Community news and investigative journalism for Wapping E1W and Tower Hamlets London

Findings of Tower Hamlets Corruption ‘Clean Up’ Investigations Published

The findings of the Tower Hamlets corruption ‘Clean Up’ investigations have been formally presented at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday 27th June and will be presented to the Council next week.

Original allegations are wide ranging but include Youth Services, misuse of the RIPA Act, misuse of council credit cards, electoral fraud, fabrication of evidence and the former Mayor’s communications advisors.

The findings are published in their entirety on the Council website. Publication was promised by Mayor John Biggs before the Clean Up team began work last year.

Links to the relevant documents and a brief overview of the high-level findings are given below.

Corruption Clean Up Report Documents

Summary of Corruption Clear Up Team Report Findings

Please read original documentation on Tower Hamlets Council website for full details.

Case Ref No Summary of Allegation Dates Finding
CU 017 Former Mayor’s communications advisors
Allegation that the former Mayor employed communications advisors and that (i) there appears to be limited evidence available regarding what services they delivered for the payments made; and (ii) the payments ended suddenly when the Commissioners were appointed.
2010-2015 Upheld
CU 021 Purchase Card Fraud
Allegation that the system of checks and balances for Council issued credit card/purchase cards is weak and open to fraud.
No specific dates Upheld
CU 022 Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Checks and Referral Processes
Allegation that Council systems for DBS checks have been historically weak and that these weaknesses persist. Allegation that the Council does not refer dismissed individuals to the DBS.
No specific dates Upheld
CU 023 Youth Service Summer Programme 2016
Allegation that in relation to the Summer Youth Programme 2016 (“SYP16”):
(i) procurement procedures were not followed for the Evaluation Panel decision;
(ii) providers delivering the programme were not monitored effectively; and
(iii) providers did not deliver what they were paid for.
May-August 2016 Upheld
CU 027 Weaknesses in HR services
General allegation of past and present weaknesses across the Council’s HR services, including:
– HR policies and inconsistencies in how these are applied;
– How CHAD (combatting harassment and discrimination) and grievances are investigated; frustration of disciplinary investigations within HR and leakage of information; and
– Inappropriate pay-offs.
During Clear Up period Upheld
CU 006 Sale of Council Property – 31 Turner Street
Allegation that the property was placed for sale and then removed from sale, despite bids being received offering the asking price, without proper Cabinet approvals, and that a friend of the former-Mayor was one of the bidders. Allegation that this issue has been covered up and not resolved.
2014 Partially Upheld
CU 009 ‘Cover up’ or failure to investigate alleged grant fraud by a local Mosque
Allegation that a referral to the Council’s Corporate Investigations Team (with the Risk & Audit Service) alleging misuse of lunch club grants by a Mosque, which was also linked to Council officers, was suppressed or not followed up.
Allegation that findings in the referral were leaked to the Mosque by a
Council officer which resulted in threats being made.
2015-2016 Partially Upheld
CU 011 ‘Cover up’ of findings relating to a local community organisation in receipt of lunch club grants Allegation that an Internal Audit Report issued in 2015, which raised concerns about misuse of grants awarded to the community organisation was covered up or not acted upon.
The report was said to contain findings relating to the misuse of grants and threats made by Council officers to Grants officers, as well as poor conduct by a Member allegedly influencing the grants process.
2015 Partially Upheld
CU 012 ‘Cover up’ of findings relating to a local youth club
Allegation that an audit into this local youth club receiving Council funds was covered up or suppressed in some way.
Oct/Nov 2015 Partially Upheld
CU 013 ‘Cover up’ of investigation report into a local organisation that received Council grants
Allegation that concerns with a local organisation were raised but were covered up/not acted upon.
The concerns surrounded misuse of grants and untoward involvement by a Member, as well as an allegation of extremist material being found on the organisation’s Facebook page.
2015 Partially Upheld
CU 018 Fraudulent Payment
Allegation that a payment was made by the Council to a local organisation with no goods or services provided to the Council in return. The organisation then made a payment of the amount less
£1,000 to a different organisation and retained the £1,000 as a payment for having completed the transactions. Allegation that this series of payments happened twice.
March 2012 Partially Upheld
CU 019 Excessive payment to a Council supplier
Allegation that excessive payments were made to a catering company in early 2014 and in April 2015 for a quantity and value of food that was not provided to the Council.
2014 and 2015 Partially Upheld
CU 024 Weakness in Council’s timesheets for overtime and zero hours contracts
Allegation that officers routinely claim for work they have not done, especially when they are working across two service areas as there is no way for managers to check on one system whether they are claiming twice. Allegation of weaknesses in checks and balances, and potential fraud involving managers.
Allegation focussed on Youth Service but extended to the whole Council.
Historic and ongoing Partially Upheld
CU 025 Allegation concerning Youth Service Officers
Allegation that (1) a Youth Service officer has failed to declare an interest with a youth club and that (2) another former officer who was dismissed from the Council works with this organisation.

