It seems that all sorts of dirty little secrets are emerging as the Dame pursues her relentless campaign to clean up the Augean stables of RBK&C's TMO.
This one below, sent in by one who describes himself/herself as 'One Who Knows' shows what a cosily corrupt little organisation it is....
.....There are compelling reasons for disbanding the TMO in order to bring housing management functions back under the direct control of Local Councillors. If this happened RBK&C Councillors would no longer be able to wash their hands of social housing problems relegating important issues to the TMO Board and the Company's Executive Officers. One case in point comes to mind.
A former Chief Executive of the TMO, offered Michael Beverley, a former high profile volunteer Board Member, psychological counselling with a private therapist.
Tenants and Leaseholders in need of such treatment have to use the NHS and join long waiting lists.
Instructions were given to the Chief Executive's Personal Assistant to settle the private therapist's bill out of the TMO's coffers with the payments being credited to therapist's bank account at Lloyds Bank 499 Oxford Street Branch.
Whilst it is true that Councillor Condon- Simmonds and Councillor Dent Coad were both serving on the TMO Board when this expenditure was authorised, I am sure that neither of them had any knowledge of the Company paying for private medical treatment for someone doing voluntary work.
If housing management functions were provided in house by Council Officers, the Standing Orders of the Council would preclude any Chief Officer from authorising expenditure for private medical treatment for any member of the public without seeking permission from elected members of the Council.
I tried to hold the TMO to account over its decision to pay for Private Medical Treatment for one of its volunteers . The TMO has not surprisingly failed to come clean about the matter preferring to make woolly use of the Data Protection Act to conceal how much it spent on one of its most loyal favourites.
When I pointed out that the Data Protection Act did not protect the data of the dead, Miss Janet Seward of the TMO wrote to me to say that she could not discuss the matter.
Thanks to The Dame we can now have this secret out in the open and discuss it in the Court of Public Opinion.
When I pointed out that the Data Protection Act did not protect the data of the dead, Miss Janet Seward of the TMO wrote to me to say that she could not discuss the matter.
Thanks to The Dame we can now have this secret out in the open and discuss it in the Court of Public Opinion.
This cannot be true....but without wishing to speak ill of the dead Michael Beverley was a loathsome bully and sponger.
ReplyDeleteBut what the hell was the TMO doing wasting my money on a volunteer!
The Dame's informant has done us proud. There is much that needs to come out about Michael Beverley and his special relationship with the TMO. Some think it is wrong to speak ill of the dead but I'm afraid I disagree. It is not wrong to talk negatively about a person who is dead if you were prepared to say the same things when they were alive. Believe me, I told Michael Beverley straight more than once. I hope people will not hold back with their comments about Michael Beverley just because he is dead.
ReplyDeleteMichael Beverley told me that he never had any problems getting the repairs he wanted done. He couldn't give a dam about those, like me, whom the TMO treated disgracefully. He loved to brag about what he got from the TMO.
He was a member of the Michael Beverley Society - I' m alright Jack was his stock in trade. A pathetic, odious, man, who served on the TMO Board because he would not have got recognition in any other walk of life.
and members of the TMO Board and management deferred to him and indulged him because of what he could do to them. He was a control freak and power crazy.
DeleteWouldn't it be good if the Parliamentary Select Committee for Public Accounts sent for Robert Black , Gordon Perry and other former TMO Chiefs to find out what has been going on with our money at the TMO. Margaret Hodge MP with her no nonsense approach and forensic skills would get to the truth of it. Lady Hodge has the ability to reduce grown men to a frazzle in pursuit of the truth.
ReplyDeleteI think Hodge would want to know why Senior Management in the Perry Administration were not surcharged over the incompetent management of the Decent Homes' Budget which resulted in a £ 9 million overspend depriving many RBKC Council tenants of kitchen and bathroom upgrades. After all, it was the Labour Government who wanted Council tenants to have kitchen and bathroom upgrades and provided a lot of money for Kensington and Chelsea Council to provide them.
