WALTHAM FOREST: 'Questions still remain' over council failings

THE political leadership of Waltham Forest Council should be investigated over the authority’s mismanagement of millions of pounds, a meeting was told.

Tory group leader Matt Davis launched a scathing attack on the first independent probe into the fiasco during a special cabinet meeting on Thursday, saying questions about the causes remain unanswered.

He warned the scandal was not going to go away and said the public will not have confidence in the council until it is revealed who put pressure on officers to break rules.

A report written by London Development Agnecy boss Sir Peter Rogers acknowledged significant improvements in service delivery.

But he said this was achieved at the expense of good governance and found a deep-rooted ‘culture of non-compliance’ with rules to prevent fraud.

But the findings have been criticised for blaming council officers for failings and ignoring the role of elected representatives.

Mr Rogers said this was a misrepresentation of the report, saying it had made clear that the problems were caused by a rush to improve the authority’s star rating.

But Cllr Davis said: “The question still remains, who told these officers to break these rules and why did they give that instruction? Someone told them to do it. Unless we know who and why, we only have half the story.”

Cllr Davis added that a flawed contract with EduAction, the council’s former schools manager, should be re-examined “with a view to a possible criminal investigation”.

The company was paid £250,000 to help at-risk children in deprived wards, but evidence emerged that it did not fulfil its obligations.

Cllr Davis said: “The money was supposed to go to children in the most deprived wards - that is the biggest disgrace. These are the young people we supposed to care most about.

“These are people who we regularly tell ‘we are there for them’.”

“These people deserve a specific and separate apology. This money would have been for the purpose of creating chances which could have changed their lives massively for the better.”

Council leader Chris Robbins, who was cabinet member for children’s services at the time of the contract, was happy to apologise to any children who did not receive the help they should have done.

He promised to implement the recommendations of the Rogers Report, which includes making cabinet more transparent and improving scrutiny.

The Tory leader also called for a thorough examination into the role of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) – the body responsible for regeneration funds which were mismanaged.

The LSP, which met in secret and at the time of the failings, was chaired by former council leader, Clyde Loakes.

Mr Rogers admitted the council had a lot of work to do to reconnect with those it serves, but said there was no point in revisiting history and called for a political consensus on how the authority moves forward.

The ruling coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors pledged to report on progress of implementing the report’s recommendations at a meeting on January 12.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:20am Fri 4 Dec 09

Touchwood says...

Questions! What questions? The truth is they're a lot of thieving pieces of manure!!
Questions! What questions? The truth is they're a lot of thieving pieces of manure!! Touchwood

10:39am Fri 4 Dec 09

Fedupwithitall says...

"Council leader Chris Robbins, who was cabinet member for children’s services at the time of the contract, was happy to apologise to any children who did not receive the help they should have done."

Oh that's all right then! Never mind that this money was supposed to be targeted at some of the poorest, most deprived children in the Borough. Just apologise and then carry on raking in the salary and swanning around the Borough looking important. You're a disgrace Robbins, it happened on your watch and you should resign!
"Council leader Chris Robbins, who was cabinet member for children’s services at the time of the contract, was happy to apologise to any children who did not receive the help they should have done." Oh that's all right then! Never mind that this money was supposed to be targeted at some of the poorest, most deprived children in the Borough. Just apologise and then carry on raking in the salary and swanning around the Borough looking important. You're a disgrace Robbins, it happened on your watch and you should resign! Fedupwithitall

10:39am Fri 4 Dec 09

karola says...

Doesn't anyone think the police should be involved? It seems to be a clear case of fraud. Whoever thought this sort of thing only happens in third world countries.
I would like to get the people involved brought to trial. At the best it is just mismanagement, but even then people involved should be made accountable. It is too easy to misuse other people's money.
Doesn't anyone think the police should be involved? It seems to be a clear case of fraud. Whoever thought this sort of thing only happens in third world countries. I would like to get the people involved brought to trial. At the best it is just mismanagement, but even then people involved should be made accountable. It is too easy to misuse other people's money. karola

11:28am Fri 4 Dec 09

Walthamster says...

EduAction "was paid £250,000 to help at-risk children in deprived wards, but evidence emerged that it did not fulfil its obligations."

So either they repay the money or the council must take legal action to get it back. Same with all these other dodgy contracts.

Those responsible should be investigated by the police, and charged with fraud if this is found.