Allegation that (3) a Youth Service officer was recruited into the Council without a proper DBS check, and that this individual may have changed their name by deed poll in advance of joining to cover up past issues that may have prevented them being employed.

Allegation (4) of officers failing to declare interests in a local youth club [no names supplied].

Suggestion (5) of wider problems in the
Youth Service and potentially across the Council overall in declarations of interest and DBS checks and referrals.

No dates supplied Partially Upheld
CU 035 Recruitment to a Council Grants Team
Allegation that a recruitment panel member in Adult Services was – for no obvious reason – excluded from a recruitment panel. Another panel member in Adult Services then interviewed an applicant for a Grants Lunch Club Officer and appointed the candidate. The interviewer had informed a Council officer that the candidate’s name had been provided by a Member. Allegation that the Council ‘bent the rules’ on recruitment to appoint this person following influence by a Member. The candidate was subsequently responsible for signing off grants and monitoring delivery.
End 2012 Partially Upheld
CU 047 Electoral wrongdoing
(i) That the counting of ballot papers for the Lansbury Ward at the May 2014 election was manipulated as a result of counters swapping desks, intimidation of counters by observers, and a Presiding Officer counting a ballot box that they had been responsible for in
the polling station, and that there were insufficient supervisors for the number of counters.
(ii) That a specific error on the electoral roll identified during the 2012 London Mayoral election was not corrected by the Electoral Services team.
2012 and 2014 Partially Upheld
CU 002 Conversion of the Ben Jonson Road Retail Units from 8 to 16 units Allegation that the decision to convert the retails units gave an unfair advantage to specific individuals who would not have been able to pay the rent otherwise, and that this decision went against the residents’ wishes. Allegation the decision was then effectively ‘reversed’ in June 2016 when it was agreed that 3 of the units would be leased to a supermarket with a six month rent free period. Allegation that both of these decisions resulted in a financial loss to tax payers and that an intention to benefit certain individuals had caused this situation. April 2013 and June
2016
Rejected
CU 003 Dorset Library closure and transfer Allegation that this asset was handed to a community association by the Borough’s former Mayor in 2011 or
2012, and now runs as a Mosque thereby excluding many residents on the estate.
2012 and ongoing Rejected
CU 004 Dorset Library closure and transfer Allegation that the library was closed and then transferred without any consultation in 2011 or 2012, with the asset being put up for bid as a business concern and awarded to a community association with a five year contract to
2017. Allegation that upkeep on the property is paid for by local taxes, and that there has been investment, but that other local groups are excluded, and
not invited to the AGM.
2012 and ongoing Rejected
CU 007 Sale of Passmore Edwards Library Allegation that (i) Limehouse Library was sold at less than market value; and (ii) that the use of Limehouse Library has changed from restaurant to student housing; and that these events have occurred as a result of corruption in the Council. 2012 Rejected
CU 010 ‘Cover up’ of an investigation report into a local community organisation Allegation that an investigation report into grant funding for a local community organisation was not acted upon or covered up in the case of potential
fraud involving officers.
Sept 2015 Rejected
CU 015 Suppression of an investigation following collective grievance concerning a former Head of Service Allegation that an Investigation Report issued in September 2014 as the result of a collective grievance against the then Head of Community Language Services, was suppressed at the former Mayor’s request.
Allegation that a further investigation was deliberately commissioned as part of this cover up, which produced different conclusions. In the meantime, the Head of Service had left the Council through Voluntary Early Retirement.
A subsequent review of the Service by
Mazars awarded “Nil Assurance”
2014/15 Rejected
CU 016 Behaviour of the committee of a local Mosque
Allegation concerning the behaviour of the committee of a local Mosque in relation to a planning application and other matters.
Summer
2016
Rejected
CU 026 Drug and Alcohol Team funded organisations
Allegation that there were widespread problems in the Drug and Alcohol Team including organisations receiving sums of money from the Council without proper checks to ensure outcomes
were delivered, problems with Disclosure and Barring Service checks and failure of officers to make declarations of interests.
During Clear Up period Rejected
CU 028 Improper Recruitment of Officers Allegation that Officers have been recruited without proper recruitment processes being followed, often under pressure from Members, and resulting in Members having ‘plants’ in key service areas. No specific dates Rejected
CU 029 Employment Options Programme Allegation that individuals who should have been subject to disciplinary proceedings were allowed to leave through the Employment Options Programme with a pay settlement. 2014 – 2015 Rejected
CU 030 Failure to refer an officer to the
Police
Allegation that an officer in the Youth Service has been recently dismissed, and whilst this should have been a Police matter the Council chose not to act, suggesting potential cover up Officer was allegedly involved in writing funding proposals for organisations that did not exist; this included writing false proposals for politicians. Allegation that this individual and possibly others benefitted financially from this alleged fraud.
2015-16 Rejected
CU 031 Officer actions during the Election Court Hearing and how these matters were looked into by the Council

