We have filed multiple corporate complaints about how the council has handled this matter.
Rather than taking these complaints seriously, the council has dragged its collective feet for weeks and is now misrepresenting what they say and refusing to investigate them.
Corporate Complaint 1
12/12/23 filed with reference: FS-Case-568957453
What is your complaint?
In the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee meeting of 17 January 2023, the chair of the committee said: “I’ve already got a note here that the health suite will be linked with the leisure strategy, and that’s not going to be coming in February, but at some future date.”
This was formalised in the ESCSC forward plan dated 10 February 2023 where both the health suite and leisure strategy items were scheduled for the meeting on 24 April 2023.
In the ESCSC forward plan dated 1 April 2023, these items became unlinked for some reason, with the health suite item scheduled for 20 June 2023 but leisure strategy item was scheduled for ESCSC meeting on 5 September 2023.
In the next ESCSC forward plan dated 23 June 2023, both items were linked again and both scheduled for the ESCSC meeting on 5 September 2023.
On 14 August 2023, Richmond Council issued the following statement to residents:
“We know that residents are frustrated that the health suite at Pools on The Park continues to be out of use during this period, and we want to reassure users of the leisure centres that we are committed to providing leisure services which meet the needs of our residents.
To ensure that investment into our facilities is made in line with the evidence gathered for the final strategy, any decisions regarding the health suite will be made once the strategy work is complete.”
This was a clear public announcement that both items are linked.
Yet curiously only the health suite item was scheduled for the ESCSC meeting on 7 November 2023 and in that same meeting it was disclosed that the leisure strategy is not due to be completed until Spring 2024 at the earliest.
It is completely unacceptable to break the commitment formally made to residents on 14 August 2023.
On 5 November 2023, I asked Matthew Eady by email whether the leisure strategy work was complete. His reply: “The Council are following Sport England Strategic Outcomes Planning Framework with the Playing Pitch Strategy one element of analysing the strategic need. The Council will be developing its strategy over the next few months with consideration by Committee in spring 2024.”
So it clearly isn’t complete and the council’s commitment to residents was broken.
We are very unsatisfied with the answer provided so far on this matter by Cllr Julia Neden-Watts (public question at the full council meeting on 28 November 2023). It is not acceptable to break a commitment to residents just because it is felt that “enough” work has been done on the leisure strategy particularly in light of her comments below at the earlier meeting on 7 November 2023.
When Cllr Zoe McLeod asked at the ESCSC meeting what was understood about the demand for a health suite and was not given a straight answer by Matthew Eady, Cllr Julia Neden-Watts commented: “Are we to grasp that that assessment hasn’t been fully done but through the leisure facilities strategy work, an assessment of need of health benefits of health suite, health spa could emerge from that? Do we have that evidence or is it something that we need to gather?”
Another example of why it is very clear that the leisure strategy has not been completed and no decision on the health suite should have been brought to committee on 7 November 2023.
What do you think we should do to put things right?
Rescind the decision made at the committee meeting of 7 November 2023 since it should never have been brought to committee and breaks the commitment made by Richmond Council on 14 August 2023.
14/12/23: Received written acknowledgment that the complaint will be investigated:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your online form submitted on 12 December 2023, in which you made a complaint that the Leisure Strategy and Health Suite were no longer being considered at the same committee meeting and that the Leisure Strategy would not be completed until Spring 2024.
I can confirm that we are now dealing with your complaint at stage 1 of the Council’s two stage corporate complaints procedure.
Matthew Eady, Assistant Director, will be investigating your complaint at stage 1. He will then send you his response within 20 working days, i.e., by 12 January 2024.
Nina Brown, Service Support Officer, Sport & Fitness Services (Richmond)
31/12/23: Further evidence added to complaint:
At a meeting with residents on 21/12/23, Matthew Eady stated:
“Therefore, in order not to lose another six, nine months, we were keen to move forward with a recommendation for a group exercise studio because that will take 12, 18 months, two years to deliver and adding another 6 or 7 months on why the leisure strategy articulates what we know is our policy to get more people, more active, more often, using health programmes as well. We thought that was not beneficial to the residents, and we were very keen to try and bring that forward sooner. So it was about our ambition to try and provide activities and services for our residents sooner, because we already knew the direction of travel with our strategy.”