The councillors who allowed this to happen should be investigated for their part in it. If any offence is found, they should be charged.

If they failed in their duty to oversee their departments, they should pay back the thousands of pounds they received in allowances and leave the council.

But to say there's "no point in revisiting history" just lets the whole dirty business take a short break and then continue as before.
EduAction "was paid £250,000 to help at-risk children in deprived wards, but evidence emerged that it did not fulfil its obligations." So either they repay the money or the council must take legal action to get it back. Same with all these other dodgy contracts. Those responsible should be investigated by the police, and charged with fraud if this is found. The councillors who allowed this to happen should be investigated for their part in it. If any offence is found, they should be charged. If they failed in their duty to oversee their departments, they should pay back the thousands of pounds they received in allowances and leave the council. But to say there's "no point in revisiting history" just lets the whole dirty business take a short break and then continue as before. Walthamster

11:48am Fri 4 Dec 09

Techno2 says...

It seems as if there has been a collective decision by the existing political leadership of the Labour Party in the borough to decline to say to the public what they all know, not jkust about where the missing money can be recovered from but who has been protecting the wrong-doers.

They do of course have the right as individuals to remain silent, but this is beginning to cause concern. The conspiracy of silence, if it has been co-ordinated by the Labour Party could make some of these people accessories after the fact to a conspiracy to defraud.

What efforts are the council now making to do its duty and recover every single penny that has gone missing? What are the Council doing to provide the poor people of this borough with the justice they have not yet seen?

Mr Rogers' admission that the council had a lot of work to do to reconnect with those it serves, it a start, but if he thinks there is no point in 'revisiting history' as he puts it when crimes have been committed and public monjey is missing makes me wonder if he is fit for public office. A warm political consensus on how the authority moves forward which includes any of the thieves and their apologists is unacceptable. People want justice.



It seems as if there has been a collective decision by the existing political leadership of the Labour Party in the borough to decline to say to the public what they all know, not jkust about where the missing money can be recovered from but who has been protecting the wrong-doers. They do of course have the right as individuals to remain silent, but this is beginning to cause concern. The conspiracy of silence, if it has been co-ordinated by the Labour Party could make some of these people accessories after the fact to a conspiracy to defraud. What efforts are the council now making to do its duty and recover every single penny that has gone missing? What are the Council doing to provide the poor people of this borough with the justice they have not yet seen? Mr Rogers' admission that the council had a lot of work to do to reconnect with those it serves, it a start, but if he thinks there is no point in 'revisiting history' as he puts it when crimes have been committed and public monjey is missing makes me wonder if he is fit for public office. A warm political consensus on how the authority moves forward which includes any of the thieves and their apologists is unacceptable. People want justice. Techno2

12:36pm Fri 4 Dec 09

marsdan says...

We should have more answers to why, the then leader of the Labour group Clyde Loakes had to meet and have meeting in secret on what was mis- use of public money and Why did Marie pya and Jenny grey his fellow councilers in Leytonstone stayed silent?
We should have more answers to why, the then leader of the Labour group Clyde Loakes had to meet and have meeting in secret on what was mis- use of public money and Why did Marie pya and Jenny grey his fellow councilers in Leytonstone stayed silent? marsdan

1:43pm Fri 4 Dec 09

natterjack says...

Cllr Matt Davis posted a reply to Jonathan Bunn's earlier piece on this issue. Apparently Cllr Davis, unlike the rest of us, has been vouchsafed an unedited version of the report and its appendices and thus knows more about it than we do. However, as a member of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), I think it would be wiser for him to keep his powder dry and not risk undermining his case by commenting publicly in this particular forum, which may only serve to create the impression of playing politics with a potentially criminal matter. As leader of the official opposition he should focus his efforts on official channels and report back to us if and when he has achieved something concrete.
Cllr Matt Davis posted a reply to Jonathan Bunn's earlier piece on this issue. Apparently Cllr Davis, unlike the rest of us, has been vouchsafed an unedited version of the report and its appendices and thus knows more about it than we do. However, as a member of the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), I think it would be wiser for him to keep his powder dry and not risk undermining his case by commenting publicly in this particular forum, which may only serve to create the impression of playing politics with a potentially criminal matter. As leader of the official opposition he should focus his efforts on official channels and report back to us if and when he has achieved something concrete. natterjack

2:18pm Fri 4 Dec 09

LEYTONOLDBOY says...