Allegation that:

i) a Communications Support Officer attended a court hearing in private by saying that they worked for a newspaper (East End Life – a Council paper). Complainant states that this matter was looked at by a Senior Officer in Communications
ii) A former Officer in the Mayor’s Office was investigated for tweets sent from the Election Court which were then passed on to supporters of the former Mayor who then sent them out ‘pretending’ it was from them. Complainant states that the former Democratic Service Head and former HR Head looked into this matter.
The allegation is that both of these matters should have been looked into by someone who is not in the chain of command at the Council.

March/April
2015
Rejected
CU 032 Fabrication of evidence in order to dismiss staff
Allegation that two Senior Managers fabricated evidence in a RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
2000) application.
2014-2015 Rejected
CU 033 Misuse of RIPA
Allegation that a spurious investigation was conducted into several members of staff, with a false statement made to obtain authority under The Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).
2014-2015 Rejected
CU 034 Cost of a Parks and Open Spaces consultant
Allegation that a consultant was paid for Council work that was not needed to be undertaken at that level and that could have been handled by Council staff.
From April
2016
Rejected
CU
038
Social Workers used for political purposes and to victimise complainants and whistle-blowers Allegation that Council social workers have been used for political purposes and to victimise complainants and whistle-blowers, with the former Mayor and their associates rewarding supporters by appointing them to the Social Services department. In turn some social workers have colluded in unprofessional targeting of certain individuals for reasons of intimidation and to discredit complaints. No dates supplied Rejected
CU 039 Staff involvement in May 2014
Election activities
That in May 2014:
(i) individuals from the Youth Service were involved in both canvassing (with the intention of falsifying the Register of Electors) and in campaigning for certain candidates;
(ii) individuals from the Youth Service were employed at Polling stations to alter voting; and
(iii) individuals from the Youth Service were employed at the electoral count with the intention of falsifying the election count; and
(iv) that the same individuals referred to in point (i) above were also involved in timesheet fraud.
Lead up to
May 2014
Rejected
CU 040 Allegation covering the same matters as CU039 (above) . Lead up to
May 2014
Rejected
CU 041 Editing of Audit Reports relating to the Youth Service
Allegation that Audits of the Youth Service in 2015 and 2016 were edited prior to them being finalised, with some important facts being removed.
Feb – March
2016
Rejected
CU 048 St Peters Ward Local Councillor election May 2014
Allegation that, at the first count, a Labour candidate received 2,270 votes. A recount was ordered, allegedly by the former Mayor.
The complainant reports that the next day the new figure for the candidate was 1,680 – a reduction of 590 votes. The candidate was not elected as a Ward Councillor. The complainant alleges that election officials colluded.
May 2014 Rejected
CU 049 Fraudulent housing allocations Allegation that a supporter of the former Mayor boasted that they were given social housing as a reward for their services Dec 2014 Rejected