Hodge would also get to the bottom of how the TMO got a three star rating from the Government's Housing inspectorate and obtained an extra £ 6 million of Decent Homes Money from Government. Hodge would smell a rat when less than eighteen months after the three star rating was awarded by the Housing Inspectorate, the Council found it necessary to appoint an Independent Investigator, Maria Memoli, to look in to serious issues at the TMO. Memoli's report identified serious failures and irregularities at the TMO and, in the cold light of day,it beggars belief that the Housing Inspectorate could give a seriously deficient TMO three stars with a cheque for £ 6 million to boot courtesy of the tax payer.
Will the Dame write to Margaret Hodge to request an investigation.I am sure that Maria Memoli, a Solicitor, would be more than willing to co-operate with the Public Accounts Select Committee.
I would love to see Black squirm on questioning, and Perry shredded, by Margaret Hodge MP. The Local Government and Communities Committee might be interested in taking this on.
DeleteI would also like the Housing Inspector grilled over the ridiculous three stars business.
Do you know, it's not such a bad idea trying to get Margaret Hodge's Select Committee to investigate the TMO's mis-management of the money given to the Council for the Decent Homes' initiative.
DeleteA while ago on the BBC Parliament Channel, I saw Margaret Hodge MP hang out to dry a Senior Official of HMRC for writing off £1 million of late payment interest levied against a FTSE 100 Company. She took a dim view of the situation as did other Committee Members; both Labour and Tory.
It would be interesting to see how Margaret would deal with a three star rating from the Housing Inspectorate which resulted in an extra £ 6 million of Government Grant for the Council weighing that against the evidence later found by Maria Memoli who was assisted by an ex Police Officer. How could any competent Housing Inspection Team fail to unearth what Maria Memoli unearthed especially as Memoli's inspection looked at issues during the same period of time that the Housing Inspectorate scrutinised.
If Margaret Hodge took a dim view and lost it because the Revenue wrote off £ 1 million, imagine what she would do with the Inspector whose report let to the award of three stars which then cost the Government of the day £ 6 million.
DeleteTwinkle twinkle little star,
DeleteHow did the TMO get three stars,
If anyone could throw some light,
I would glow so very bright
Twinkle twinkle little star,
Why the TMO got three stars?
Someone did a star turn act
DeleteCouncillors of both parties are either incompetent or complicit in the waste and the almost corrupt practices of the TMO. Residents are scared to speak out for fear of being blacklisted by the TMO thugs, and nobody stands up for them.
ReplyDeleteTime for everyone to admit that this TMO is not fit for purpose and time for the council to stand up for the resident of the borough, for once.
Winston, if you are on the TMO Black List you have my sympathies. I' m on it too. The Black List trumps equal opportunities at every turn.
DeleteThe TMO must vaporize.
The blacklist is very sinister and no joke if like me you are on it.
DeleteI believe discrimination of the resident population - treating some residents very favourably, treating others extremely unfavourably - was one of the issues highlighted in Maria Memoli's report which still persist. On the contrary the TMO appear to has redoubled its efforts to discriminate further on the explicit orders of members of the Executive team.
DeleteI have a number of nasty letters from the Executive Team where they are colluding to do me down.
DeleteFrom Gilbert & Sullivan's Mikado - I have got him on the list
DeleteIf one day it should happen that a victim must be found,
I have got a little list, I've got a little list
Of TMO haters who may have gone to Ground,
I've got them on the list, I've got them on the list
let none of them be missed,
because I've got them on the list........
.......and what's his name, shoosh, you know,
I've got him on the list, yes, I've got him on the list,
and the people who have written all of this,
yes, I've got them on the list,
I'VE GOT THEM ON THE LIST, LET NONE OF THEM BE MISSED
This would appear to be the cost of keeping up the pretence of tenant management. Those on the Board must be kept "sweet" because they wouldn't be there otherwise. How many do you think would hang around without their monthly stipend?