Full transcript: https://healthsuite.org.uk/virtual-meeting/
However, we know this statement is untrue because in his report dated 07/11/23 to committee it says:
‘Subject to approval, the works will be included in a wider package of capital works planned at Pools on the park to reduce disruption and potentially realise economies of scale. Due to the listed status of the building a single planning application will be required.’
Since it has been publicly stated at the Community Conversation event on 21/11/23 that the Pools on the Park general refurbishment is waiting on the leisure strategy being completed, there is therefore ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why it was necessary to pull the decision on the health suite earlier, thus breaking the commitment to residents.
As I said in regards to another complaint, it really is not appropriate for Matthew Eady to be responsible for handling this complaint since it is about his decision and the responses that he has given so far are in no way satisfactory. This needs to go upwards to Paul Chadwick or even higher.
12/01/24: Stage 1 response due but not received.
15/01/24: Chased up lack of response with Sport & Fitness Services.
16/01/24: Chased up lack of response with Corporate Complaints.
18/01/24: Response received from Sport & Fitness Services:
I am writing to let you know that the decision about your complaints will unfortunately be delayed, please accept my apologies. This is because Matthew Eady is working with the Corporate Complaints Team to investigate the issues you have raised in your complaints and aims to respond to all matters in one combined response.
We hope to respond to you no later than 26 January 2024, but will write to you again if we are unable to meet this revised date.
Nina Brown, Service Support Officer, Sport & Fitness Services (Richmond)
26/01/24: Delayed Stage 1 response due but not received.
05/02/24: Chased up lack of delayed Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
21/02/24: Chased up lack of delayed Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
27/02/24: Received response from Monitoring Officer (46 days overdue):
This complaint is disagreement with a lawful decision taken by a Committee of the Council. Whilst you may disagree with it, this is not a service failure, that can be addressed through the Council’s complaint process. As explained above, challenge to a decision of a Committee of the Council should be through the Courts.
Abdus Choudhury, Chief Legal Adviser & Monitoring Officer
As you can see, the Monitoring Officer has intentionally misrepresented the complaint in order to avoid investigating it. This matter will now be escalated to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Corporate Complaint 2
12/12/23 filed with reference: FS-Case-568960436
What is your complaint?
At the Finance, Policy & Resources Committee meeting on 24 February 2022, the 6 year Capital Programme and Funding budget was approved. On page 12 of this budget, there is a £187K allocation for ‘Pools on the Park – Health Suite Refurbishment’ for year 2022/23.
At the FPRC meeting on 26 September 2022, the 6 year Capital Programme and Funding budget was approved. As before, on page 12 of this budget, there is a £187K allocation for ‘Pools on the Park – Health Suite Refurbishment’ for year 2022/23.
At the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee meeting on 1 November 2022, the minutes for the ‘Q2 Quarterly Monitoring Report’ agenda item says: “On the health suite and Pools in the Park, £187,000 has been allocated for its refurbishment.”
At the FPRC meeting on 28 February 2023, the 6 year Capital Programme and Funding budget was approved. Page 13 of the budget now has £47K allocated to year 2022/23 and £140K allocated to year 2023/24. As before the description is ‘Pools on the Park – Health Suite Refurbishment’.
At the ESCSC meeting on 7 November 2023, the council brought a proposal to convert the former health suite area into a group exercise studio. This is a misuse of the allocated budget because “refurbishment” has a very clear meaning to improve or renew equipment or decoration. It most certainly does not mean conversion of a room to another use. The proposal was therefore invalid.
What do you think we should do to put things right?
Rescind the decision made at the committee meeting of 7 November 2023 due to the invalid proposal that misused budget clearly allocated for “refurbishment” since September 2022.
