Agenda item

To receive any questions from members of the public and replies thereto.

The following questions were received from members of the public:

Barry Warren

My questions are prompted by Item 6 on your agenda and in particular page 29 of your bundle, item CR9a.  The risk description still contains the following:

Public debate has, at times, included unhelpful and inaccurate statements about the company and the consequential impact on the Council, with these inaccurate statements being repeated in wider circles.

A number of the assets have been purchased by Mid Devon District Council (MDDC) for use by Housing or to be sold on the open market.  Information has been sought by some members of the public to ascertain if correct use is being made of public money and due diligence and openness of information is being exercised.  Most responses from MDDC have been guarded, misleading or even denial, leading to the Information Commissioner giving direction to release information.

1.         Should CR9a be modified to be a risk description which reflects potential reputational damage to the Council by the failure of the Council to provide open, honest and full information in reports to Members from the outset or in response to enquiries from the public?

2.         Should there also be an additional risk created with regard to the expenditure in relation to the providing of modular homes? This has already prompted questions in Scrutiny Committee.

On the 11^th March 2025 a double page spread appeared in the Tiverton Gazette which had all the appearance of being an advertisement. It had a number of sections concerning differing housing sites, some of these did not tell the full circumstances.  Enquiry of the Council revealed that this advertisement was commissioned by the Head of Housing and Health and approved by the S151 Officer.  It was prepared in-house, and the cost of £1266 (plus VAT where applicable) to print in the Gazette was met from the Housing Revenue Account Tenant Involvement and Engagement budget.

3.         Is it known how many Council tenants actually read the Gazette?

4.         How did such information benefit our current tenants?

5.         Why is this an appropriate expenditure of Housing Revenue Account (HRA) money?

Paul Elstone

Question 1

Firstly, I would like to thank the Chairman for his recognition that members of the public, by their routine attendance of meetings and that in asking the questions they do, add value. 

It is however important for me to place on record that I do not ask my questions because I have an axe to grind against a former administration.  Something recently said in a public meeting and by another Chairperson.

My personal driver when asking the questions I do, is solely related to expecting to see value for money, good governance, competency and integrity in this Council and involving all Officers and Members. Qualities I personally believe and have evidence to show are increasingly in decline.  Not least involving 3 Rivers and more recently the Zed Pod’s modular developments.  

My question: what was the exact date that the "Housing Rents Error" was discovered by the External Auditors?

Question 2

What was the first date that Tenants were advised of the existence of this error?

Question 3

Please can you provide a simple Yes or No answer to this question….

Is it this Council’s intention that in order to accept the amount of the refund of their rent over-payment, the residents will be required to sign any form of legal disclaimer preventing the tenants from taking any further action against MDDC. This in relation to this Council’s rent calculation error? 

Question 4

Table 1 Title - Actions taken, completed or ongoing:

Action No 22 says detailed engagement with other Local Authorities currently working on a similar rent errors issues e.g. Cambridge is ongoing.

On fully interrogating the Social Housing Regulators database only two Councils can be found as having Notices against them in respect of rent calculation errors. Namely Cambridge City Council and East Suffolk Council. Rent calculation errors very different from MDDC and much more understandable in their nature and not going back anywhere near as long.

Unlike MDDC both Councils it would seem are not using the 1980 Limitation Act to avoid making rent overpayment refunds beyond 6 years.

Which Councils and exactly are this Council engaging with?

Question 5 (Supplementary Question).

It is known beyond doubt that a member of the public submitted questions at relatively short notice compared to mine at the Audit Committee Meeting of the 21^st January 2025. Questions which were answered at the meeting.

Therefore, Chair why am I now being treated any differently and especially as my three questions only require one word type answers and answers which could have been made readily available to you ?

The Chair stated that as these questions had not been submitted in advance a written response would be provided within the next 10 working days and attached to the minutes of the meeting.