Campaign group demands Councillor resignation following misrepresentations to the press.

Nov. 24, 2010 - PRLog -- The EU inquiry centred on Partnerships in Parking (PiP), a body set up by the council to allow local authorities to join forces to procure more cost effective parking services. Verrus (UK) ltd was awarded the contract to provide pay-by-phone parking services.

When further London boroughs joined PiP and began to use Verrus' services, a complaint was made that the contract should have been re-tendered.

On 8th November, WCC issued a press release claiming that the council had been cleared by the EU Commissioners, giving the impression that the commissioners were apparently satisfied that "no wrongdoing had taken place".

Later in the release, Cllr. Rowley went further by claiming that the contract was properly awarded following a tender process "in accordance with the law".

The press release can be found here:

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/press-releases/2010-11/eu-clears-westminster-council-over-parking-contrac/

However, in a response to questions raised by UKIP MEP, Gerard Batten, the EU Commissioners provided a totally different perspective, stating:

"On 20 November 2009, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice (LFN) to the United Kingdom authorities. In this, the Commission considered that Westminster City Council has infringed EU law."

The response went further explaining:

"In response to the LFN, the United Kingdom authorities recognised the Commission's allegations and committed to take appropriate and adequate measures for the purpose of terminating the infringement in question. Namely, Westminster City Council committed to ensure that the public bodies, parties to the framework agreement, were restricted to those expressly listed in the contract documents."

This has major ramifications for the involvement of Tower Hamlets in the PiP Framework, as they were not party to the initial contract, yet are utilising the Verrus UK Ltd Pay-by-Phone service via PiP, apparently unaware of the potentially illegality of their position.

NTBPT Chairman, Warren Djanogly. expressed his deep concern at the misleading statements by Councillor Rowley, stating:

"The seriousness of this misrepresentation must not be underestimated. It's one thing to mislead the press & the public. However, other PIP member councils should have been informed of the EU Commissioners' findings, yet have been simply referred to the WCC press release."

He added:

"We challenge WCC to confirm that they have properly informed PIP members such as Tower Hamlets of Westminster’s commitment to the EU Commissioners, and inform these councils that they should cease using the contract immediately".

In light of his irreconcilable comments, the campaign stated that Cllr. Rowley’s position was now untenable,  and demanded that he resign.

Ends



FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT WARREN DJANOGLY ON 07802 882 681 or chairman@notobikeparkingtax.com
Questions by UKIP MEP Gerard Batten


Question for written answer P-8621/2010 to the Commission Rule 117
Gerard Batten (EFD)

Subject:            Possible breach of Directive 2004/18/EC on the award of public contracts

In relation to the subject of my Written Question P-1787/10, in a BBC report dated 5 March 2010, a European Commission spokesman is quoted as stating:

‘There is indeed a case. We sent a letter of formal notice on 20 November 2009 – this is the first stage of our infringement proceedings. UK authorities replied on 22 January. This reply is currently under assessment – next step not yet decided. If we're content with the UK Government reply, we close the case. If we're not, then we move to the second stage of infringement proceedings.’

1.         Can the Commission please confirm whether the assessment process being applied to the reply has now been completed, and whether the Commission has found it satisfactory or not?
2.         If the reply has NOT been satisfactory, can the Commission confirm that it has moved to the second stage of infringement proceedings, and what format this second stage will comprise?
3.         Again, assuming the reply not to be satisfactory, can the Commission please confirm that, and on what date, the British Government, via the OGC, was made aware of this decision, and what obligation now falls to the British Government as a direct result?

Response from EU Commissioners


P-8621/10EN Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(18.11.2010)

In its reply to the previous written question P-1787/10 , the Commission informed the Honourable Member that it had started an investigation into the tendering procedure carried out by Westminster City Council for the award of a framework agreement for the provision
of pay-by-phone services for parking.

On 20 November 2009, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice (LFN) to the United Kingdom authorities. In this, the Commission considered that Westminster City Council has infringed EU law.

In response to the LFN, the United Kingdom authorities recognised the Commission's allegations and committed to take appropriate and adequate measures for the purpose of terminating the infringement in question. Namely, Westminster City Council committed to ensure that the public bodies, parties to the framework agreement, were restricted to those expressly listed in the contract documents. Furthermore, the Office of Government Commerce has published and updated guidance notes on the matter, ensuring adequate identification of the bodies permitted to use framework agreements. Finally, Westminster City Council decided to limit the duration of the framework agreement to the period permitted by law.

In view of the satisfactory outcome to its investigations, the Commission decided to close this case on 28 October 2010.

# # #

The No To Bike Parking Fees protest group is the leading voice challenging the introduction of revenue raising parking charges in Westminster, with the support of the Taxpayers' Alliance and others. Further information is at www.notobikeparkingfees.com