scheme be suspended? Why were these pay levels not benchmarked? • Why did managers allow a situation to occur whereby staff were appointed outside the agency framework and the DLO was paying £790 per week for inexperienced staff? Section 4.9• Why did senior management allow the service to expand without ensuring the service was delivering effectively on its core business? • Why did managers neglect the issues that the report suggests the review of agency labour addresses? Section 4.11• Why did managers not devise a clear strategy for the commissioning of an approved subcontractor supply chain? Section 5.3• Why did managers not ensure the security of stocks? Section 5.5• Whose responsibility was it to ensure any discount due from Right-to-buy sell-ons was repaid? • Was this done in the case referred to in Section 5.5? Section 6• Which manager, referred to as ’ineffectual’ and ‘powerless’, was primarily responsible for the ‘managerial failings’ referred to? • Why did managers allow a siege mentality to develop such that information and budgets were concentrated in the wrong hands? • Why did the Director of Finance not properly ‘protect public resources’? General • Given the mismanagement evident from the report, why was Bernadette O’Shea allowed to depart on early retirement (costing upward of an estimated £300k) and not subject to disciplinary proceedings for negligence/gross misconduct?
Ian Speed ● 3969d0 Comments