Another noteworthy vanity project from 2012, I would guess losing an absolute fortune from the get-go, is the Emirates Airline. Take a bow, Mr Johnson ....
Who are their Auditors? They need to be named and shamed!
The Government auditors are, of course, the National Audit Office (NAO). They do work quite independently from other Govt depts, and have been known to get upset with departmental inefficiences!
Hmmm. Do you think the LLDC would come under the NAO remit? That could make thing interesting.
Here is the thread, containing the question and answer. Would be grateful for all thoughts and ideas; maybe consider first whether you want to share them with @gavros but I think he's just a freelancer. To be fair to him, unlike his mate Sean Whetstone, he does not claim to sit down with Gullivan every other week, not proclaim on the BBC that he can guarantee Gullivan will never sell :-)
One of the reasons behind my request was to try and prove a suspicion I have, that the LLDC didn't have any specific advice from within the commercial football sphere. It seems that indeed they didn't. That looks like a reasonable conclusion from their reply. Of course, as we've discussed before, there is nothing a commercial lawyer does not think he is the master of, but it looks like the geniuses at Allen & Overy and PwC gave away the overheads because they simply didn't understand their monetary significance.
Yes, LLDC would fall under NAO remit as part of DCMS. I have PM'ed you details from their website which may be of interest after the contract is published. It could be yet another line of attack if the contract looks unfavourable to the tax payer, for whatever reason.
Thanks mate, got it. I think first I should request an internal review under FOI of the LLDC's answer. I think I'd complain that the answer is not credible; and that if it is to be taken as credible it indicates an extremely lack approach to cost control. I'd be grateful for any more thoughts on this from people with experience. Is it really reasonable that you just engage such an expensive law firm like A&O and then not have them organise their invoices so that each one, or part of one is clearly related to one legal issue or another? Otherwise all you end up with in the P&L is "legal services, £5m" or whatever. That could hide all kinds of stuff. Is this really how it works in the UK public sector?
It's a while since I worked in law but when I did, all billed time had to be broken down into units of 6 minutes with a clear explanation as to what the charge was related to.
Another noteworthy vanity project from 2012, I would guess losing an absolute fortune from the get-go, is the Emirates Airline. Take a bow, Mr Johnson ....
Presumably the naming rights alone bring in at least £12m per annum.
Another noteworthy vanity project from 2012, I would guess losing an absolute fortune from the get-go, is the Emirates Airline. Take a bow, Mr Johnson ....
Presumably the naming rights alone bring in at least £12m per annum.
Another sorry tale .... According to Wiki the cost was initially estimated at £25m, all to be privately funded. Final cost £65.7m. Emirates deal worth £36m over 10 years. The balance, and operating costs, to be met from fares but the traffic runs at below 10% of capacity. The most expensive cable car system ever built anywhere.
Meanwhile the Coalition guys and gals seem to be very exercised about the Garden Bridge. Just how many vanity projects does one Mayor need, in order to be satisfied?
I have to say, I am really enjoying the industry, enthusiasm and cooperation that's being displayed on this project. Hats off the Prague for driving this forward and to everyone else who's contributed.
I haven't been able to chip in on the legal side as I don't have any experience in that field, but I do know a rat when I smell one and feel confident that if anyone can flush it out, you guys can.
Two and a half days. To go through invoices for 4 (four) suppliers, over about a year. Either their "£25 per hour cost" staff are very slow or they have an extremely large number of invoices.
Lawyers write their time based on activity and client. I would expect PWC do this too. All it would really take from the LLDC is to put in a call to both saying they need a schedule based on cost per project. I would imagine the Cost Advisors would be easily able to help with this too (in terms of providing their costs), all at no extra charge.
Also sounds like very poor project management/cost management to me.
Too true! Some years ago my job sometimes involved commissioning work from Freshfields and Counsel. Their charges were very specific on a case by case basis, as you'd expect. And the bean counters were very keen that they were checked thoroughly for accuracy. (For something so outrageously expensive as legal fees from a magic circle firm, it is barely credible that they would not have been tested to destruction.)
