There is a bundle of documents "On The Record" at the PACAC Select Committee parliamentary web site correspondence section (dated 22nd March 2023) relating to EA CEO Sir James Bevan's response to an inquiry by William Wragg - Chair of PACAC Committee almost 1 year ago in July 2022 (See prior post and original letter).
Oddly, somebody at PACAC sees fit not to post the entire missive from Sir James and as one can see in her 5th March letter in the bundle - Thérèse Coffey The Secretary of State at DEFRA feels this is not proper....?
Then, again, rather oddly - a couple of weeks later a letter from William Wragg appears.
Then there's the "meat in the sandwich" - the broken out section of Sir James Bevan's response - not that we here believe for a moment that the EA CEO typed it up himself...
I absolutely dispute the veracity of much of the edited out "annex" above - but that can be addressed elsewhere.
In my reading of the "annex", the official who wrote the document cites their own peer reviewer negating all their claimed diligence:
It is not possible to properly assess compensation in accordance with [the PHSO's]
guidelines in their Principles for Remedy, guidance on financial remedy and HMT's
guidance on Managing Public Money, without obtaining independent expert opinion of both a forensic accountancy and also a medical nature We are unable to make a recommendation as to what the amount of a future compensation payment should be.
As in : The peer reviewers say : “It is not possible to properly assess compensation without obtaining independent expert opinion of both a forensic accountancy and also a medical nature”
No evidence of any accredited expert opinion has been volunteered at any time by EA officials.
Assessment of damages is a speciality skill which in many cases carries a requirement for training and accreditation. An assessment usually has a mandated report - no assessment documentation has been shared by the EA with the Earls at any time.
We have had an independent Forensic Financial Audit performed that the EA know that they are free to use - but they choose not to.
The EA are refusing to expose their methodology and evidence used for computing the damages they've agreed (eventually....NOT) with PHSO to pay - which is I think fair to say is exactly what William Wragg initially asked about nearly a year ago in July 2022.
In all, it seems that the EA are intent on finangling / evading paying what essentially they've agreed to - by any means they can dream up and are behaving in ways that the Ombudsman determined to be maladministration in the first place imho...
The EA also have essentially refused to answer several FoI requests on whatdotheyknow.com (example
) - related to the way that the damages are being handled by EA officials and seeking an explanation of the withdrawal of their chosen barrister-assessor and the clear cut evasion in employing a replacement.
Post a Comment
Get it off yer chest - please keep it civil