Southwark Council - value for money?

[James Barber]

Southwark Council has many great officers who are exceptionally helpful.

It also has some processes which are immensely frustrating and lock some officers into not feeling able to see and act on any bigger pictures.

I still feel its corporatist centralist structure stiffles initiative and real deep efficiency while making the senior managers feel its ever more efficient. With each problem the reaction is to centralise to control more. Whereas the right motivation, devolvement and training would give a more solid long term answer.

I tied in vain to get the multiple quote increased from ?5,000 to ?10k or ?20k. Lots of reasons given for not increasing it. But the transaction costs of 3 or more quotes for tiny work and projects means the council often looks exceptionally poor value. We have a local scheme to traffic calm with humps Matham, Chesterfield and Ashbourne Groves. The actual humps cost ?11,000 but the overheads mean it will actually cost ?37,000. So many examples where Southwark Council are poor value for money.

Equally, very very few people praise anything or anyone when things go well. But boy does the council and officers get brickbats when it goes badly. Unsuprisingly this can make council officers very cautious and wary of outsiders. And caution can result in lack of initiative leading to poor service and poorer preceptions of value for money.

[peterstorm1985]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I tied in vain to get the multiple quote increased

> from ?5,000 to ?10k or ?20k. Lots of reasons given

> for not increasing it. But the transaction costs

> of 3 or more quotes for tiny work and projects

> means the council often looks exceptionally poor

> value. We have a local scheme to traffic calm with

> humps Matham, Chesterfield and Ashbourne Groves.

> The actual humps cost ?11,000 but the overheads

> mean it will actually cost ?37,000. So many

> examples where Southwark Council are poor value

> for money.

>

Any scheme requires plans to be drawn up, a brief and specification to be written, and a contract document (even if it's just a completed purchase order with standard terms and condition), even if only one company provides a quote. The additional costs of 2 more quotes should only be of major significance if they are new suppliers. If the council has a list of preferred contractors (with pre-agreed standard rates for common work items), who have standing documents for quality, health and safety etc, there should not be a significant additional cost. Compare that to the potential fraud and inefficiency that will be created by a one quote system and you'll be paying for a team of auditors that won't appear in the project costs but add a massive overhead.

?37K project costs (equivalent to a mid level surveyor full time for 6 month inc overhead) for a scheme of ?11k sounds high but I would like to see a breakdown of what those costs were to be able to judge. For example, did that cost include the public consultation? How much of it was actually for comparison of the quotes? Sending out for quotations to 3 companies rather than 2 is only a matter of adding 2 more email addresses to the circulation (OK allow 4 extra addresses in case some suppliers refuse to quote). And then the time to read them, which isn't going to be long for a scheme for humps!

It sounds to me that there is some other problem and the 3 quote system may simply be an excuse.

I would add though that I think that value for money wise we do pretty well in Southwark. Not perfect but no public institution ever is with the inevitable short term decision making required by regular political change.

[Loz]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Equally, very very few people praise anything or

> anyone when things go well. But boy does the

> council and officers get brickbats when it goes

> badly. Unsuprisingly this can make council

> officers very cautious and wary of outsiders. And

> caution can result in lack of initiative leading

> to poor service and poorer preceptions of value

> for money.

Well you should pass this thread around, James. I think Southwark has come out looking rather good.

[Gimme]

James Barber said:

Equally, very very few people praise anything or anyone when things go well. But boy does the council and officers get brickbats when it goes badly. Unsuprisingly this can make council officers very cautious and wary of outsiders. And caution can result in lack of initiative leading to poor service and poorer preceptions of value for money.

Do you think one of the problems is that the interface to the public (i.e. the people who answer calls) is staffed by people who are undertrained, ineffectual and has no interest in those who phone the council?

And what about the ignorant, rule breaking civil enforcement officers? Parking on dangerous corners and double yellow lines in order to ticket people is never going to make the council seem like they have competent employees.

The only people I've seen who do the council credit are the guys who pick up litter, who seem to be dilligent and thorough despite having a difficult job. Oh, and James Barber of course, who does try hard to work for his constituents.

In regards to the humps in Matham, Chesterfield and Ashbourne, the council Public Realm department run by Des Waters are proving that they couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery. The discussions have been ongoing for over 2 years. They've now been given most of the funding from Cleaner, Greener, Safer Southwark budget, they've had a consultation result with a very high majority in favour and yet seem incapable either of communicating what they are planning to do to any of the residents or of actually executing the job. Useless.