With the actual spend being compared with budget at regular intervals and at project/year end. With any overspend needing through explanation of course.
I have to say, I am really enjoying the industry, enthusiasm and cooperation that's being displayed on this project. Hats off the Prague for driving this forward and to everyone else who's contributed.
I haven't been able to chip in on the legal side as I don't have any experience in that field, but I do know a rat when I smell one and feel confident that if anyone can flush it out, you guys can.
Thank you @Stig. Some people have worried that we have been a bit too open on this thread; something I generally have to watch (would never have been a poker player), but the value of that approach can be seen right now, as we have valuable ammunition which can help me write an effective complaint regarding the latest FOI refusal re professional services fees. Thanks a lot, all contributors on this.
Meanwhile, the direction of the campaign has slowly and gently shifted to a multi -club operation. We now have an experienced ex Supporters Direct guy running it, and people from 6 London clubs in the core group. There will soon be a website for the campaign which means we can shift stuff over there from the CAST site; recently the OS has rather dominated our site - but not CAST. We just needed a public place for the info. When Andrew Dismore laid into Boris at the City Hall meeting, he'd used our site to get all his background info together. And in turn, ideas and assistance first floated on CL have been adopted by the group. The others are quite envious of CL and the support and resource it has fed into the campaign.
By Friday we will know whether or not we will soon see the contract. Either way, we will be ready.
Two and a half days. To go through invoices for 4 (four) suppliers, over about a year. Either their "£25 per hour cost" staff are very slow or they have an extremely large number of invoices.
Lawyers write their time based on activity and client. I would expect PWC do this too. All it would really take from the LLDC is to put in a call to both saying they need a schedule based on cost per project. I would imagine the Cost Advisors would be easily able to help with this too (in terms of providing their costs), all at no extra charge.
Also sounds like very poor project management/cost management to me.
Absolutely right. I see city lawyers' invoices all the time and the detail on their system to support their £600 per hour fees is designed to be bomb proof against clients challenging a bill. LLDC just need to request a report from the advisers and the systems would supply a client with whatever breakdown was wanted.
LLDC must be sorely embarrassed at how much is being pissed up the wall in professional fees.
Two and a half days. To go through invoices for 4 (four) suppliers, over about a year. Either their "£25 per hour cost" staff are very slow or they have an extremely large number of invoices.
Lawyers write their time based on activity and client. I would expect PWC do this too. All it would really take from the LLDC is to put in a call to both saying they need a schedule based on cost per project. I would imagine the Cost Advisors would be easily able to help with this too (in terms of providing their costs), all at no extra charge.
Also sounds like very poor project management/cost management to me.
Absolutely right. I see city lawyers' invoices all the time and the detail on their system to support their £600 per hour fees is designed to be bomb proof against clients challenging a bill. LLDC just need to request a report from the advisers and the systems would supply a client with whatever breakdown was wanted.
LLDC must be sorely embarrassed at how much is being pissed up the wall in professional fees.
Without a doubt. The worrying thing, for the taxpayer, would be if whoever within LLDC was responsible for the procurement of legal services didn't manage to do a deal on costs. No large body, certainly not corporate, would agree an hourly rate for lengthy legal services. Most, if not all, firms will provide fixed fees and will certainly be able to provide a detailed breakdown of each individual matter.
I checked the situation. The official closing time is 17.00. But in practice they can submit electronically until midnight. My forecast is 23.55. Throughout, they have been delaying every response until the very last minute. They should have answered the FOI WITHIN 28 days. Today it is 525 days.....
How does the submission (if it happens) come about PA? Will they simply put it on their website, or send you an unredacted copy? If LLDC appeal, do they have to let you know?
I checked the situation. The official closing time is 17.00. But in practice they can submit electronically until midnight. My forecast is 23.55. Throughout, they have been delaying every response until the very last minute. They should have answered the FOI WITHIN 28 days. Today it is 525 days.....