14/12/23: Received written acknowledgment that the complaint will be investigated:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your online form submitted on 12 December 2023, in which you made a complaint about the funding and proposals for the refurbishment of the Health Suite at Pools on the Park.
I can confirm that we are now dealing with your complaint at stage 1 of the Council’s two stage corporate complaints procedure.
Matthew Eady, Assistant Director, will be investigating your complaint at stage 1. He will then send you his response within 20 working days, i.e., by 12 January 2024.
Nina Brown, Service Support Officer, Sport & Fitness Services (Richmond)
12/01/24: Stage 1 response due but not received.
15/01/24: Chased up lack of response with Sport & Fitness Services.
16/01/24: Chased up lack of response with Corporate Complaints.
18/01/24: Response received from Sport & Fitness Services:
I am writing to let you know that the decision about your complaints will unfortunately be delayed, please accept my apologies. This is because Matthew Eady is working with the Corporate Complaints Team to investigate the issues you have raised in your complaints and aims to respond to all matters in one combined response.
We hope to respond to you no later than 26 January 2024, but will write to you again if we are unable to meet this revised date.
Nina Brown, Service Support Officer, Sport & Fitness Services (Richmond)
26/01/24: Delayed Stage 1 response due but not received.
05/02/24: Chased up lack of delayed Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
21/02/24: Chased up lack of delayed Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
27/02/24: Received response from Monitoring Officer (46 days overdue):
This too is a disagreement with a decision of the Council’s Committee to allocate funding to a particular scheme. That decision was lawfully taken and challenge to it cannot be brought through the Council’s complaint process.
Abdus Choudhury, Chief Legal Adviser & Monitoring Officer
As you can see, the Monitoring Officer has intentionally misrepresented the complaint in order to avoid investigating it. This matter will now be escalated to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Corporate Complaint 3
17/12/23 filed with reference: FS-Case-570054554
What is your complaint?
Considering that the Pools on the Park health suite has been closed for over three and half years, Richmond Council’s proposal as presented at the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee meeting of 7 November 2023 was a disrespectful insult to former users of the facility.
Not a single aspect of this long-running saga has been handled correctly by the council. Areas of dissatisfaction (other than covered in related complaints filed separately) are as follows:
- Matthew Eady, Assistant Director of Leisure (who only commenced his post in early September 2023) should not have been given responsibility for writing the report and presenting it to committee. He was woefully unknowledgeable and could not answer a single question that was put to him by committee members. No data. No evidence. Since there was no webcast or video recording, I am happy to provide an audio recording and transcript of the meeting on request if you wish to check my claim. By his own admission, Mr Eady told me in an email less than 90 minutes before the meeting: “I would like to introduce myself as the new Assistant Director for Leisure and seven weeks into my role therefore will not be fully acquainted with the history and background.” He was certainly being honest but this is an astonishing thing to admit and wholly unacceptable. It is the lead officer’s duty to know the full history and the background of the project. How else can they write a proposal with all the facts? (It later transpired that Matthew Eady didn’t write it).
- Why was Head of Culture, David Allister not responsible for writing the report and attending the committee meeting since he had always been stated as the lead officer on this project in the forward plan? (It later transpired that David Allister did write the report, which explains why Matthew Eady couldn’t answer any questions about it)
- The lack of clarity on what a health suite actually is. During the meeting, there was much confusion from committee members about what they were debating. Talk about referrals from GPs is not relevant to a jacuzzi, sauna and steam room! Neither is talk about the hydrotherapy pool at Teddington. It was incredibly frustrating to listen to and of course public speakers were not allowed to interject after the debate had started.
- No evidence is provided for the claim that all of the health suite equipment had simultaneously reached the end of its natural life at some unknown point in 2021. It is simply not credible.
- The lack of data in the proposal. All of the council’s case for converting the room into a group exercise studio is based on computer modelling. No data whatsoever was presented on oversubscribed group exercise classes. In contrast, the case for retaining the health suite can easily be demonstrated using actual survey data and financial data but curiously that was not mentioned. High energy usage was mentioned as a reason against the health suite but there was zero data on this, not even an estimate. It’s curious how there seems to be no concern over the increased energy usage to keep the outdoor pool open all year round… where’s the data on that?