ReplyDeleteI used to wonder how Michael Beverley devoted so much time to the TMO. Then I found out. He was on Social Security for about twenty years and was being kept by his hard working, economically active, neighbours who go out to work each day to earn an honest crust. Michael Beverley had no qualms about seeing off those who worked for their money. He was the sort of bloke which the Prime Minister described as having "the curtains closed each morning." What is worse he did this under the noses of Tory Councillors and Officers of a Tory Council. Why didn't they report him for Social Security abuse. These are the ones who issue leaflets imploring Council Tax payers to rat on the benefit cheats but, seemingly, not those close to the Town Hall.
ReplyDeleteBeverley made a lifestyle choice to opt out of going to work and did very nicely with the bungs he received from the TMO - the generous monthly stipend and being put up at a luxury Hertfordshire Countryside Hotel for weekend breaks courtesy of money given to the TMO by the Council; to mention just two of his unearned privileges.
He also enjoyed the frequent meals in swanky restaurants, courtesy of the TMO, which most Council tenants would be unable to afford.
Beverley was a parasite- a scrounger- pure and simple. If he were capable of doing all this voluntary work for the TMO unpaid then he was capable of getting a job and turning up at work to earn his money instead of drawing from the state.
How many members of the TMO Board today are on the Social with undeclared top ups and other bungs from the TMO.
GREG HANDS MP TAKE NOTE
ReplyDeleteYou are Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to George Osborne. The Dame is able to supply you with the names of those who have been on the TMO Board and received the monthly allowance of £ 100 PLUS whilst claiming Social Security Means Tested Benefits with no reductions to entitlement in respect of the £ 100 PLUS of income every month.
The Department for Work and Pension has been repeatedly led to believe that this £ 100 PLUS every month is a payment of out of pocket expenses. In reality the monthly payment of £100 PLUS is a FEE FOR SERVICE, regardless of the label that the TMO gives it, and should be deducted in the assessment of means tested benefits.
Osborne would report this scrounging to Duncan Smith.
WHERE WOULD THE COUNTRY BE IF EVERYONE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, HOUSING BENEFIT, COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT AND TAX CREDITS HAD £100 A MONTH ON THE SIDE?
DeleteI EARNED AN EXTRA £ 100 AT WORK IN OCTOBER. I LOST £ 31.00 OF MY HARD EARNED CASH IN EXTRA TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE.
DeleteI HAVE ALSO PAID OVER £1, 700 IN COUNCIL TAX TO RBK&C THIS YEAR.
THE PRIME MINISTER SAYS THAT HE WANTS TO REWARD THOSE WHO WORK HARD AND PLAY BY THE RULES. THIS TORY COUNCIL GIVES THE TMO FUNDS WHICH IT USES TO PAY OUT £ 100 PLUS TO EVERY RESIDENT BOARD MEMBER EACH MONTH. THOSE BOARD MEMBERS ON SOCIAL SECURITY KEEP ALL OF THIS MONEY WITH NO REDUCTIONS TO THEIR MEANS TESTED BENEFITS BECAUSE THE SOCIAL HAS BEEN TOLD THAT THE £ 100 PLUS IS EXPENSES.
THIS CONTRIVANCE IS GOING ON UNDER THE NOSE OF THIS TORY COUNCIL. DISGRACEFUL !
ANONYMOUS AT 16.27 ABOVE ASKS HOW MANY RESIDENT BOARD MEMBERS WOULD CONTINUE TO SERVE IF THEY DID NOT GET THE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE FROM THE TMO ?
DeleteSO THE RESIDENT BOARD MEMBERS MEET 4 TIMES A YEAR. THEY EACH GET A MINIMUM OF £ 100 PLUS A MONTH. A ONE DAY BUS PASS IS ABOUT £ 4.40 WHICH MEANS WHICH MEANS THEIR TRAVEL EXPENSES ARE £ 17.60 A YEAR.