CU 051 Fraud in collection of business rates Allegation that businesses renting shop units at New Providence Wharf have
not had to pay rent and/or business rates to the Council and instead these funds have been diverted to organisations linked to the former Mayor.
During Clear Up period Rejected
CU 052 Council property service charge fraud
Allegation that a number of individuals who have purchased leasehold ex- Council properties/flats have not had to pay services charges once the properties have been let to council house tenants – as a result of fraudulent activity by officers on the instruction of the former Mayor. One company name provided.
c.2013 Rejected
CU 053 Allegation of favouritism in the provision of ‘crisis grants’
Allegation that there has been favouritism for a number of years to certain groups on race/religious
grounds in the provision of ‘crisis loans’. Allegation that many genuine cases have been turned down because of
their race / religion.
During Clear Up period Rejected
CU 054 Allegation of collusion between Council Senior Officer and the Police Allegation that two former Senior Officers of the Council had links to the local Police, and would influence the Police at the instruction of the former Mayor. Allegation of misfeasance in public office, by using contacts in the Police to harass individuals who were political enemies or complainants of the former Mayor. No dates supplier Rejected
CU 055 Council budgets misappropriated and provided to organisations with extremist views.
Allegation that council funds from a number of budgets, including the housing budget had been held back under the instruction of the ex-Mayor.

Further allegation that public money had been defrauded from the Council by several organisations in receipt of grant funding and sent to terrorist groups.

2012-2014 Rejected
CU 056 Fraud at Tower Hamlets Homes Various allegations of fraud within Tower Hamlets Homes. No dates supplied Rejected
CU 057 Failure to conduct a fair disciplinary process
Allegation of improper behaviour in relation to several individuals and of procedural failings in connection with a harassment and discrimination complaint against an individual, an alleged unfair disciplinary investigation process and a flawed appeal.
2013-2016 Rejected
CU 058 Treatment of a local resident Allegation that a local resident and business owner had been made bankrupt by the Council on the basis of non-compliance with County Court Judgements (CCJ’s) despite having paid all outstanding claims. Further allegation that this event and previous/subsequent harassment by officials working for the Council and East End Homes Ltd (EEH) stemmed from a personal issue with a former Respect Party member and friend of
the former Mayor.
Allegation that complaints made by the resident have not been taken seriously and have been dismissed.
2004 onwards Rejected
CU 059 Improper Council decision making in relation to ‘Rich Mix’ S106 funds and litigation
A decision taken by the Strategic
Development Committee (“SDC”) in
2010 to allocate funds to Rich Mix Cultural Foundation (“Rich Mix”) was not in the best interests of tax payers, and the decision should properly have been made through grant-making procedures and not by the SDC. The decision was influenced by Members having personal connections with Trustees of Rich Mix.