- The total lack of financial acumen. The report contains a forecast for a 1% increase in memberships within the first year. This is completely insignificant, when measured against the actual data of a 42% drop in memberships between 2019 and 2023. That equates to a revenue loss of almost £550K which is huge and should be very concerning for the council but seems not to be. There was not a single mention in the report of the incentive that the health suite provided to drive up membership and retain members. We know that from the freeform responses in the 2021 survey results starting on page 27 where many residents say they will cancel their membership if the health suite doesn’t reopen. They were true to their word. 831 members have left since 2019. Does nobody at Richmond Council have any interest in finding out why these members have left?
- Confusion over Pools on the Park not being a suitable site for a health suite. This was due to paragraph 9.3 in the report, which simply stated that if a health suite was desired in the future then another location (at the Pools on the Park site) would need to be found since the original room would have already been converted into a group exercise studio. This very much confused some committee members who started talking about the ridiculous idea of locating a health suite at another site altogether. Are we supposed to do a gym or swim session and then go elsewhere for a health suite? Matthew Eady failed to step in and clarify what paragraph 9.3 actually meant.
- At no point is it stated in the report that the health suite had been an integral part of Pools on the Park for the past 28 years. It is hugely insulting to former users to have an existing facility closed down and reduced to a long-term ambition. Even more frustrating was the talk about a commitment to carry out a feasibility study for a new health suite. The council have had over three and a half years to carry out any feasibility study. It is inexcusable to be talking about starting one in November 2023.
- The missing 2021 survey data. When the agenda items for the meeting were published, I noticed that the 2021 survey data that I had been refused access to twice in a FOI request, was not available. I emailed Matthew Eady on 2 November to point this out and said that it should be added as a separate background paper and go into the document pack. The next day on 3 November it was added to the cabnet website as a separate document. However…
- Even though the missing 2021 survey results document was added to the cabnet website as a separate document, committee secretary Kathryn Thomas failed to update the document pack with the missing survey results. This means that committee members did not see the missing document, since they will almost certainly prefer to use the document pack rather than deal with many separate documents. This claim is supported by the fact that not a single committee member mentioned the 2021 survey results in the meeting which is extraordinary considering how specific the scope of that survey was. How are committee members expected to make a proper decision without access to sufficient background papers?
- The missing 2023 Leisure Centre survey. This was carried out by Leisure-Net Solutions in October/November 2022 and published in July 2023. Why was there absolutely no mention of this survey in the report nor was it supplied as a background paper? This is particularly curious because page 9 of that report contains some interesting data on the relative demand for health suite vs group exercise studio: “74 respondents stated that they were missing a Health suite/Spa whilst 13 wanted more studio space.”
What do you think we should do to put things right?
Rescind the decision made at the committee meeting of 7 November 2023 and reschedule the decision to a future date when the leisure strategy is complete. All committee members should be properly informed this time on the 28 year history of the health suite, the contribution it made to health and wellbeing as well being an incentive for membership and the arguments for refurbishing and retaining it.
18/12/23: Received written acknowledgment that the complaint will be investigated:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your online form submitted on 17 December 2023, in which you made a complaint about your dissatisfaction over the Council’s proposals and final decision regarding the Health Suite at Pools on the Park.
I can confirm that we are now dealing with your complaint at stage 1 of the Council’s two stage corporate complaints procedure.
Matthew Eady, Assistant Director, will be investigating your complaint at stage 1. He will then send you his response within 20 working days, i.e., by 17 January 2024.
Nina Brown, Service Support Officer, Sport & Fitness Services (Richmond)
17/01/24: Stage 1 response due but not received.
05/02/24: Chased up lack of Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
21/02/24: Chased up lack of Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
27/02/24: Received response from Monitoring Officer (41 days overdue):
This complaint centres around the information produced and provided by an officer of the Council in supporting a Committee to make a decision on a matter before them.