THIS SO CALLED PAYMENT OF EXPENSES IS INCOME, EARNED INCOME. EACH BOARD MEETING LASTS AROUND 2 TO 3 HOURS SO FOR AROUND 12 HOURS WORK A YEAR THEY ARE MAKING £100 AN HOUR ON AVERAGE- FABULOUS EARNINGS-
HOW MANY RESIDENT BOARD MEMBERS HAVE REPORTED THIS INCOME TO THE INLAND REVENUE OR TOLD THE DWP HOW MUCH THEY GET AND HOW MUCH IT COSTS THEM TO GO TO 4 MEETINGS A YEAR ?
A BOARD MEMBER LIABLE TO TAX AT 20% SHOULD BE PAYING
TAX OF £ 236.48 A YEAR ON THESE EARNINGS (AFTER ALLOWING FOR THE EXPENSE OF BUS FARES)
A SINGLE CLAIMANT ON THE MEANS TESTED BENEFITS SHOULD HAVE THEIR BENEFITS REDUCED BY £ 18.07 PER WEEK AFTER ALLOWING FOR THE WEEKLY DISREGARD OF £5 FOR EARNINGS.
COME ON, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
TO THINK PEOPLE MOAN ABOUT IMMIGRANTS DRAINING THE COUNTRY TAKE A LOOK A LITTLE CLOSER TO HOIME AT THE TMO.
DeleteI have four Non-Executive Directorships each paying around £ 30, 000 a year and I pay Tax at 40%. Past and Present TMO Resident Directors on Benefits are getting around £100 per hour from the TMO and Social Security. I hope Rifkind reads this. I'm a Conservative and object to paying tax to keep scroungers. My God!
DeleteI'm a private tenant, a widow, who finds it very hard to make ends meet. I got an increase in my works pension and my housing benefit went down.
DeleteWhy should they have £ 100 a month on the quiet, aint right.
I really feel for Ada Clifford Smith. I was in a West End pub over the weekend. The DWP came with the police and arrested the bouncer for benefit fraud. Hope these TMO Directors get done.
DeleteThey had a Housing Officer at the TMO years ago who was claiming and working. She got done.
Dear Tax Payer.
DeleteI suspect that question was ironic.
The TMO Board should reflect the composition of the Council's tenant population. 1/3 of Council tenants claim no Housing Benefit as they are in employment and earn "too much". On that basis 1/3 of the TMO Board should be in the same position. They aren't. 100% of the (six) Council tenants serving on the TMO Board are claiming benefits. Which means that any claims about the TMO Board being representative of the tenants living in Council housing are also hogwash.
This is a direct result of the TMO Executive adhering to a strategy of intentionally attracting and recruiting those claiming benefits on to the Board and intentionally dissuading those who don't. Why? Because those who work might have "ideas" about the TMO's services that the Executive team may not like very much; such as that the TMO needing to do much, much better for the money.
Setting the "expenses" issue to one side, the other detrimental effect of this perverse recruitment strategy is that none of the tenant Board members have any of the skills you might reasonably expect of the director of a company with a turnover of several million pounds. The current tenant members of the TMO Board are completely unqualified for the task of overseeing the activities of the company. The cynical might suggest that is precisely what the TMO Executive and Council want.
It should be noted that the TMO is doing these tenants no favours. They probably don't realise it but as directors of the company they are legally liable for many of the company's activities. A perfect example of which are the company's accounts, which two or three of them are asked to sign off every year but which none of them understand properly. Is this really fair? In any other walk of life this would be classed as taking advantage of those who through no fault of their own are less able.