They might suddenly realise it costs them too much money in overtime to publish the full contract.
How does the submission (if it happens) come about PA? Will they simply put it on their website, or send you an unredacted copy? If LLDC appeal, do they have to let you know?
If they are not appealing, they have to send me the contract personally, but have another seven days. If they appeal, they don't have to tell me, but the office where they lodge the appeal is helpful, I called them this morning. At that time they had not received anything. But that was not 23.55.....:-)
Appeal submitted to prevent West Ham-Olympic stadium deal being made public
The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) has confirmed it will appeal the ruling that it must release the full details of its deal with West Ham for the Olympic Stadium.
The Information Commissioner last month told the organisation to make public the 99-year lease it signed with the Hammers after a request by a coalition of London supporters trusts.
However the LLDC are set to question the decision and present their case to a First Tier Tribunal. In a statement they confirmed: “We are lodging an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s judgment.
“This follows careful consideration, informed by legal advice, and is limited to a smaller number of redactions. The appeal relates only to information which if released could significantly reduce the level of financial return to the taxpayer as it would undermine negotiations with future users of the stadium and other partners.
“We have listened to the Commissioner’s comments and as a public body are committed to maximising transparency. As a result we will shortly publish more details of the agreement with West Ham United in all areas that fall outside the scope of our appeal. ”
The LLDC have said previously that any decision to publish the full details of their agreement with West Ham, who are set to move into the stadium next season, would harm the stadium operator’s ability to negotiate future contracts.
West Ham have previously backed the LLDC's approach and maintain that their deal represents the best future for the stadium.
A BBC documentary released in August claimed that the club were effectively being given the venue rent-free. This prompted an alliance of eight fan groups from across the capital to call for a public inquiry. Though this request was rejected they were successful in a freedom of information request.
London Mayor Boris Johnson had suggested last month that he expected the body, who are responsible for ensuring the sustainability of facilities built for the 2012 Olympics, to question the decision. However Johnson said he was “perfectly happy” for full details of the contract to be revealed.
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
A public authority, the requester or both can appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision notice.
If the Tribunal decides that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong in law, or that he exercised his discretion wrongly, it can overturn the decision and issue a substitute decision notice. This decision notice has the same legal status as the first one. Like the Commissioner, the Tribunal can only consider questions relevant to the Act, not any wider dispute that may arise from the request.
Appeals may be by oral hearing, where witnesses give evidence in person. If the evidence can be presented entirely in writing, the appeal will be decided on the basis of those documents.
If an appeal raises particularly complex or important issues, it may be transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals) Chamber. The Upper Tribunal also hears appeals against decisions of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Appeals against decisions of the Upper Tribunal are heard in the Court of Appeal.
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Here's the key to this.
Translation
"our expensive lawyers fecked up the previous submission, where we did not even make it past Stage 2 of the ICO's 3 stage test. This time we have committed even more taxpayers money, so that the lawyers can tie the Tribunal up in knots for months, and get West Ham in there before the shit really hits the fan"
I think as I said before that the LLDC would do it to buy time to nail down and announce the stadium sponsor after the RWC and possibly to give them some leverage in discussions with Spurs about a temporary ground share in 2017/18.
So any idea how long this will take? Looks like a two stage process ending up with the Upper Tribunal in the Court of Appeal.
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Here's the key to this.
Translation
"our expensive lawyers fecked up the previous submission, where we did not even make it past Stage 2 of the ICO's 3 stage test. This time we have committed even more taxpayers money, so that the lawyers can tie the Tribunal up in knots for months, and get West Ham in there before the shit really hits the fan"
Comments
Another noteworthy vanity project from 2012, I would guess losing an absolute fortune from the get-go, is the Emirates Airline. Take a bow, Mr Johnson ....
Litigation given all the arguments maybe....
It is stretching belief that the LDDC do not have this information to hand as it is very basic information FFS.
They will have to check invoices before paying them, how have they done that then? Where do they file it afterwards - under L for lawyers?
The invoices would have a reference on them that will relate to that contract. All they have to do is extract the information.