Individual Mayoral Decision 101 on 18
June 2015 was not in the best interests of tax payers due to a lack of information and was made in a secretive way.

A Member who had a conflict of interests was involved in discussions relating to the matter during an Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.

2010 and
2015
Rejected
CU 061 Allegation of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice / collusion in respect of investigations into Youth Service
In May 2016 Cllr Rachael Saunders stated to Council that around 75 investigations were underway into actions of staff in the Youth Services team. Complainant alleges there will be no prosecutions of any Youth Services staff as a result of evidence being “incorrectly packaged” and the Metropolitan Police Service not forwarding the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Council’s response to FOI 6081379 stated that the MPS informed the Council that the
reason for the MPS not proceeding with criminal prosecutions was because there was “Insufficient evidence to proceed”.
Allegation is that (i) Council Officers have lied to Council Members (not specified which) regarding the reasons for there being no prosecutions of
Youth Service staff; and (ii) that there is collusion between Council Officers and the MPS to bury evidence.
2016 Rejected
CU 062 Blocking of enquiries
Allegation that a former Senior Officer of the Council repeatedly blocked internal and external enquiries into wrongdoing at Tower Hamlets Council and Tower Hamlets Homes.
Specific allegation relating to an incident in November 2013 when three individuals purporting to be from Tower Hamlets Homes knocked on the door of a resident asking how the former Mayor could help, and of an alleged blocked enquiry into this event.
November
2013
Rejected
CU 063 Allegations of fraud

(1) Photocopying of postal votes, obtaining grants and housing benefit fraud
Allegation of an individual photocopying postal votes during an election. Allegation that the individual has obtained grants for a local organisation. Allegation that this individual claims housing benefit fraudulently.

(2) Allegation of fraud involving a local organisation
Allegation that members of an organisation with alleged extremist views have taken over the organisation from more moderate members of the community. Allegation of fraudulent activities of obtaining grants and monies raised in this organisation being used to fund other activities.

No dates given – asserted to be during Clear Up period Rejected
CU 064 Allegations of fraud

(1) Photocopying of postal votes, obtaining grants and housing benefit fraud
Allegation of an individual photocopying postal votes during an election. Allegation that the individual has obtained grants for a local organisation. Allegation that this individual claims housing benefit fraudulently.

(2) Allegation of fraud involving a local organisation
Allegation that members of an organisation with alleged extremist views have taken over the organisation from more moderate members of the community. Allegation of fraudulent activities of obtaining grants and monies raised in this organisation being used to fund other activities.

No dates given – asserted to be during Clear Up period Rejected
CU 065 Wrongdoing concerning the Council’s Rapid Response Team Allegation of drug taking, drinking, and postal vote fraud involving the Rapid Response Team. Early 2014 Rejected
CU 001 Formation of Tower Hamlets Homes Allegation that Tower Hamlets Homes was formed to remove Council responsibility for housing problems and at a loss to the taxpayer. Pre-Clear
Up Period
Out of Scope
CU 005 Improper Council disposal of Calder’s Wharf / Calder’s Wharf Community Centre assets Allegation that these community
facilities were inappropriately disposed of by the Council.
Pre-Clear
Up Period
Out of Scope
CU 008 Council housing fraud Allegation that a property in the Borough was gained through a family member’s links to the Council. No dates given Out of Scope
CU 020 Use of Community Centres for Ward surgeries
Allegation that Ward surgeries held by a Member did not take place, and/or that excessive amounts were being charged.
During Clear Up period Out of Scope
CU 036 Cover up of abuse of a child at a school
Allegation that the Council has covered up the abuse of a child at a local school and failed to investigate.
2016 and ongoing Out of Scope
CU 037 Cover up of abuse of a child at a school
Allegation mirrors allegation CU036 (above).
2016 and ongoing Out of Scope
CU 042 Corruption in the Borough
Allegation of 30 years corruption in the Borough.
Before and during Clear Up Period Out of Scope
CU 043 Blockages and cover up Allegation from a complainant who reports they have tried to raise issues with the Council but that they have been repeatedly blocked. No dates given Out of Scope
CU 044 Widespread corruption
Allegation of widespread corruption that has led to the complainant being forced to flee the UK, and making reference to phone tapping, entrapment, and a private police force in operation in the Borough.
No dates given Out of Scope
CU 045 Payment made to a Corporate Director
Copy of a press article sent to the Clear Up Team making reference to how a payment to a Council Corporate
Director was treated in the Council’s Accounts.
2011-2012 Out of Scope
CU 046 Serious issue in a local park in 2015
Allegation relating to conduct of officers
2015 Out of Scope
CU 050 Grants obtained fraudulently
Allegation that grants have been fraudulently obtained by a local resident with close links to Council officers
Up to 2016 Out of Scope
CU 060 Council housing fraud
Allegation that a resident has received unwarranted works in a Council property through favouritism and dishonesty, and that the occupier has another private property.
Not given Out of Scope
CU 014 Irregularity of governance and misuse of public funds concerning a local community association Allegation of ongoing irregularity in governance and misuse of public (Council) funds by individuals connected with the organisation. During Clear Up Period Ongoing