"Putting pressure on officers to break rules" is a what they do. Robbins is just a self-serving bully."You're a disgrace Robbins, you should resign!" Well said, Fedupwithitall!
"Putting pressure on officers to break rules" is a what they do. Robbins is just a self-serving bully."You're a disgrace Robbins, you should resign!" Well said, Fedupwithitall! LEYTONOLDBOY

2:32pm Fri 4 Dec 09

NT says...

The £250,000 referred to in this story is just the tip of the iceberg.

I sent the following to Councillor Robbins on 03/12/09, and await an answer.

Dear Councillor Robbins,

In 2006, the LBWF's Better Neighbourhoods Initiative (BNI) team contracted to pay EduAction nearly £1m to run two programmes under the rubric Educational Attainment – ‘Late Arrivals Project’ and ‘Project 100/Vision 12’.

Regarding this contract, subsequent investigations have established that:

1. It was illegitimately procured, as admitted by Mr Roger Taylor, interim chief executive, in a letter to me of 29 July 2008.
2. There was considerable uncertainty about its true value, which was variously recorded as £932532, £804732, and £914428.
3. Whether it was legally formalised remains to be established, since when PricewaterhouseCoope
rs (PWC) later investigated, it was only able to locate a 'photocopy' of a contract which 'seemed' – PWC’s word - to refer inter alia to ‘Late Arrivals Project’ and ‘Project 100/Vision 12’.
4. PWC record final approval as having been given by Mr. Rob Pearce, who later joined Renaisi.
5. PWC found the programmes to have been only inconsistently monitored and audited, so that there must be substantial uncertainty about what was really achieved.

I note also that, when subsequently queried about these matters, LBWF repeatedly refused to respond, so that, for example, it took 11 (eleven) separate written inquiries about the contract’s procurement, stretching over the course of approximately a calendar year, before Mr Taylor made the admission cited in point 1, above.

Two questions arise.

First, in a letter dated 10 August 2008, Mr Roger Taylor told me, under the heading ‘Re: BNI EduAction Contract of 2006’ that a ‘disciplinary investigation’ was ‘well underway’. Please will you detail what this has found?

Second, since you were portfolio holder for education at this time, and no doubt a conscientious one at that, who knew all about the major programmes that were unfolding, please will you explain when you first became aware of this contract’s unusual features, and what you then did about them?

One final observation. The independent panel advises that a line should be drawn under many of the NRF programme’s flaws and failures, citing in particular Dr Foster. I am sure most sensible people will agree. But a million pounds is a million pounds, and so I am afraid that the legitimate questions posed here cannot so easily be disposed of.

Yours truly,

Nick Tiratsoo

PS I have copied this e-mail, amongst others, to some of those who were involved in the Cann Hall and Cathall Neighbourhood Forums, since they tried hard to make NRF a success, and deserve the truth.



The £250,000 referred to in this story is just the tip of the iceberg. I sent the following to Councillor Robbins on 03/12/09, and await an answer. Dear Councillor Robbins, In 2006, the LBWF's Better Neighbourhoods Initiative (BNI) team contracted to pay EduAction nearly £1m to run two programmes under the rubric Educational Attainment – ‘Late Arrivals Project’ and ‘Project 100/Vision 12’. Regarding this contract, subsequent investigations have established that: 1. It was illegitimately procured, as admitted by Mr Roger Taylor, interim chief executive, in a letter to me of 29 July 2008. 2. There was considerable uncertainty about its true value, which was variously recorded as £932532, £804732, and £914428. 3. Whether it was legally formalised remains to be established, since when PricewaterhouseCoope rs (PWC) later investigated, it was only able to locate a 'photocopy' of a contract which 'seemed' – PWC’s word - to refer inter alia to ‘Late Arrivals Project’ and ‘Project 100/Vision 12’. 4. PWC record final approval as having been given by Mr. Rob Pearce, who later joined Renaisi. 5. PWC found the programmes to have been only inconsistently monitored and audited, so that there must be substantial uncertainty about what was really achieved. I note also that, when subsequently queried about these matters, LBWF repeatedly refused to respond, so that, for example, it took 11 (eleven) separate written inquiries about the contract’s procurement, stretching over the course of approximately a calendar year, before Mr Taylor made the admission cited in point 1, above. Two questions arise. First, in a letter dated 10 August 2008, Mr Roger Taylor told me, under the heading ‘Re: BNI EduAction Contract of 2006’ that a ‘disciplinary investigation’ was ‘well underway’. Please will you detail what this has found? Second, since you were portfolio holder for education at this time, and no doubt a conscientious one at that, who knew all about the major programmes that were unfolding, please will you explain when you first became aware of this contract’s unusual features, and what you then did about them? One final observation. The independent panel advises that a line should be drawn under many of the NRF programme’s flaws and failures, citing in particular Dr Foster. I am sure most sensible people will agree. But a million pounds is a million pounds, and so I am afraid that the legitimate questions posed here cannot so easily be disposed of. Yours truly, Nick Tiratsoo PS I have copied this e-mail, amongst others, to some of those who were involved in the Cann Hall and Cathall Neighbourhood Forums, since they tried hard to make NRF a success, and deserve the truth. NT