DeleteIt did not suit the TMO to come clean about how much it spent on Michael Beverley's private medical treatment. The TMO clearly did not realise that the Data Protection Act 1998 is not a panacea for the TMO to conceal how much it spent on Michael Beverley's counselling treatment. It is very worrying that a TMO Official tried to hide behind the Data Protection Act misleading the enquirer in to believing that there is a legal obstacle to obtaining information about how much was spent on Beverley's counselling treatment.
ReplyDeleteIt is for others to judge whether this was deliberate falsehood, a ploy, or sheer incompetence. It is a good job that the enquirer knows the law about Data Protection better than those running the show at the TMO.
Anonymous 12.05 is out of date and should check the current TMO resident board members' details on the website. One used to be in receipt of benefits, one is retired (I hope you don't expect someone in their 70s still to be working). The others are gainfully employed - even running their own businesses and understanding accountancy very well indeed.
ReplyDeleteIs the Retired Board Member getting Means Tested Benefits - Pension Credit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Support- yes or no ? If they are on Means Tested Benefits, does the Social know that they have earnings of £23.07 a week as opposed to the nonsense of out of pocket expenses of £100 a month.
Delete------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all the other Resident Board Members are "gainfully employed" have they all reported the money they earn from the TMO- at least £1200 a year - which would result in a tax liability for a basic rate tax payer of £236.48 a year (after deduction of the allowable business expense of travel costs). Yes or No and if yes for how many years have they been paying the tax on all this earned income from the TMO.
For how many years have the Chairman and Vice Chairman been paying tax on their much higher monthly payments or reporting these payments to the DWP as EARNINGS as opposed to the nonsense of £150 to £160 a month of out of pocket expenses. They get higher wages because they have more responsibilities not because they pay so much more in bus fares,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current situation does not address the massive amounts of overpaid Social Security Benefits paid to former Board Members, over a number of years, who contrived that the EARNINGS that they received each month from the TMO were out of pocket expenses to obtain an monetary advantage form the Social.
____________________________________________________________
Anonymous at 17.16 should not be angry, the Revenue is entitled to its pound of flesh and the DWP should know the truth.
Sadly I suspect that those Board members in gainful employment are not declaring their Board member expenses as income.
DeleteEven those in retirement need to declare it as additional income to HMRC and probably don't, as it is income in addition to that from their pension.
There are many reasons why the current system of "expenses" is far from ideal. The tax liability that those on even modest incomes, whether employed or retired, incur as a result is one of them. It is at the very least a massive inconvenience, at worst a temptation to indulge in "a little bit of tax evasion".
Dear 17:16.
DeleteAs far as I can see there is no relevant information on TMO Board members. If I visit the website and look for information on the Board I end up here:
http://www.kctmo.org.uk/sub/about-us/20/the-board
Where's the information on what they do for a living and what relevant skills they bring to the table that qualifies them to act as directors of a company in receipt of £12 million/year in public money? I can't see it.
If they are indeed as competent as you suggest then I would happily retract my original statement. However, I suspect they're not as competent as you'd suggest and the company has very probably made little or no effort to train them up to a standard that might enable them to properly scrutinise the company's activities or set its direction.
I was prosecuted in 1980 for making a statement to the Department of Health and Social Security to obtain Supplementary Benefit by deception contrary to Section 15(2) of the Theft Act 1968.(I still have the indictment) I'm not proud of a conviction for fraud.
ReplyDeleteI cooked up a wonderful story, or so I thought, contriving that I did not have an Income. I had to hang my head in shame when I stood in the dock at St. Albans Crown Court and heard the judge tell me that I had deprived honest claimants of a higher level of benefit because benefits would be much higher with less fraudulent claiming.
VALERIE at 21.34, a convicted fraudster, has more decency in her little finger, than all of the TMO's Resident Directors put together. She acknowledges her crime and has atoned. TMO Resident Directors are depriving the truly needy from a decent level of benefit by failing to declare their earnings and have their Social reduced.
DeleteTMO Resident Directors are unrepentant about their crime.
