Benefits Chaos in Lambeth as Council Looks to End Private Contract

Lambeth cuts short £48m Capita deal

Steven Morris – Monday July 2, 2001

Lambeth council has severed its £48m contract with a private firm to run its benefits operation, just days after the failure of a similar contract in Hackney led to the threat of government intervention.

The decision by the Labour-run Lambeth to cut short its contract with Capita Business Services is being seen as the latest example of a flawed public-private partnership.

Last week, Hackney’s failed benefits contract with another private computer company – ITnet – prompted local government secretary Stephen Byers to threaten to take control of the council’s finances.

Lambeth claims its benefits service has deteriorated since Capita’s seven-year contract began in 1997. It says the problems peaked in April last year when it faced 55,000 outstanding queries and the quality of the service remains “unacceptable”.

A report from the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) published earlier this week concluded that there was a need for radical improvement in most areas.

After a special meeting to discuss the partnership, Lambeth announced it was “cutting short” its contract. From today, 175 staff previously employed by Capita to run housing and council tax benefit services will be “welcomed back” to the council.

Council leader Tom Franklin conceded it would be “some months” before Lambeth taxpayers began to see a difference, but claimed the authority had inherited a “very challenging position”.

However, Capita claimed that it had inherited a backlog of more than 100,000 cases, which was now down to 26,500 and continuing to fall.

Paddy Doyle, Capita Group Operations director, said: “Capita is handing back a much-improved housing benefits service to Lambeth, and will continue to provide the council with key support.

“Capita has worked hard to achieve these service improvements and to enhance customer care for claimants. Now that the service is in a stable and improving state, the council has decided that they wish to take over the management of the service at this point, to oversee future delivery and modification of the service,” he said.

Capita will be retained for IT support and for its call centre service at Coventry, as well as the collection of Lambeth’s council tax and non-domestic rates. A spokesman for the council said a new structure had been established and a new “file tracker” system installed to ensure that files and post do not go missing.

Labour has championed public-private partnerships but has been embarrassed by a series of botched IT projects. Only this week it emerged that government plans to speed up the criminal justice system were in disarray after a £319m computer scheme was delayed indefinitely because of mounting costs.

Ministers have been embarrassed by the failure of a £100m caseworking system for the immigration and nationality directorate, built by the German company, Siemens Business Services.

There were also problems with a new £230m system for issuing passports and in November 1999 the Home Office admitted that 13 of its 17 IT projects were behind schedule or over budget.

Capita is a favoured “outsourcing” company. Recently it won a £100m contract to provide a one-stop shop access to Croydon’s council services and last year signed a £400m contract to set up and administer the criminal records bureau for the Home Office.


Taking the Shine off Pinnacle's Glossy Picture

Roger Tayor of JSS Pinnacle paints a glossy picture of how the company could secure more work for its profit-driven ventures (Inside Housing June 15). The reality of its existing operations in the Shoreditch Neighbourhood in Hackney is more prosaic. Despite being in the area for over two years, it has failed to significantly improve the performance of Shoreditch neighbourhood (judging by the published key performance indicators) in relation to the rest of the housing management service.

Readers need no reminding that Hackney Council provides the most expensive service which is substantially below par, so JSS Pinnacle does not realy have to try very hard to do better.

In addition, it allegedly managed to overspend its repairs budget by around £600,000. The council, without consulting other residents, decided to generously allow JSS Pinnacle to pay back that deby over two years. This year, again without specifically consulting residents (the item was hidden in a turgid committee report), the council agreed to wipe the slate clean, as it would take too long to pay back and damage Shoreditch tenants’ interests.

This is an interesting point. When JSS Pinnacle make profits, the company gets to keep its ‘return’ on capital, they are not spread round the borough. When it allegedly overspends, the council spreads the losses over the HRA [the name of the budget for day-to day spending oncouncil housing]. Is it possible to know what JSS Pinnacle really makes on its Hackney operation? My advice to others is don’t touch them with a bargepole.

John Calderon. Chair, Dalston Neighbourhood Panel.
Tenant leader and the Chair of the former Hackney Tenants Federation (FOHTRA) takes the fight into the house journal of the housing professionals, Inside Housing, 6 July


Council to Close and Privatise Nurseries

News from the Hackney Fightback campaign –

3 Hackney Council nurseries (Fernbank, St. Johns & Wetherall) have been recommended for closure and/or privatisation in a recent Best Value draft proposal. Two community nurseries are also to lose their council funding and thus face closure.

As predicted in the last Hackney Independent and backed up this week in the Hackney Gazette, the council are planning a massive round of sell-offs of council property. Part of this plan is to get rid of Atherdon Nursery in Laura Place , which has been occupied by protesters since its closure, but other nurseries and day centres are all under threat too

MEETING TO DEFEND HACKNEY NURSERIES
Thursday 28th June 5.15pm @ St.Johns Nursery


Hackney For Sale


ITNet Payouts – Not Likely!

letter printed in Hackney Gazette 17th May

Your report last week that Hackney Council plan to take ITNet to court for £30 million damages might have cheered a few of your readers up, but think about this; ITNet have in fact increased their turnover again this year, despite their obvious failures in Hackney, and look set to win more contracts for their “outsourcing” work, meanwhile the agony goes on for those left waiting for payments and threatened with eviction.

Thousands of Hackney residents have been affected by this fiasco – most of them on low incomes and already feeling the pinch – but who will pay for it all? Who decided to sign a contract with ITNet and why did it take so long for the council to respond? Will the real victims of this scandal get any compensation? Don’t hold your breath.