2:51pm Fri 4 Dec 09

NT says...

Some of those commenting believe that the police should be involved.

However, the police already have been involved.

After complaints by, amongst others, whistleblowers, a police investigation occurred, and a file was sent to the DPP, but no charges were pressed.

However, I doubt this will be the end of the matter.
Some of those commenting believe that the police should be involved. However, the police already have been involved. After complaints by, amongst others, whistleblowers, a police investigation occurred, and a file was sent to the DPP, but no charges were pressed. However, I doubt this will be the end of the matter. NT

3:48pm Fri 4 Dec 09

Techno2 says...

NT wrote:
Some of those commenting believe that the police should be involved. However, the police already have been involved. After complaints by, amongst others, whistleblowers, a police investigation occurred, and a file was sent to the DPP, but no charges were pressed. However, I doubt this will be the end of the matter.
The police have been part of the so-called strategic partnership. I hope they have not been compromised in any of this by any conflicts of interest.
[quote][p][bold]NT[/bold] wrote: Some of those commenting believe that the police should be involved. However, the police already have been involved. After complaints by, amongst others, whistleblowers, a police investigation occurred, and a file was sent to the DPP, but no charges were pressed. However, I doubt this will be the end of the matter.[/p][/quote]The police have been part of the so-called strategic partnership. I hope they have not been compromised in any of this by any conflicts of interest. Techno2

5:59pm Fri 4 Dec 09

NT says...

Its a good point about the police, and particularly, for obvious reasons, in relation to some of the Council's community cohesion projects, which were also deeply flawed.
Its a good point about the police, and particularly, for obvious reasons, in relation to some of the Council's community cohesion projects, which were also deeply flawed. NT

7:02pm Fri 4 Dec 09

UKIP-local says...

Where was the leadership and where were the Tories when the council repairs scandal was going on. They demanded £30,000 from householders for repairs that were not necessary and were not competitively sourced. When ratepayers objected the council agency spent hundreds of thousands on resisting the claim only to be rejected 4 times by the courts and tribunals.

Too much government makes for bad government.

Councils who spend other people's money get careless. I understand the age-old process of surcharging councillors has been abolished, but clearly we should be able to go after their wallets.

Are the Tories jumping on a band wagon, or have they really been doing their best to secure god government?
Where was the leadership and where were the Tories when the council repairs scandal was going on. They demanded £30,000 from householders for repairs that were not necessary and were not competitively sourced. When ratepayers objected the council agency spent hundreds of thousands on resisting the claim only to be rejected 4 times by the courts and tribunals. Too much government makes for bad government. Councils who spend other people's money get careless. I understand the age-old process of surcharging councillors has been abolished, but clearly we should be able to go after their wallets. Are the Tories jumping on a band wagon, or have they really been doing their best to secure god government? UKIP-local

7:39pm Fri 4 Dec 09

Techno2 says...

Nice of you to drop by. Does UKIP intend to have a candidate in Walthamstow at the next election?
Nice of you to drop by. Does UKIP intend to have a candidate in Walthamstow at the next election? Techno2

10:10am Sat 5 Dec 09

Sugarplum says...

Earlier this year the council prosecuted a councillor and his wife for alleged fraud. (Pot calling kettle black??) They were found not guilty, but still have to pay the money back.

Why then can Eduaction receive £250,000, not fulfill their duties, but not be required to pay it back.

