Comments on: Contracting out homelessness reviews like the town hall catering contract

By: Ros Tyrrell (Ms)

Ros Tyrrell (Ms) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:57:39 +0000

I am not a registered company. The process is arguably no less impartial that a senior officer working for the authority see the view of LJ Sedley in the article above. I personally do not boast about percentages of decisions upheld because I have recommended the the authorities I work for to overturn quite a few! The decision at the end of the day is the local authority’s – I carry out the process and it is endorsed or not endorsed accordingly. I wouldn’t be too concerned about the extent of this as there are only about 3 individuals doing this in the UK.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:08 +0000

The 1996 order (contracting out) should have been challenged by way of judicial review; instead u/s 204 of the Housing Act, as it is a breach of principle of natural justice.

TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM, where the Housing Benefit Review Board (comprised of elected councillors) decision was quashed on holding Review Board is not “independent and impartial” and a length of discussion on Article 6.
Review Companies can’t be independent and impartial as they need their contract to be renewed with the local authorities.

Hence public law duty (section 202 of the Housing Act 1996) shouldn’t be discharged by these registered companies as they are not public bodies or bodies governed by public law.

By: Ros Tyrrell (Ms)

Ros Tyrrell (Ms) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:34:25 +0000

This is true if you compare outsourcing review work to the town hall catering contract, but I don’t think it’s the right comparison and I agree it should not sink to that level. The expenditure encountered for review work should fall far short of most LA tendering requirements. Outsourcing this work should be compared with any need to engage a particular expertise or resource that is not present within the authority e.g. legal expertise, training in a particular field. Any local authority that seeks to go out to tender for this work has missed the point in my view.

By: NL

NL — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:59:47 +0000

Ros, as I hoped I’d made clear above, my concerns are not at this point about whether or not particular individuals or companies carry out out-sourced reviews, but with the nature of out-sourcing, specifically the contractual and economic pressures involved. As noted in both this judgment and previously in the House of Lords, out-sourcing does not necessarily ensure independence and quite possibly the reverse.

By: Ros Tyrrell (Ms)

Ros Tyrrell (Ms) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:16:07 +0000

I carry out s 202 reviews as an independent consultant for local authorities, primarily in Wales, but I have also done some work for a large English authority. Despite original objections from Shelter my approach has been accepted, probably because I have shown myself to be objective and unbiased. Contracting out performs a useful service because it CAN ensure true independence and better quality decisions, as well as advice to the authority.So please don’t think there is only one person doing this and that he reflects the general approach in this area.

By: JS

JS — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:31:54 +0000

As Lords Millett, Bingham and Hoffmann appeared to see the danger I think those of expressing concern about the contracting out of reviews are in good company .

I wonder whether they will apply to the Supreme Court especially with Runa Begum being reconsidered in Ali post Tsfayo.

By: NL

NL — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:53:24 +0000

Tim – I checked back and saw no gloating. I, for instance, have never seen a Perdios review, don’t know him and have no axe to grind over the quality or otherwise of the reviews.

What I was and remain worried about is the contracting out and specifically the risk of the effect of a piece work or short-term contract on the independence of the reviewer. This was a point I made in reply to you on Augustin and to which you didn’t respond. And in fact, the Court of Appeal agree on the risks – look at para 52. In this case, on the specific facts, the Court of Appeal found that the risk was mitigated by the large number of authorities Perdios did reviews for – so lessening the need to please one individual master. Personally, I don’t agree with them on that point, but they clearly don’t simply ‘not see the difference’, as you suggest, they see a potential danger.

On ‘underlying bias’ – the issue was apparent bias, i.e. the appearance of the danger of bias. Not the same thing. But granted the CoA didn’t see the same problem with the website that the HHJ did in Augustin.

By: tim scott

tim scott — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:43:52 +0000

Dare I say I told you so (see my contribution to Augustin above), and you chaps all gloating over Minos’ demise are now found, probably not for the first time, to have ejaculated somewhat prematurely…

I, like the CoA, cannot see the difference between a LA-employee or and LA-employee-gone-private undertaking reviews. And if you think his success indicates an underlying bias, then this judgement suggests it is your fairmindedness that is in question, not his.