10/06/2019 To: Jim.O’Sullivan & Colin Matthews @ highwaysengland.co.uk
It has come to my attention that Ms Beckett of Highways England has been presenting false, defamatory information to others about me.
These untrue and therefore impossible to substantiate statements are, at best, hearsay – this assumes they were not simply made up by Ms Beckett. They are false statements that injure my reputation and clearly intended to damage my standing with those to whom they have been presented.
- I wish this conduct investigated, registered as a formal complaint.
My suspicion is that this information has been concocted by Highways England or embellished by you. It has not escaped me that Sian Jones statement of 07/2018 to a Tribunal did not go so far as to convey the outrageous accusations. Even Tim Reardon appears to have been uncomfortable with them but content to present his own concocted issues, bias and unjustified remarks.
I also ask to be provided the present position with regard to my complaints about:
- Tim Reardon
- Sharon McCarthy
- Sian Jones
With regard to Mrs McCarthy, it appears she too has conveyed false information, misrepresented facts and I am reviewing the latest information I have been supplied. Whilst you are supportive of Ms McCarthy (based upon what evidence I do not know), it appears even Sharon acknowledged her conduct toward me was poor.
- I also believe my complaint needs to extend to Graham Woodhouse who, whilst assuring me I have received all information, clearly misrepresented facts to me. I am now in possession of emails about me, such as above, that were not disclosed in response to my SAR. There has been a selective response.
I have also been informed that, with regard to Mrs Green’s emails, far from destroyed, a record of these was kept, much as a spreadsheet of my FoIA requests. Possibly it was these you accessed when responding (09/2018) to my complaint about Ms McCarthy, emails that I was informed were deleted after 3 months i.e. long before your response in which you seemingly had sight of them.
Whilst I understand you are dealing with ‘one of the less sophisticated ends of the construction industry’, your contractors ‘rude’ references to me were to be taken up with them and I await the outcome of this complaint also.
10/06/2019 From: HLC Complaints <HLCComplaints@highwaysengland.co.uk
Subject: Highways England response – Your complaint about Highways England staff – Reference 19104221
Dear Mr Swift
Thank you for your email of 10 June to our Chief Executive Jim O’Sullivan and Chairman Colin Matthews. Please accept this email as receipt of your complaint.
Our Chief Executive has asked for details of your complaint to be passed to the relevant business area for their investigation.
The maximum response time is 15 working days, however we will try to respond sooner. Your reference number is Stage 1 CEO 19104221.
Dear Mr Bulley,
Your ref: Stage 1 CEO 19104221
It is extremely frustrating to follow a prescribed process only to be ignored. Additionally, to continually receive statements from Highway England that lack credibility.
My email of 10/06/2019 at:
Appendix 1. 10/06/2019 email to HE following a disclosure from the ICO.
This should have been released following my SAR(s) by HE. It was not. My 10/06/2019 email appears to have given rise to your involvement, your response is at:
Appendix 2. 10/06/2019 email from HLC
In which you write:
The maximum response time is 15 working days, however we will try to respond sooner. 15 days have expired – on 01/07/02019. I have been patient but received no update, no explanation for the delay or a need for same.
I responded 10/06/2019 and a copy of my email can be found at:
Appendix 3. 10/06/2019 to HLC
- Please confirm my requests at 10/06/2019 and those in a subsequent email of 11/06/2019:
Appendix 4. 11/06/2019 to HLC
Are being handled as FoIA requests.
Additionally, on 27/03/2019, your General Counsel Tim Reardon emailed me
In Area 9, Kier have withheld bringing new DCP claims since January this year. Those outstanding claims will be taken forward on the basis of the new schedule of repair costs.
This is reiterated here:
Appendix 5. FoIA @ WDTK
It (again1) appears you have no control over your contractors and lawyers and I refer to you:
Appendix 6. 12/03/2019 Area 9 Kier claim
Proceedings have been issued by your lawyers, Corclaim.