The devil is in the detail

After the amount of work that has gone into this report there is no excuse for anyone to briefly glance at the overview above, see that an allegation was rejected or not upheld and start complaining.

The details of each case as published by the Council in the original documents as given up have to be read.

An example is CU 062 which we know very well because this was the incident that started these enquiries way back in 2013 – Greenbankgate!

The Clear Up Team rejected Love Wapping’s allegation. Are we annoyed? No. Are we even just a little miffed? No. Why? Because we know exactly went on, stand by our story and the Wapping Mole is still digging away at it.

Here is the way the LW Greenbankgate allegation is described by the Clean Up Team.

CU 062 Blocking of enquiries
Allegation that a former Senior Officer of the Council repeatedly blocked internal and external enquiries into wrongdoing at Tower Hamlets Council and Tower Hamlets Homes.
Specific allegation relating to an incident in November 2013 when three individuals purporting to be from Tower Hamlets Homes knocked on the door of a resident asking how the former Mayor could help, and of an alleged blocked enquiry into this event.

LW knows who the ‘former Senior Officer of the Council’ is of course.

Two other allegations LW submitted but were rejected the Clear Up Team are these. They are, for various reasons, almost our favourites. Almost.

CU 032 Fabrication of evidence in order to dismiss staff
Allegation that two Senior Managers fabricated evidence in a RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) application.

CU 033 Misuse of RIPA
Allegation that a spurious investigation was conducted into several members of staff, with a false statement made to obtain authority under The Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

And of this we shall say no more today. Oh all right then!

Every one of the headline results we have published above has much more detailed information which needs to be read.

CU 032 and CU 033 are in fact part and parcel of the same ‘Line of Inquiry’ as we like to call them here at Mole HQ and it centres around the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000  or as it is more commonly known, RIPA, which provides Councils to investigate crimes such as letting your doggie do poopy where it should not.

In this case RIPA was not used to investigate doggie doo doo but something more fundamental in the Tower Hamlets Council Markets Team – the guys and girls who look after our amazing markets such as Chrisp Street,  Brick Lane, Petticoat Lane, Columbia Road and the rest.

Here are the Summary of Findings for CU 032 Fabrication of evidence in order to dismiss staff and CU 033 Misuse of RIPA and Recommendations for Further Action Agreed by the Clear Up Board.

We have underlined the more, er, interesting bits.

Summary of Findings

The allegations are not upheld on the basis that there was no evidence found to indicate that the Council did not follow correct procedures in the application and approval of the RIPA authority in relation to the surveillance operation in question. The Council acted on credible evidence provided from multiple sources including two separate whistleblowers [one being the Wapping Mole] and there was nothing found to suggest that any evidence had been fabricated.