[celiasmith]

I guess those of you who have praised Southwark are freeholders, right? Cos if you are a leaseholder you wouldn't have such a rose tinted view. Yes, they are good at recycling and picking up bulk refuse. However when you include dealing with repair issues, this is where they fail. I had to wait 6 weeks to get them to sort out a bad leak to my flat. It didn't help that the tenant who lives above me was pig ignorant and failed to stay in for appointments. I was calling them on a daily basis and it is so very frustrating that you have to repeat yourself like a parrot to a different worker cos surprise surprise they didn't have any notes showing. I was almost in tears and very stressed. At no stage was this escalated to a manager. I even got James Barber involved and I am sorry to say even he couldn't help me. It was only because I used to work for a TMO and I knew the name of the repairs manager that I actually got this sorted. I now work for another council and this has NEVER happened cos we would have forced entry before then. When I asked why this action wasn't taken, they said it wasn't their policy. So to me, that translated to F*** you you are only a leaseholder what do you matter?

I have called them before to sort out a blocked drain and have been told its my responsibility. Had to battle to get them out and after huge argument they sent someone. What exactly do I pay my service charges for then?

Staff are unhelpful and badly trained - it really feels like they are doing you a favour answering the phone.

[Alex K]

@CeliaSmith: Your guess is right, at least for me. I don't know what the council are like as a landlord. It sounds as if I'm lucky not to know.

Benjaminty, is your dissatisfaction with council services that of a leaseholder or that of a freeholder? I can't remember how they, in your eyes, failed you; but CeliaSmith's query might be relevant.

[Pugwash]

Southwark Council like most other authoritys is a mixture of good and bad staff, those who are helpful and those who could not care less.It is also provides reasonable services on the whole

My stepmother lives in West Sussex and a couple of years ago was in hospital for several weeks as a result of a fall. She had to pay for a taxi to take her home (?35) as the PCT would only provide hospital transport if people were in wheelchairs. She walks with a zimmer frame in the house and needs a wheelchair for outside. She was provided with 3 days help from social services as could not bend, cook food, do shopping or get to the bank, could do limited personal care.

When it was found that she received an occupational pension as well as a state pension, all services were withdrawn by social services as they informed her that they could not continue to provide services as she was in receipt of a private pension. She now pays ?12 ph for a cleaner ( W. Sussex state they do not provide a cleaning service) if it was not for a neighbour who works in the local Co Op, she would have had to pay a similiar amount per hour for someone to shop for her. Since she lives in a small town and has used the same Nat West bank for years, the bank manager calls personally at her home once a month to give her cash from her pension. There is no Dial a Ride, the nearest shopping area is Chichester 8 miles away ( Return bus fare ?6) She struggles with undertaking personal care but has been unable to take a bath as needs one person to assist getting on and off bath seat.

She lives in a Tory controlled area - a very rich area but services are nowhere as good as London. Be thankful for what we have - ( or what we will have left after the cuts)

[intexasatthe moment]

Hear hear Pugwash .

[languagelounger]

Does anyone know how much exactly has been spent on clearing up the toxic dumping at Honor Oak that at least one member of Southwark staff was responsible for? We keep hearing the figure "millions" but no details? Quite a lot of this should be recoverable from the senior officers and councillors who knew that dumping was taking place many years before it was stopped - eg they were shown photos in 1996/7 of a dumper truck that had just emptied its contents leaving the premises and asked what was being done about it, in a Council sub ctte meeting, and by phone and letter to the CEO and Leader of the Council. I remember a very famous actress, or are you supposed to say actor, was at the sub ctte meeting when it was specifically raised, as was Reverend Michael Counsell of St Augustine's, now retired and living in Birmingham but very likely to remember. This was also reported in full detail at the time to the South London Press who covered it and asked the Council how come a man with a dumper truck, seen leaving several small mountains of waste on the site, came to have the key to the Council's gates. Do I seem to recall that at the time, people were told that as this was Southwark Council's property, only the Council could ask for a prosecution to be brought? So why no prosecution? Do we have a report we can read on why dumping continued for another 10 years?

There's also the question of what role the toxic dumping racket played in the moulding of Southwark Council's "cemeteries policy". The Cemeteries Manager, one Terry Connor, was very active in trying to get Honor Oak Rec (constantly full of people who could see what was going on, and were reporting it) closed down and the adjoining cemetery extended (nice and deserted, lots more room for dumping in).

[jab-100]

I am very happy with their service - They have changed my mums life with a shower and stairlift in a private house - Also like others have said great service, clean streets, good bin men, good recycling, good big item rubbish removal. Very happy.