Dan Carter
Hackney IWCA


Ombudsman Recommends Payout for Benefits Victim

The local government Ombudsman has ruled that a woman who suffered delays and denials from both Hackney Council and ITNet is entitled to a payout of £250 to compensate her for her troubles. The woman, who submitted the appropriate documents for her Housing Benefit claim, was left waiting for months, and only received payment after a complaint to the Ombudsman.

While the amount is hardly a fair reflection of what many people go through, it is clear that the work Hackney Independent has put in through groups like Whose Benefit? and our advice surgeries in Shoreditch, are producing some results for local people who have been snubbed by the Council and messed around by a company like ITNet that should stick to working with computers rather than people.


Arden Estate Hit By Arson

A report in this week’s Hackney Gazette highlights the issue of anti-social behaviour on Shoreditch’s Arden Estate. The paper tells us that the “vandalism-plagued council estate has suffered its third arson attack in two weeks” when underground garages, which have been disused for a number of years, were set on fire, probably by “gangs of kids who maraud around the estate vandalising cars and buildings”.

Shoreditch Sector Working Group member, Adam Richards is quoted as saying “There are a lot of alleyways and the poice don’t patrol them. Their main concern is the drug and gun problems in Dalston…” while TA chair Audrey Villas says “We’ve been asking for resources to get (the garages) fixed up but the council has no money.”

Anti-social behaviour of this type is exactly what Hackney IWCA (Hackney Independent as of summer 2004) has been working on as an issue in this part of Hackney, and this week we are holding another community meeting which brings in two blocks of the Arden Estate along with the Geffrye Estate. Work has already begun on identifying the problems faced by tenants in the area and proposals have been put forward by both Hackney IWCA, the TA and individual tenants.

Clearly, the issue is not a simple one to solve, otherwise it would have been dealt with, but we have to look at why working class communities suffer disproportionately from vandalism, intimidation and drug-related problems. As many tenants will point out, the young people responsible for a lot of this behaviour have no facilities of their own – few youth clubs or sports facilities in particular – but it would be naive to think that if a youth club opened the problem would disappear overnight; a co-ordinated community-led response that isolates the troublemakers and at the same time fights for facilities in the area seems to be the only way we can move this issue forward.

This is why Hackney IWCA is looking at all available options to combat the problem, not just in Hackney but in Islington too. The proposals and problems can be seen in the Hackney Independent Stanway edition which is online later this week.


Hackney Council Set To Sue ITNet?

A report in this week’s Hackney Gazette suggests that Hackney Council may be lining up a damages claim of up to £30 million against incompetent “outsourcing” specialists ITNet. Regular visitors to the Hackney Independent website will know of our long-standing campaign against the “benefits bunglers” (copyright Hackney Gazette) and support for those affected by the firm’s catastrophic performance in the borough and elsewhere.

The Gazette reports that Hackney Council have already had to take out a High Court injunction for “essential data after ITNet wanted an additional payment of £439,000 to deliver the information”. Hackney Council also claim that they have had to spend over half a million pounds since the firm was sacked, just to keep the service running.

ITNet are obviously feeling slightly sheepish about their failures in Hackney as they make several veiled references to the situation in their annual report (“a challenging year” etc.) but turnover is growing at over £158 million (profits dropped apparently). And despite the fact Bridget Blow (director) took home £50 thousand less this year than last (our hearts bleed for her), she still managed a tidy £235 thousand (and don’t forget those two and a quarter million shares ).

If Hackney Council is serious about taking ITNet to court then good luck to them, but what about the thousands of working class Hackney residents who have been victims of this scandal – will we get compensation too? Unlikely.


Crooked Councillors Sent Down

Two Hackney councillors convicted of electoral fraud – according to some reports the biggest fraud in British electoral history – have been sent to jail. Isaac Leibowitz (Conservative) and Zev Lieberman (Lib Dem) were convicted of forgery and conspiracy to defraud and given sentences of 6 and 4 months respectively.

In the murky world of Hackney politics, it hardly comes as a surprise that the big parties are up to no good behind the scenes and might serve as a reminder to local campaigners in the area that we shouldn’t expect the middle class parties to play fair when their political futures are at stake. Of course, the biggest electoral fraud of all is that the major parties can claim to represent Hackney’s working class majority.


Labour Halves Social Housing

From Housing Today, 12/4/01:

Labour has halved social housing construction and doubled the rate of transfers since ousting the Conservatives in 1997. This finding emerged in a pre-election analysis of the three main parties’ housing plans for the Housing Quality Network. Consultant Tim Dwelly noted in his report that in 1997 Labour gave no pledge on investment in new homes and no housebuilding targets. “That is just as well, as the government has built half as many scial housing units as the last Conservative administration,” he wrote. Dwelly notes that stock transfer has more than doubled under New Labour.

“Labour did not pledge in 1997 to ‘halve housebuilding and double privatisation’ but that it what it has done,” he told network members. All three parties gave little space to housing in their last general election manifestos. Dwelly argues that it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the view of parties’ strategists is, “we are all home owners now, except you lot that don’t really vote. “He said it is “hard to identify any major battlegrounds on housing between Labour and the Tories.”

Note: the Housing Quality Network is entirely made up of professional housing managers – there are no tenants or community activists involved. This, for once, is an honest view from the inside of the housing world.