Given this aspect of our business is relatively small, the odds on us receiving the only such claim, priced using the pre-24/06/2019 process appears highly unlikely. I refer you to the issues Sarah Green had with your lawyers and that, in a recent SAR response, it was stated Kier were not responding.
It is apparent Highways England have lost control and credibility; your contractors wag the dog.
I have made complaints about a number of members of HE staff
- Please provide an update in respect of each.
Dismissing my complaint about Sarah Green because the lady has left HE is unacceptable. I expect to be advised what occurred upon receipt of my complaint, the enquiries undertaken and the outcome.
Damaging and untrue statements made by your General Counsel in 03/2018 have been reissued by others without seeking to ensure they are correct – impossible as they are false. This includes members of HE staff, General Counsel’s office, GLD and Counsel.
I have also complained about the statements circulated about me by Kier.
- Please provide an update by return.
I have raised a number of concerns about contractors:
- Further to my complaints, I ask to be provided an update in respect of the following brief overview of the issues/allegations raised:
The overstatement of claims from 07/2014 to 10/2015 that saw gross exaggeration and £millions owed to Third Parties
2. Contract Non-Compliance
The 10/2015 process that was also not contract complaint.
Highway England’s failure to ensure the contract was complied with from 07/2019 in Area 9 and from contract commence in other ASC’s
The charging of multipliers for AIW, TM and barrier repairs operatives. It was stated AIW’s work 8am to 5pm and are paid multipliers after 5pm workdays. These uplifts are charged to Third Parties. However, we understand AIW’s work shifts, are not paid uplifts and even overtime is at flat rate.
HE have failed to act upon this allegation; enabled and permitted it
4. Lack of investigation
I took the time to meet with HE (21/06/2017), speak to KPMG (15/11/2017) and document my many and serious allegations. I have no update in respect of this or explanation for the failure of HE to act and address the issues promptly.
5. Misrepresentation to the Courts
Charges and uplifts have been conveyed to the Courts that are false.
Statement concerning ‘planning’ made to the Court are false. Indeed, there should be no ‘planning’ charges; these are incorporated in the TPCO – a facet of the contractually agreed process – a methodology said by your CEO to be in the contract and therefore ‘good’.
6. False Representations to HE
We have evidenced Kier providing false ‘cost’ data to HE which gives the impression their lower recoveries result in a loss. Whilst we suspect this is to ensure their monthly lumpsum payment is not reduced under a pain-gain share agreement, the fact is the information is false.
This false data has likely been used by HE when compiling your latest (24/06/2019) charging process. Use of the ‘true’ data would have revealed anomalies and corroborated my allegations/concerns. If based upon false information, your 24/06/2019 process calculations will be distorted.
7. Existence of DCP Rates
These exist, they are commercially sensitive and to use them would take too much time:
Balfour Beatty Mott MacDonald
1. DCP Rates
a) Existence. BBMM have stated to a Judge(HH Godsmark) that DCP Rates over £10k exist, that there is a schedule.HE have stated in response to an FoIA request that there is no schedule of DCP Rates.
b) Subsidy. BBMM have stated to a Judge(HH Godsmark) that DCP Rates over £10k are subsidised by the lump-sum payment (clearly they exist, they are said to be subsidised)
HE have stated in response to an FoIA request DCP Rates (costs for culprit identified matters) are not subsidised.
National Audit Office (NAO)
If, as you claim, for well over 5 years, you have bizarrely never had a schedule of rates against which to compare invoices received from contractors, it follows that you are unable to properly reconcile charges presented. It appears 1,000’s of invoices have been rubber-stamped for payment.
However, The NAO state that at a meeting you informed them ASC’s include a schedule of rates – for costs above and below threshold i.e. for DCP works.
You have stated to me and the ICO, no such rates exists
In conclusion, it is apparent my complaints are not being taken seriously.
- Please advise to whom I can escalate the issues.
12/07/2019 – no response, the complaint history is continued here.