As I have explained above, the Committee had opportunity to hear from and question officers, as well as speakers and members of the Committee that additionally had points to make. The Committee then made a decision on the information before them which they were lawfully entitled to make. Challenge against that Committee’s decision is not through the Council’s complaints process.
Abdus Choudhury, Chief Legal Adviser & Monitoring Officer
As you can see, the Monitoring Officer has intentionally misrepresented the complaint in order to avoid investigating it. This matter will now be escalated to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Corporate Complaint 4
31/12/23 filed with reference: FS-Case-573095468
What is your complaint?
This is a complaint against Fenella Merry, Director of Finance.
In this council report:
https://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/documents/s500007852/Health%20Suite%20report.pdf
The Director of Finance says:
“There is £187,000 approved budgetary provision in the Council’s capital programme for the approved works. The approved capital budget is insufficient for the estimated cost to deliver Option 1. £23,000 of further funding would be required to be identified if this is option is chosen. Option 2 is the recommended option, and it can be delivered from within the existing approved budget.”
This is a false statement. There is NO approved budget for Option 2, only for Option 1, since the approved budget is named as “Pools on the Park – Health Suite Refurbishment” and has been since February 2022.
The word “refurbishment” has a very clear meaning to improve or renew equipment or decoration. It certainly does not mean conversion of a room to a different purpose.
What do you think we should do to put things right?
Withdraw the proposal since it is invalid and should NOT have been brought to the ESCS committee on 7 November 2023.
12/01/24: Received letter from Fenella Merry (this was not a Stage 1 response).
30/01/24: Stage 1 response due but not received.
05/02/24: Chased up lack of Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
21/02/24: Chased up lack of Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
27/02/24: Received response from Monitoring Officer (28 days overdue):
Your disagreement with a statement by an officer of the Council does not make the statement false. Your assertion that the statement was false is in support of your disagreement with a decision that the Committee made lawfully. Your challenge to that decision cannot be through the Council’s complaints process.
Abdus Choudhury, Chief Legal Adviser & Monitoring Officer
This is quite astonishing. Not only has the Monitoring Officer intentionally misrepresented the complaint in order to avoid investigating it, but he is also claiming that the complaint was merely a “disagreement” with a statement, not a challenge to the authenticity of that statement.
Listen up folks, there is no objective truth in the mysterious world of Richmond Council, and anyone who says otherwise must have an ulterior motive.
The irony of course is that the council has already accepted that there was NO approved budget for the group exercise studio. That’s why they went through the charade of bringing a non-existent budget reallocation request to the FPR Committee on 23/01/24. This matter will now be escalated to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Corporate Complaint 5
02/01/24 filed with reference: FS-Case-573564996
What is your complaint?
At a virtual meeting with 3 residents on 21 December 2023, Matthew Eady, Assistant Director of Leisure made the following statement:
“This committee agreed to the, the allocated funding that was originally previously earmarked for the health suite, to be earmarked for the group exercise studio, because the committee at that same meeting decided not to pursue the health suite and therefore that capital sum has become available, and therefore the committee has the ability to be able to approve those capital funds.”
Firstly, the ESCS Committee made no such reallocation of funding at the meeting on 7 November 2023. They approved a proposal which according to the Director of Finance had allocated funding (when it actually did not because the funding was allocated for ‘Health Suite Refurbishment’).
Secondly, as I pointed out after he had made this statement, according to the council’s constitution, service committees can only reallocate funding up to £100,000. The budget for the council’s proposal of conversion to a group exercise studio is £140,000. Therefore there is no way that the ESCS Committee could have reallocated £140,000 of funding anyway.
What do you think we should do to put things right?
- Matthew Eady to explain why he made this false statement.
- Matthew Eady to issue a written apology for misleading the councillors and residents who attended that meeting.
30/01/24: Stage 1 response due but not received.
05/02/24: Chased up lack of Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
21/02/24: Chased up lack of Stage 1 response with Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive.
27/02/24: Received response from Monitoring Officer (28 days overdue):
This again is a disagreement with a statement made by an officer. The statement was not false. But again it is associated with your disagreement with a decision lawfully taken by a Committee of the Council. At the last Finance Committee the Council’s Chief Executive explained the basis on which the Finance Committee were asked to approve a variation.