DeleteIt is time for any TMO Resident Board Members, past or present, who have been involved in this Expenses' Contrivance, to go down the Social and to tell them the truth. They won't put you in irons, or put a ball and chain around your ankle or give the modern day equivalent of it, an electronic tag, but they will work out how much you have been overpaid and recover the overpayment. They have easy repayment schemes nowadays where they reduce your benefit by so much a week so that the Taxpayer is put in the position that they were in before the overpayment occurred.
ReplyDeleteI am off to work for a 6am start . I can't say that my earnings are expenses to avoid paying tax..
You can't say fairer than that. I never knew that the DWP had an easy payment scheme to recover overpaid benefits by reducing the Social or Dole money that people receive so that the Taxpayer is not at a loss.
DeleteThe easy repayment scheme mentioned is great but some Board Members will be on deductions to benefits for the rest of their lives because the amount of their overpayment is massive. Social Security Officers and the Appeals Tribunal are able to exercise discretion if recovery of the overpayment would cause the claimant hardship so there is no excuse for not telling the DWP the truth. Confession is good for the soul.
DeleteVERDICT:
ReplyDeleteThe TMO has its very own expenses scandal. Not quite on the same scale as the parliamentary expenses scandal but a damaging local scandal all the same.
A Whistleblower blew the lid of Parliament and The Dame has blown the lid off the the TMO.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
1. TMO Resident Directors should stop paying themselves £100 PLUS every month. The Chairman and Vice Chairman should not be paid £ 150 PLUS or £ 160 PLUS a month.
2. Robert Black to write to the Revenue and Social Security to explain that the Company has deceived these statutory bodies in to believing that these payments are expenses when they are really a FEE FOR SERVICES provided to the Company, in order that TMO Resident Directors can have a few bob on the side. He must publish details of all the money paid to each Board member every year since 1996 in the interests of TRANSPARENCY. (Parliament published in the end).
3. Robert Black to publish details of the monies worth received by each Board Member since 1996 including how much has been spent on
a) Luxury Breaks at Ashridge, the Hertfordshire Countryside Hotel,including meals and bar bills.
b) How much the Company spent on Michael Beverley's counselling,
c) Name each restaurant in which TMO Resident Directors have dined at our expense and how much has been spent on meals, bar bills and entertainment since 1996.
The Mayor of K&C, Councillor Maighread Condon Simmonds, who is a Council Nominated TMO Board Member and not in receipt of payments from the TMO to provide support, (touchy feely) to each Board Member, past and present, when they CONFESS to the Revenue and the DWP the truth about their income from the TMO.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI am surprised that the Mayor has not reported the TMO's Resident Directors for Social Security scrounging. She let it be known a while ago that she grassed or was going to grass up a woman on the World's End estate for working on the side as a pub cleaner
DeleteClaiming benefits whilst working on the World's End Estate is a way of life as anyone whose lived on a Council estate knows. Labour Councillors would know this and wouldn't grass. At least the World's End people are honest about working on the side. These TMO people are calling wages expenses and have the cheek to say it's allowed.
DeleteThe woman from World's End who was working on the side as a pub cleaner (and reported for doing so) would have had to work hard for a marginal gain: hoovering, polishing, scouring filthy toilets and washbasins, cleaning up the drunks vomit.
DeleteCompare that with the TMO Resident Board Members who sit on their backsides four times a year, for no more than three hours on each occasion, and get £100 an hour for doing so. They call that money expenses instead of earnings so as to keep all of their benefits and evade taxation. I think we all know who the real naughty boys and girls are
I would derive no satisafction from prosecuting past or present TMO Resident Directors. I don't want them going to prison but I do want them to accept responsibility for what they have done, to tell the truth and to repay any benefits they have been overpaid. In the case of long serving Directors, past and present, the amount overpaid would run in to thousands of pounds and they all know it.