Smacks of one rule for one and one rule for another!!!! Disgusting.
Earlier this year the council prosecuted a councillor and his wife for alleged fraud. (Pot calling kettle black??) They were found not guilty, but still have to pay the money back. Why then can Eduaction receive £250,000, not fulfill their duties, but not be required to pay it back. Smacks of one rule for one and one rule for another!!!! Disgusting. Sugarplum

11:19pm Sun 6 Dec 09

chris duran says...

It seems to me that every single individual and institution which was paid to protect our money, or expose those who squandered it, has let us down.

Worse still, they have let down the most deprived members of our community who were supposed to benefit from this money.

This includes Councillors, council officials, independent auditors and the Police.

As for this latest Independent report, I don't blame the people who carried it out but it was never really going to expose the truth because Councillors were protected from scrutiny.

Now the Councils C.E thinks we should all just put it behind us and forget about it. Sorry Mr Rogers but I don't think so.

Millions of pounds of our money has gone to people it was not intended for, and they've still got it. Furthermore, a great many people who were well paid to protect us failed in their duties, and many of them are still on our pay roll.

Some cynical people might think that this is all part of a cosy relationship in which the Councillors avoid scrutiny altogether, they in turn do all they can to protect the most senior officers.

By delaying any kind of proper scrutiny for as long as possible many senior officers have been able to leave the authority with good references before their role in this fiasco can be exposed, which means that they have no incentive to highight the role of the Councillors in presuring them to break the rules in the first place. Everyone's a winner, except those of us whose money has been wasted and the vulnerable people it was intended for.
It seems to me that every single individual and institution which was paid to protect our money, or expose those who squandered it, has let us down. Worse still, they have let down the most deprived members of our community who were supposed to benefit from this money. This includes Councillors, council officials, independent auditors and the Police. As for this latest Independent report, I don't blame the people who carried it out but it was never really going to expose the truth because Councillors were protected from scrutiny. Now the Councils C.E thinks we should all just put it behind us and forget about it. Sorry Mr Rogers but I don't think so. Millions of pounds of our money has gone to people it was not intended for, and they've still got it. Furthermore, a great many people who were well paid to protect us failed in their duties, and many of them are still on our pay roll. Some cynical people might think that this is all part of a cosy relationship in which the Councillors avoid scrutiny altogether, they in turn do all they can to protect the most senior officers. By delaying any kind of proper scrutiny for as long as possible many senior officers have been able to leave the authority with good references before their role in this fiasco can be exposed, which means that they have no incentive to highight the role of the Councillors in presuring them to break the rules in the first place. Everyone's a winner, except those of us whose money has been wasted and the vulnerable people it was intended for. chris duran

12:35pm Mon 7 Dec 09

mdj says...

From Construction News (September):
'The London Development Agency faced criticism over its transparency today as it was grilled by members of the London Assembly over the £160 million Olympic land overspend.


Assembly member John Biggs was also critical of the LDA’s workings, describing the overspend as a “monumental incompetent collapse” and questioning whether LDA chair Harvey McGrath and chief executive Sir Peter Rogers should have been disciplined over the failure.

The pair, who met with the London Assembly Economic Development, Culture, Sport and Tourism committee, dodged questions about what projects would needed to be cut as a result of the overspend, admitting to only a few small cutbacks including funds for Visit London’s tourism promotion.

Members accused the LDA of a lack of transparency, but Sir Peter responded: “I believe the LDA has the same level of transparency .”

Sir Peter also shied away from answering questions about whose responsibility the overspend had been. He said two members of staff who had been “instrumental” in the Olympic land acquisitions were facing disciplinary action. He did not rule out proceedings against other staff as well.'

Rogers sounds like just the man to preside over an impartial inquiry into missing public money, don't you think? But it's nice that he can spare the time from his day job, which is obviously going well.
From Construction News (September): 'The London Development Agency faced criticism over its transparency today as it was grilled by members of the London Assembly over the £160 million Olympic land overspend. Assembly member John Biggs was also critical of the LDA’s workings, describing the overspend as a “monumental incompetent collapse” and questioning whether LDA chair Harvey McGrath and chief executive Sir Peter Rogers should have been disciplined over the failure. The pair, who met with the London Assembly Economic Development, Culture, Sport and Tourism committee, dodged questions about what projects would needed to be cut as a result of the overspend, admitting to only a few small cutbacks including funds for Visit London’s tourism promotion. Members accused the LDA of a lack of transparency, but Sir Peter responded: “I believe the LDA has the same level of transparency [as other public bodies].” Sir Peter also shied away from answering questions about whose responsibility the overspend had been. He said two members of staff who had been “instrumental” in the Olympic land acquisitions were facing disciplinary action. He did not rule out proceedings against other staff as well.' Rogers sounds like just the man to preside over an impartial inquiry into missing public money, don't you think? But it's nice that he can spare the time from his day job, which is obviously going well. mdj

