Ernie Clark. Hilperton Division, Wiltshire Council.

My question to next week's council meeting has been answered.

A few people have emailed me asking whether 'Inspector Knacker' (the Private Eye term for the police) will get involved. An interesting point!!

My question:-

'Private Eye magazine's 'Rotten Boroughs' column has revealed that the beneficiaries of the Kennet District Council 'non-pensionable honoraria' scheme were Chief Executive Mark Boden, HR director Anne Ewing and Chief Finance Officer Andrew Hart. The sums involved were reported as £10,360 for Boden, £5,733 for Ewing and £6,298 for Hart.

In reply to my question to her in February last year, Cllr. Scott replied ‘The Council is pursuing two claims amounting to a total sum of approximately £20,000. Both cases are being contested and one of the individuals has instructed a solicitor. The Council is considering its position in the light of the points raised in defence.’

Assuming that the council has now considered its position, could Cllr Scott please advise what action is now being pursued and which of the three officers were, or are, being pursued to repay the monies? Why were only two being pursued and not all three? How did she come to the figure of ‘a total sum of approx. £20,000’?'

The response:-

'The action being pursued is recovery of the enhanced element of severance payments in those cases where the honorarium was erroneously included in the calculation of severance payments.

In the majority of cases where the honorarium was paid either the staff did not leave the Council or the mistake was picked up before the staff member left the employ of the Council and therefore they did not receive an enhanced element to their severance payments.

There were only two former Kennet staff members who received an enhanced element of their severance payments (£9,722.74 and £10,038.33 respectively).

The recovery action that has been taken is that demand has been made of the two former staff members for recovery of these sums. One has responded denying any liability and raising a number of factors in defence of the payment. The other has instructed a solicitor who has required further information before responding.

Due to the historical nature of this information it has taken some time to compile this information and therefore there has been a delay. This information has now been supplied to the party’s solicitor and the Council’s Legal Team is waiting for a response. Once this is received any defences raised can be considered and a final decision made as to whether Court proceedings are justifiable.'

So it would seem that WC is not trying to recover the actual payments, but only the 'knock-on' effect on any subsequent redunduncy payment. Perhaps 'Inspector Knacker' does, indeed, need to be called in to dig deeper on this matter.