DeleteNicholas Holgate could write to the DWP Chief Adjudication Officer to enquire if it would be possible to broker a deal for the Resident Directors along the lines of .......... in consideration of any TMO Resident Board Member reporting income not properly reported (before) and by agreeing to repay any overpaid benefits received, the Board Member will enjoy immunity from prosecution.
We might then be able to take the Council's request to report Benefit Cheats seriously, the request which comes in with the Council Tax bill each year.
Pen without poison is worng. Subject this lot to the full force of the Criminal Law.
DeleteThe issue of TMO Resident Directors calling their EARNINGS expenses inorder to evade tax and obtain means tested benefits has been brought up at meetings of the Company on numerous occasions. Black and Co are too daft to realise that there would be a mass exodus of Resident Directors if the TMO stopped paying them £ 1,200 a year, for twelve hours work a year, which equates to £100 an hour. What is worse the payment of £100 an hour is called EXPENSES so that these scroungers can avoid tax and deceive social security in to believing that they are only being reimbursed their out of pocket expenses. This is nonsense.
DeleteIf a lone parent on Social Security earned £ 100 a month, it would be taken in to consideration in the assessment of her benefits - why should TMO Directors be treated as though they are above the law because they play semantic games with the support of the TMO.
What's the point of the Council asking us to grass up Benefit Cheats if they will not do the right thing and report TMO Directors for obtaining Means Tested Benefits by deception and for evading Income Tax.
I also want them prosecuted.
Spot the scroungers has got it right good and proper.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCan people making comments about the Mayor PLEASE remember that unsubstantiated accusations are quite unacceptable and it wastes a huge amount of the Dame's team having to remove them. If people can prove their comments then email the Dame and she will get her investigative team on the case. So please, no more innuendo with supporting facts.
ReplyDeleteDear Dame,
DeleteThere are many instances of the the kind mentioned in relation to the Mayoress. The issue with substantiating them is naming RBKC and TMO officers who would face retribution.
I've just remembered that about nine years ago, a TMO Board member was given money to arrange an Old Age Pensioners party for the OAP's in her area. She spent the money on a meal in a restaurant. The TMO decided that if she gave the money back that would be the end of it. She gave the money back alright because she knew that she had done wrong and could have been had up in Court for it
ReplyDeleteThe TMO should be encouraging responsible citizenship where tenants and Board members to report earnings and have their benefits reduced accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI was at an AGM of the TMO when a Director of Finance dealt with a complaint about this issue from a woman in the audience. He told the membership that declarations to the Revenue and Social Security were a matter between the Board member, the Revenue and the DWP. I only know of one person who has ever paid any tax on the earnings he received as a resident Director of the TMO.
That's right. I was at that AGM. An Australian woman told the TMO bloke that if these generous monthly payments were not doled out to Resident Directors then they would all stop being Board members. The TMO bloke whose name escapes me, a tubby bloke, responded with " very likely."
ReplyDeleteSo what does that tell us ?
A top man at the TMO knows that these Resident Directors are sponging off the state and the taxpayer.
15.10 forgot to say that they are sponging off the TMO too.
ReplyDeleteTMO Resident Directors have turned the TMO and the Welfare State in to a scroungers charter with their sham expenses.
ReplyDeleteBlack has been at the TMO for six years. He has failed to clean up the expenses scandal which he inherited. He has actually made it worse because he has reduced the number of times the Board meets each year because he has no intention of being answerable to Resident Directors who do nothing more than put their names on the list of Directors in return for £1200 PLUS each year.
ReplyDeleteThe Vice Chair and the Chair get a higher level of remuneration
The TMO makes me die. Refusing to discuss how much they spent on Michael Beverley's medical treatment by relying on legislation that doesn't protect the data of the dead. When you think of it , we can find out what was in Margaret Thatcher's Will and even get a copy of it by from the Probate Registry,but we cannot find out how much was spent on the TMO's biggest scrounger.
ReplyDelete