An external security supplier contracted by the Council was identified as being responsible for acting outside of the terms of the RIPA authority, thereby gathering inadmissible evidence. The external lead investigator responsible for the management of the investigation and collation of the evidence and shared some responsibility for this issue, as does the Council since an Officer overviewing the case missed that some evidence was gathered incorrectly immediately after the surveillance operation.

The issue was identified by the Council during the latter stages of the investigation and was subject to legal debate/review which was not commented upon in the Clear Up Team’s investigation. It should be noted that there was no evidence to suggest that this issue was any more than an oversight by the parties involved.

Although it was established that the Council Central Procurement Team had dealt with procurement of the external investigator to assist with the investigation in question, unfortunately no records appear to have been retained by the Council in relation to this.

It was also noted from public records that the company from where the external investigator was sourced do not advertise an investigations service nor publish any investigative credentials.

It was unknown why this company was engaged by the Council to undertake investigatory services.

Petticoat Lane Market Photograph © Andrew Dunn, 15 June 2006

Recommendations for Further Action Agreed by the Clear Up Board

The Council should consider whether the external company/investigator that led the investigation in question should be retained as a potential supplier for investigatory services in light of findings that evidence was gathered outside of the terms of a RIPA authority.

The Council may also wish to consider whether to review other investigations, in particular where surveillance has been undertaken by the external security company involved, to provide assurance that the outputs are accurate.

It is also recommended that the Council put in an internal process to ensure that any such surveillance output relating to a RIPA authority should be checked for validity before disciplinary proceedings are commenced.

Finally, in the absence of procurement records for the external company that led the investigation, the Council may wish to review the procurement records management process for individual assignments relating to Investigations, also ensuring that investigative credentials are held and that potential conflicts of interest are considered before accepting suppliers.

Operation FORUM

Still digging.

The Wapping Mole’s investigations into this continue.

And just to make it clear we do know what we are talking about we are specifically referring to the RIPA authorisation for ‘Operation FORUM’ which has the Unique Reference Number 14/15-CS-004.

This was authorised at 10.20 hours on 11th November 2014 by Thames Magistrates Court for a period of one month commencing on 12th November 2014.

Terms of Reference of Clear Up Team

Just a reminder that anybody could raise an allegation to the Clear Up Team as long as the allegation met these criteria:

  1. The allegation must have referred to a decision or activity that occurred between October 2010 and June 2016
  2. The allegation must have included details of the alleged impropriety and any evidence which supported the complainant’s claim

Scope of Work by Clear Up Team

The scope of the project clearly stated before work began that allegations would not be investigated if they had already been satisfactorily considered or investigated through another process, including, but not limited to:

  • Council’s complaints process
  • Council’s Whistle-blowing procedures
  • Council’s Code of Conduct for Members
  • Council’s staff disciplinary procedures
  • Council management investigation or review
  • Audit Review (internal or external)
  • Judicial Review
  • The PwC Best Value Inspection of Tower Hamlets Council ordered by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

LW Comment

Good work Clear Up Team!

The Wapping Mole has more than a little of many of the issues investigated by the Clear Up Team and can safely state that a proper investigation has been undertaken and that there has been no attempt to conceal anything.

All Borough residents owe thanks to James Richardson and his colleagues for a job well done.

Moley also knows many details of some of the original allegations – indeed he submitted some – and that there is more to come out.

We are confident that the criminal investigation into every aspect of the Tower Hamlets First administration will expose the rest.

The eighteen detectives working on Operation Lynemouth, the Met Police operation looking into every aspect of potential criminal activity within Tower Hamlets Council during 2010 to 2014, are hard at work. And remember the scope of their work is not as restricted as that of the Clear Up Team – they are looking at everything.

So if you are one of the people who got up to no good at the Council between 2010 and 2014 you have every right to be very worried.

Which is kinda tough really, innit?





 

 

Tags:

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Comments are closed.

Top