I haven't been able to chip in on the legal side as I don't have any experience in that field, but I do know a rat when I smell one and feel confident that if anyone can flush it out, you guys can.
With the actual spend being compared with budget at regular intervals and at project/year end. With any overspend needing through explanation of course.
Meanwhile, the direction of the campaign has slowly and gently shifted to a multi -club operation. We now have an experienced ex Supporters Direct guy running it, and people from 6 London clubs in the core group. There will soon be a website for the campaign which means we can shift stuff over there from the CAST site; recently the OS has rather dominated our site - but not CAST. We just needed a public place for the info. When Andrew Dismore laid into Boris at the City Hall meeting, he'd used our site to get all his background info together. And in turn, ideas and assistance first floated on CL have been adopted by the group. The others are quite envious of CL and the support and resource it has fed into the campaign.
By Friday we will know whether or not we will soon see the contract. Either way, we will be ready.
LLDC must be sorely embarrassed at how much is being pissed up the wall in professional fees.
Why don't civil servants look out of the window in the morning ? 'Cos they'd have nothing to do in the afternoon ....
The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) has confirmed it will appeal the ruling that it must release the full details of its deal with West Ham for the Olympic Stadium.
The Information Commissioner last month told the organisation to make public the 99-year lease it signed with the Hammers after a request by a coalition of London supporters trusts.
However the LLDC are set to question the decision and present their case to a First Tier Tribunal. In a statement they confirmed: “We are lodging an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s judgment.
“This follows careful consideration, informed by legal advice, and is limited to a smaller number of redactions. The appeal relates only to information which if released could significantly reduce the level of financial return to the taxpayer as it would undermine negotiations with future users of the stadium and other partners.
“We have listened to the Commissioner’s comments and as a public body are committed to maximising transparency. As a result we will shortly publish more details of the agreement with West Ham United in all areas that fall outside the scope of our appeal. ”
The LLDC have said previously that any decision to publish the full details of their agreement with West Ham, who are set to move into the stadium next season, would harm the stadium operator’s ability to negotiate future contracts.
West Ham have previously backed the LLDC's approach and maintain that their deal represents the best future for the stadium.
A BBC documentary released in August claimed that the club were effectively being given the venue rent-free. This prompted an alliance of eight fan groups from across the capital to call for a public inquiry. Though this request was rejected they were successful in a freedom of information request.
London Mayor Boris Johnson had suggested last month that he expected the body, who are responsible for ensuring the sustainability of facilities built for the 2012 Olympics, to question the decision. However Johnson said he was “perfectly happy” for full details of the contract to be revealed.
The LLDC are able to introduce new reasons for refusing a freedom of information request at the appeal stage, after the Information Commissioner deemed their initial justification to be insufficient
Media manager : "oh, no"
That's direct from the journalist by the way.
OK, if that's how they want to play it, we've been ready all along. Can't work out what is greater, their arrogance, or their foolishness.
A public authority, the requester or both can appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision notice.
If the Tribunal decides that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong in law, or that he exercised his discretion wrongly, it can overturn the decision and issue a substitute decision notice. This decision notice has the same legal status as the first one. Like the Commissioner, the Tribunal can only consider questions relevant to the Act, not any wider dispute that may arise from the request.
Appeals may be by oral hearing, where witnesses give evidence in person. If the evidence can be presented entirely in writing, the appeal will be decided on the basis of those documents.
If an appeal raises particularly complex or important issues, it may be transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals) Chamber. The Upper Tribunal also hears appeals against decisions of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Appeals against decisions of the Upper Tribunal are heard in the Court of Appeal.
"our expensive lawyers fecked up the previous submission, where we did not even make it past Stage 2 of the ICO's 3 stage test. This time we have committed even more taxpayers money, so that the lawyers can tie the Tribunal up in knots for months, and get West Ham in there before the shit really hits the fan"
So any idea how long this will take? Looks like a two stage process ending up with the Upper Tribunal in the Court of Appeal.