Again at its core, the complaint is against a lawful decision taken by a Committee of the Council. Your redress is through the Courts and not through the Council’s complaints process.
Abdus Choudhury, Chief Legal Adviser & Monitoring Officer
Another astonishing response. Again the Monitoring Officer has intentionally misrepresented the complaint in order to avoid investigating it, but he is also stating that Matthew Eady’s statement was not false, when it clearly was according to the evidence presented in the complaint. This matter will now be escalated to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Corporate Complaint 6
25/01/24 filed with reference: FS-Case-580526621
What is your complaint?
This is a complaint against Fenella Merry, Director of Finance.
This report (authored by Fenella Merry) sought approval for a budget request dated 07/11/23:
https://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/documents/s500009191/23.01.24%20LBR%20FPR%20Update.pdf
that was brought before the Finance, Policy & Resources Committee on 23/01/24 as agenda item 9.
However the report was invalid since there is NO budget request from the Environment, Sustainability, Culture & Sports Committee for this repurposing of funds towards ‘group exercise studio’. It is an indisputable fact that NO resolution was passed in a ESCS committee meeting between the dates of 07/11/23 to 16/01/24 for this budget request to the FPR committee.
What do you think we should do to put things right?
Withdraw this report for approval of a non-existent budget request, that should NOT have been brought to the FPR committee on 23 January 2024. The decision by the FPR on 23/01/24 also has to be voided.
The FPR committee should obviously not be voting for approval of fictitious and non-existent budget requests.
22/02/24: Stage 1 response due but not received.
15/03/24: Chased up lack of Stage 1 response with Sarah Mackintosh, Corporate & Ombudsman Complaints Manager.
22/03/24: Received response from Sarah Mackintosh, Corporate & Ombudsman Complaints Manager (29 days overdue):
I understand your complaint relates to a budget request regarding the Health Suite agreed at the Finance Policy and Resources Committee (FPRC) meeting on 23 January 2024, which you believe should be voided as no resolution to this effect had been passed by the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee between 7 November 2023 and 16 January 2024.
The FPRC was the appropriate Committee to receive and consider the report and its decision was a lawful decision. Disagreement with that decision cannot be overturned through the Council’s corporate complaints procedure, as a lawful decision can only be overturned if successfully challenged in the courts.
I hope this clarifies the situation for you.
My sincere apologies for the significant delay that you have experienced in receiving a response to your complaint.
Sarah Mackintosh, Corporate & Ombudsman Complaints Manager
So yet again the complaint has been misrepresented in order to avoid investigating it. The complaint was not about the decision of the FPR Committee but the fact that a non-existent budget request had been brought to that committee by the Director of Finance. Since Richmond Council is unwilling to apply any scrutiny to itself, this serious matter will now also be escalated to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Corporate Complaint 7
19/03/24 filed with reference: FS-Case-596508948
What is your complaint?
The Monitoring Officer, Abdus Choudhury is failing to do his duty. After many weeks of delay, he has deliberately misrepresented my complaints in order to refuse to deal with them. This is unacceptable behaviour from the Monitoring Officer.
Complaint references are as follows:
- FS-Case-568957453
- FS-Case-568960436
- FS-Case-570054554
- FS-Case-573095468
- FS-Case-573564996
All the details have been made public here:
https://healthsuite.org.uk/complaints/
22/03/24: Received written acknowledgment that the complaint will be investigated:
As your complaint relates to the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Mr Abdus Choudhury’s failure to fulfil his duties regarding your complaints about the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee meeting dated 7 November 2024, the matter will be reviewed by:
Mr John Scarborough, Managing Director, South London Legal Partnership, South London Legal Partnership (SLLP) at 7th floor Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden SM4 5DX, Email: sllp@merton.gov.uk
A response will be sent to you within 25 working days i.e. 30 April 2024
Sarah Mackintosh, Corporate & Ombudsman Complaints Manager