12:59pm Mon 7 Dec 09

G. Tingey says...

I spoke to one of my councillors on Saturday.
SHE could not get a straight answer out of the "leader" or a "cabinet" member, on this issue.
So what chance do the rest of us have?
I spoke to one of my councillors on Saturday. SHE could not get a straight answer out of the "leader" or a "cabinet" member, on this issue. So what chance do the rest of us have? G. Tingey

1:07pm Mon 7 Dec 09

Walthamster says...

WHAT, mdj???? Oh God, I can't believe it. this is beyond belief. Tell me I'm hallucinating please.

Is this really the same Peter Rogers who investigated LBWF? Head of the London Development Agency which has overspent £160 million and faces criticism over its transparency ...

So he's facing possible disciplinary action over a “monumental incompetent collapse”.

Up till now I couldn't understand why he was so soft on the people who've caused Waltham Forest's troubles.

Now I'm starting to understand. My God. We really do deserve better than this.
WHAT, mdj???? Oh God, I can't believe it. this is beyond belief. Tell me I'm hallucinating please. Is this really the same Peter Rogers who investigated LBWF? Head of the London Development Agency which has overspent £160 million and faces criticism over its transparency ... So he's facing possible disciplinary action over a “monumental incompetent collapse”. Up till now I couldn't understand why he was so soft on the people who've caused Waltham Forest's troubles. Now I'm starting to understand. My God. We really do deserve better than this. Walthamster

2:03pm Mon 7 Dec 09

mdj says...

' but Sir Peter responded: “I believe the LDA has the same level of transparency .”
This phrase somehow got clipped from the article. He's probably right: doesn't say much, does it? More of a confession than a justification.
' but Sir Peter responded: “I believe the LDA has the same level of transparency [as other public bodies].” This phrase somehow got clipped from the article. He's probably right: doesn't say much, does it? More of a confession than a justification. mdj

2:50pm Mon 7 Dec 09

mdj says...

'the same level of transparency As Other Public Bodies' it should have said: got clipped again somehow.
'the same level of transparency As Other Public Bodies' it should have said: got clipped again somehow. mdj

6:16pm Mon 7 Dec 09

NT says...

Sir Peter certainly has some work on his hands sorting out this lot -

http://www.thisislon
don.co.uk/standard/a
rticle-23760124-lda-
to-shelve-pound-45m-
of-work-after-gettin
g-sums-wrong-on-the-
olympics.do

http://www.thisislon
don.co.uk/standard/a
rticle-23744413-poun
d-1m-cost-of-investi
gating-pound-160m-ga
mes-black-hole.do

- particularly as he is very busy man:

http://www.lda.gov.u
k/upload/pdf/Peter_R
ogers_Register_of_In
terests-June_2009.pd
f

Pinnacle - that rings a bell. Didn't someone else in this story work for them? Let me see now....
Sir Peter certainly has some work on his hands sorting out this lot - http://www.thisislon don.co.uk/standard/a rticle-23760124-lda- to-shelve-pound-45m- of-work-after-gettin g-sums-wrong-on-the- olympics.do http://www.thisislon don.co.uk/standard/a rticle-23744413-poun d-1m-cost-of-investi gating-pound-160m-ga mes-black-hole.do - particularly as he is very busy man: http://www.lda.gov.u k/upload/pdf/Peter_R ogers_Register_of_In terests-June_2009.pd f Pinnacle - that rings a bell. Didn't someone else in this story work for them? Let me see now.... NT

7:00pm Mon 7 Dec 09

NT says...

Oh yes, its our old friend...

http://www.topjobsat
lfb.co.uk/LEFPA%20RE
PORT.pdf

Now there's a coincidence!!
Oh yes, its our old friend... http://www.topjobsat lfb.co.uk/LEFPA%20RE PORT.pdf Now there's a coincidence!! NT

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree