Tuesday 19 August 2025 – Shit Just Got Real
“Welcome! In
this module, we’re going to show you some practical steps that you can take to
avoid discrimination against disabled people.”
Oh, good, it was starting to get embarrassing. Oh, hang on, I’m thinking of David Brent!
This is the intro to Barnet Council’s mandatory Disability Discrimination course (that is, on how not to do it – similarly, the job advertised for a Violence Against Women and Girls Co-ordinator is not, I learned, to actually co-ordinate violence against women and girls). It feels like they are solving a problem that doesn’t exist or else, in reality, they think I might be discriminating against disabled people in my work. Maybe others are and practical steps need to be taken by them.
In other
news from reality, I recently learned that my Assistant Director at Hammersmith
& Fulham Council has been dismissed. Some schadenfreude may be
expected here but somehow I don’t feel that. You’ll recall
from What is it You Think Bishops Do and Living the
Dream that the AD wanted to “curate” all development in the borough
towards economic development: inward investment of big tech companies creating
high-paid Science and Technology jobs in the borough for the sole benefit of
people who live in Hammersmith & Fulham. And his tools to do
this were to help new businesses relocating to the borough move their furniture
in combined with having full control of the council’s planning and social value
functions to direct the contributions of STEM jobs they were to provide our
residents. However, the disbelief from angered planning officers, as
the AD himself described to me, who, unsurprisingly, to me at least, didn’t
want to hand over the reigns of placemaking to him, combined with him not
wanting to use an actual functional monitoring tool to monitor social value
because “the problem is never the IT” (it was), as well as dismissing his S106
monitoring officer (me) and not replacing him, left him with no tools except
for his own bravado and schtick.
Instead, I felt curiosity. How long could he last angrily telling everyone that only he could save the wealth of the borough without doing anything about it before reality kicked in? The answer, it turned out, was about a year. Yet my curiosity about why councils continue to seek out and recruit such clearly deluded and subsequently ineffectual people remains unsatisfied.
Councils’ existence in the twilight zone between fantasy and reality also confuses other businesses that want something from a council. Major developers in need of planning permission but are asked to make contributions to mitigate their development are never sure how to play it because, while battles rage between the senior officers’ fantastical business models and frontline staff actually having to deliver services, we can be so inconsistent. In one such case in Barnet, Hill Group has got themselves into a terrible muddle on their Fosters Estate development. This was the demolition of a social housing block (Cheshire House in Hendon) and replacing it with 217 mostly private-sale flats. This one, as they and anyone would expect, would require a lot of mitigation and a deal was struck for planning permission in return for thirteen apprenticeships for our residents on its construction.
But Hill Group never knows who it’s going to get from the council: a new iteration of AD aiming to revolutionise the model of attracting big business like them to the borough in an inward investment strategy that has transcended quixotic and plummeted over the top into fantasy or, in the interregnum of bold ADs being sacked and another appointed, an officer applying the statutory duties of a local planning authority and delivering services for its residents determined in democratic policy. They usually err on the former, riskier, greedier assumption and despatch the “Rhino” model of appointing obtuse, dumb and thick-skinned managers to be council liaison and act terribly shocked and offended if a council officer asks them for anything. But what happens to this approach when the iteration of officers is in the latter cycle and the developer’s strategy of ignorance and deflection in lieu of delivery is clearly not working and the shit gets real? Hill Group is a good test case.
The Hill Group Rhino reported a number of apprenticeships. One young man being supported by an Employment Adviser at Barnet Homes was reported to be on a bricklaying apprenticeship with sub-contractor, Fairway Brickwork, and enrolled on a Level 3 apprenticeship course at Barnet & Southgate College. This is exactly what we want from developers; to get their sub-contractors to commit to employing and training our residents to help them create a career. The only problem is, Barnet & Southgate College doesn’t have a bricklaying course on their curriculum.
In October, I questioned this with the Rhino. She replied,
“[The resident] was at Barnet & Southgate College completing his Level 2 course when he started his work with Fairway. Fairway have offered several opportunities for him to continue his work with them to progress to his Level 3. I believe that [he] missed the deadline for the Barnet & Southgate course enrolment and was exploring an alternative course provider – Fairway have been committed to continue supporting him with his next step. The current status is that he was reviewing the alternative course provider and then confirming with Fairway how he wishes to proceed.”
The juxtaposition of the exposition on how this young person is sorting out his apprenticeship course on his own interspersed with undescribed assertions of the employer’s continued support of him doing this is a language style typical of rhinos that I have had to get used to and allow myself to be cynical of. And this cynicism, I feel, is justified when the Rhino ignores the fundamental context of this explanation which is that Barnet & Southgate College doesn’t deliver a bricklaying course. In that context, actually just missing his enrolment of it can be construed as a miraculous achievement rather than a failure and he should be commended.
So I asked his Employment Adviser about why he is enrolling himself on a course and his employer, who is reportedly supporting him, isn’t doing it when it is usually the employer who arranges these things, if for no other reason than someone has to pay for an apprenticeship course and this is usually the employer, usually through their Apprenticeship Levy paid via their PAYE payroll system, or their CITB Levy if they are a member, which Hill Group is.
It turned out, I learned from his Employment Adviser, that his mum had been in touch with her complaining that, when he was “employed”, he was told that he would be enrolled on a bricklaying apprenticeship, but both Fairway and the Hill Group Rhino, who was central to making these arrangements, kept telling him they would get round to it. In the meantime, he was employed on a self-employed basis so that they didn’t have to pay him the legal minimum wage. Instead, they asked him to report to the construction site every morning whereupon he would be told by the foreman whether or not he was needed that day and, on the very regular occasions they deemed he wasn’t, was sent home without pay, forcing him to have to pay for his travel there and back without recompense. When he was retained for the day, he was given general labouring duties and not taught bricklaying despite Hill Group reporting to me he was employed as an Apprentice Bricklayer and claiming his appointment towards one of their obligated thirteen apprenticeship outputs.
Eventually the young man meekly told the Rhino that he literally couldn’t afford to keep commuting to the site if there wasn’t paid work available for him and, instead, asked when could he start on his apprenticeship and which college would he be attending? For “complaining” that day, the Rhino angrily sent him home and told him not to return. The Rhino’s above email is her version of events.
I don’t know what happened to four other “apprentices” who were employed on the development except that they were all let go within five months of 18 to 24-month apprenticeships. Inexplicably, Hill Group also claimed apprenticeships for their staff living around the Home Counties plus one from Cambridgeshire, one from Northamptonshire and one each from neighbouring Haringey, Brent and Harrow, making up the thirteen.
I questioned her version of events from what I had been told by her “employee’s” mum via his Employment Adviser and she said she would go away and investigate with the sub-contractor and get back to me. She never did.
This is all well and good because it is her prerogative. She doesn’t have to do what I ask her to do. It’s a free world. So I didn’t chase it up because I already knew what happened. To be fair, I wanted to give her the opportunity to give her version of events in light of the complaint that had been made against her, and she chose not to take it. Fine. But, rather than feel justified, I was just curious as to what her long game was here, and that of Hill Group who employed her to do this. Why waste their time to employ these young people at all if they weren’t even going to try to claim them as contributions towards the development, other than to just torture them?
Months later, in March, I sent the Rhino a reminder that her S106 monitoring report was again due. She told me she was leaving the job being replaced by another rhino, typically, it turned out, just as thick-skinned, but slightly more obtuse. She sent me the same report except that the “Apprentice Bricklayer” had been removed. I diligently sent the new Rhino the same comments as previously concluding that I was unable to verify apprenticeships when they had sacked our residents, and the apprentices they hadn’t sacked weren’t our residents but just random members of staff from around the country that happened to be on apprenticeships.
She replied in June,
“Hi Paul,
“Thanks for your email.
“Ahead of a full response, please could I confirm what process you are going through to verify the apprentices, and if there is anything we can support with?
“Best wishes,
“[Social Value & Community Manager]”
How am I verifying them? I’m looking at your report in which you have reported that you have sacked all our local residents employed onto an apprenticeship within weeks of them starting. And the rest, as you clearly report, have postcodes from around the country and nothing to do with your planning obligations to local residents. Was this not already very clear? I replied,
“Hi [Social Value & Community Manager],
“For now, I have just sense-checked what’s in the report…”
The
following month, she replied attaching “the amended report with accurate
employment information for all apprentices”.
Does this imply an admission that they weren’t reporting accurate information on S106 contributions and defrauding the planning process? On opening the report, it seems not. Nothing had changed except she had added a comment that one of the apprentices from Hayes in Middlesex was still on site. She added in the email, “If you would like to review the data attached initially, we can then agree a time to meet if helpful to discuss.”
Well, reading one comment didn’t take long to review and so I replied,
“Perhaps we could arrange a meeting to discuss because I think there is still some confusion.
“I didn’t doubt the accuracy of the report; what I was questioning was the relevance of what has been reported relating to the apprenticeships. As I say in my email below, the apprentices reported here are “either not Barnet residents or the duration of their employment not long enough to constitute an apprenticeship.” To go into detail…
“[…]
“I am available for a chat this afternoon and Monday afternoon…”
She replied the same day:
“Hi Paul,
"Thanks for your email.
“There’s no confusion, I just wanted to ensure the information regarding length of service was fully accurate.
“As outlined in the S106 agreement, which we have been working towards since the beginning of the project alongside both our predecessors, [her predecessor] and [my predecessor], the requirement is to target Barnet residents. We have consistently done so, as evidenced by the students studying in the area, notably those attending Barnet & Southgate College, as well as through the various activities documented in the spreadsheet.
