Within the spending data files, which by law must show all
payments over £250, Driver also identified sums of £168,050 paid on 28 May 2015
plus £471,540 and £147,460 paid on 21 October 2015. Totalling £787,050 the
recipients of these payments are unknown and were marked in the files as “Redacted
Commercial Confidentiality (4)”. The files stated that the payments were made for legally related
purposes including the provision of future settlements. Some of the costs were
allocated to TDCs operational services department which includes the Port of
Ramsgate (5). Said Driver, “I strongly suspect these payments were made to the
live animal exporters. Previously acknowledged payments of £2.3 million made on
31 March 2015 were recorded in the spending data files in exactly the same way
as these latest payments”.
Driver’s suspicions about the payments
are supported by a Budget Monitoring Report due to be discussed by a meeting of
TDCs Cabinet tomorrow (24th November) which says that “to date settlement payments made (to the live exporters ID) total circa
£3m (excluding legal costs ID) with
further on-going negotiations (6)”. This suggest that the £3.5million identified
by Driver is not the final settlement figure and may even exceed £4million. Because
the payments were made to compensate for an unlawful act they are not covered
by TDCs insurance policies and must therefore be paid for by the council tax
payer. This works out at £53 per household.
Driver who
has campaigned against live animal exports from the Port of Ramsgate for over 4
years said “although I totally despise the cruel and barbaric trade which operates
from Ramsgate and will continue to oppose it, it was perfectly clear from the outset
that anything other than the shortest possible suspension would get the council
into extremely serious legal trouble. It’s my opinion that the then Labour
leadership of the Council acted in a recklessly negligent way by indefinitely extending
the suspension. This foolish and incompetent action has cost the tax payers of
Thanet dearly”.
He went to
say “that some of the Ramsgate live exporters were found guilty of
animal welfare abuse which led to the deaths of the 47 sheep at Dover Magistrates
Court in early 2014. Yet here they are now getting a share of the £3.5 million
damages payments. These payment are in my view blood money! I’m now beginning to have serious doubts
about remaining in the EU after this fiasco”
Ends.
- E-mail from TDC to Ian Driver.
- See https://www.thanet.gov.uk/your-services/what-we-spend-and-how/money-paid-to-suppliers/2015-council-spend/
- See http://www.monckton.com/barrister/philip-woolfe/ and http://www.monckton.com/barco-de-vapor-ors-v-thanet-district-council/
- Extracts from TDC monthly spending reports for
May and October 2015
28/05/2015
|
168050.6
|
REDACTED COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY
|
Corporate Resources and S151
|
Balance Sheet
|
Provisions- Future Settlement
|
Legal Services
|
21/10/2015
|
471540
|
REDACTED COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY
|
Corporate Resources and S151
|
Balance Sheet
|
Provisions-Future Settlement
|
Legal Services
|
21/10/2015
|
147460
|
REDACTED COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY
|
Operational Services
|
Revenue
|
Other Transfer Payments
|
Legal Services
|
- See 4 above
- See Cabinet Meeting 24 November Item 7
paragraph 2.3 here http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/documents/b11495/Supplementary%20Agenda%2024th-Nov-2015%2019.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9
Who is the Tdc lawyer who failed on this? Why were these ridiculous compensation costs not appealed. Typical Tdc failure where we pay twice plus police costs.
ReplyDeleteUkip seem to be allowing tdc to continue its secrecy. They are lead by the nose by the officials. Wells and Shonk should know better after years at Kcc
ReplyDeleteSo did the Labour admin take legal advice in 2012? if they did and they though they had a case to ban live exports under the law then the advice was not worth the paper it was written on. TDC should ask for there money back for the advice given. Makes you think there is no point in the council asking for legal advice on anything.
ReplyDeleteWhat an idiotic judgment and costs after the cruel 40 sheep deaths:
ReplyDeleteNext day, on 13th September 2012, TDC decided to suspend the shipment of livestock
from the port. The claimants applied for judicial review of that decision and sought
an interim injunction lifting the ban. On 19th October 2012 Burton J, sitting in the
Administrative Court, granted relief which lifted the ban on an interim basis. On 29th
November 2012 TDC decided to lift the ban in any case and as a result there was no
reason for the judicial review claim to continue. Both parties consented to a
discontinuation of the judicial review claim.
5. The claimants also had a claim for damages caused by the ban. Although the ban in
fact only lasted for about one month, that time of year was an important time for the
claimants because it coincided with the Muslim festival of Eid. The claimants
contended the ban had caused them to lose sums of the order of £1.5 million. The
parties agreed to transfer the damages claim to the Chancery Division.
6. In December 2012 the RSPCA brought judicial review proceedings against DEFRA
relating to the issues arising from this incident. The claim by the RSPCA failed.
Permission was refused by Males J
Both sides agreed to end the ban yet Tdc didnt invlude the costs to be ended?
ReplyDeleteAnd if it was £1.5m why are tdc paying £3m or more?
Closing the port after the sheep deaths is perfectly reasonable anyway hence the rspca trying to prosecute!
What has happened with the tdc and rtc Munday election? Did anyone actually vote for RTC?
ReplyDeleteWith the end of Manston cpo and ukip not in control what are all the councillors doing now? It all seems a bit flat for £30m tax a year
ReplyDeleteHow many tdc staff work at the port and marina
ReplyDelete