“The example you gave is from a candidate who has finished on site due to TP&N
“It’s also worth noting that [her predecessor] raised this matter back in October 2024 and did not receive a response. We’re now nine months on, and with the project due to complete shortly – as you noted in your original email – there is very limited time remaining to take any meaningful action to recruit further Barnet residents onto apprenticeships.
“Happy to discuss further over a call if needed.
“Kind regards,
“[Social Value & Community Manager]”
No, I don’t particularly want to discuss it if she doesn’t because she is not confused and has nothing to clarify with me. In the meantime, I’m happy to accept her report that Hill Group hasn’t delivered any apprenticeships and, with completion of construction forecast for 30 August, I’m happy to just send her a demand notice for financial remedies for not delivering the thirteen apprenticeships amounting to £325,000. I’m zen.
The verb “target” is in the S106 agreement but, then so is to the end to employ those local residents targeted to complete an apprenticeship on the development, not to psychologically and economically torture them. Did she miss this nuance? It’s hard to believe she did because it is quite explicit in the S106 agreement, one might think it’s common sense, and she seems quite adamant she is not confused.
I don’t know, and don’t really care, what “TP&N” is. I’ll leave that one hanging. But I don’t know what “this matter” is she is referring to to which I didn’t respond. I’m normally quite diligent about replying to emails, especially genuine queries that I can help with and I’m fairly confident I didn’t miss anything, especially when she is being so vague about what it is I missed so much so that she can be sanguine about the threat of having to explain to her directors why they have to pay the council £325,000 because she didn’t do the job they employed her to do.
I didn’t want to leave this second point hanging and, if only out of curiosity, I replied asking her what it was her predecessor raised with me back in October. In the email, I also reiterated, lest she not grasped it, that no completed apprenticeships had been reported.
I didn’t hear from the new Rhino again but, with such an explicit conclusion from me, her boss, the Head of Social Value, replied:
“Paul,
“Happy Friday to you.
“Can you just clarify what you mean by "no completed apprenticeships reported" there is one completed on the spreadsheet, a further 8 who are still employed and still studying.”
You mean, can I clarify again? So I did. I replied simply, “I’m referring to Barnet residents.” She replied,
“Thanks Paul. Really helpful. So just to confirm you require a report detailing further evidence of where we have "targeted" Barnet residents other than our prolonged engagement with Barnet & Southgate College and all listed employment support as well as the work placements provided?
“I believe you have already recognised those targets have exceeded commitments.
“Have a lovely weekend when it comes.”
What? No. You are
required to report to the council Barnet residents who completed an
apprenticeship. For those uninitiated in S106 Employment &
Skills, which these angry women are making out to be, they won’t have read the
S106 agreement.
All I have recognised so far is that they lied to and about one young resident being employed onto an apprenticeship, paying him below the legal National Minimum Wage and sacking him for complaining about it.
Before my lovely weekend started, I replied the same day just to clarify their position (not mine):
“Hi [Head of Social Value],
“To confirm, if you want to make a case for reasonable endeavours made to satisfy the S106 obligations for Skills, Enterprise, Employment and Training, then please do. I can then notify Planning whether or not the obligations have been satisfied and what, if any, of the Employment and Training Contribution is due.
“I don’t really know in any detail what the relationship has been with Barnet & Southgate College. If you have records of recognition of endeavours made or targets exceeded, then do please include and attach them in your report.
“Have a good weekend too,
“Paul.”
That was 25 July and it is now mid-August, the lovely weekend long over, with practical completion of construction due for 30 August and still no report on reasonable endeavours made towards thirteen Barnet residents completing an apprenticeship on site. I haven’t already claimed they have made good endeavours towards this despite they continuously implying that I have without showing me, or even telling me, what it is I am supposed to have said, no apprenticeships have been reported, at least for Barnet residents, they have apparently had so little contact with Barnet & Southgate College that they don’t know that they don’t deliver bricklaying apprenticeships and they know I have evidence that they have abused one young participant, illegally paying him under the National Minimum Wage and sacking him for no good or legal reason, which they have managed simply by removing him from their report to the council after I queried it and failed to investigate the complaint.
What is their plan here? From the outset, it may have been to manage the S106 monitoring officer rather than deliver the S106 contributions, and this may have worked in the past on other developments/council officers across London. But, from August last year when the shit started to get real, what were they thinking was going to happen? Do they think by ignoring my email this will just go away? (Although, in their defence, Laing O’Rourke did get away without paying the £2.8m remedies on Olympia because I got sacked by the AD just before practical completion and he didn’t replace me so Hammersmith & Fulham lost out on the £2.8m - see If You're Going to Do Something Wrong, Do It Right.) Are people paid a salary in a corporation allowed to just stop doing their job and hope it goes away? Like for my previous AD when asked what he had actually, in the real world, achieved so far, the shit will certainly feel real when I issue the demand notice in twelve days time. It is a warning that, without taking practical steps, reality can eventually catch up with us.
Bad Boys II (2003): “This shit just got real.”
Comments
Post a Comment