Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:51 am
Former Merthyr Tydfil councillor Adam Brown banned from standing in an election for three years
by Jonathan Whiley, Merthyr Express
A FORMER Merthyr Tydfil councillor has been banned from standing in an election for the next three years after a damning tribunal into his conduct.
Adam Brown, who lost his seat for the Gurnos ward in the May elections, will not be able to try to reclaim his post following a ruling from the Adjudication Panel for Wales.
The tribunal concluded by unanimous decision that Mr Brown should be disqualified for three years from being or becoming a member of Merthyr Tydfil Council or any relevant authority with immediate effect.
Mr Brown was found to have deliberately failed to abide by the council's code of conduct and persistently breached it.
It was found that his actions had brought the council into disrepute, he had unfairly blamed others and failed to heed appropriate advice or warnings.
The tribunal centres around claims made by Mr Brown that Merthyr Tydfil Council and Merthyr Valleys Homes had been overcharging tenants.
In March 2010, the Express revealed confidential documents, leaked by then Gurnos councillor Adam Brown, claiming that MVH would be facing a 'significant' loss - suggested to be £11.1m - after issues arising from the housing stock transfer.
After a thorough investigation into the rent option policy - which meant residents were paying extra rent for improvements to their home - only a small number of households were found to be affected, with MVH saying the payment would instead only be a maximum of £29,000.
But Mr Brown continued to claim that the £11.1m figure was correct, using it in a campaign leaflet ahead of the local elections in May this year.
The findings of the tribunal state that former councillor Brown during the period April 13 2011 to June 13, 2011 had:
Persistently and deliberately misrepresented his position as a councillor following his suspension by a previous tribunal, in e-mails, blogs, letters and articles to the press and a radio phone-in a three-month period following the tribunal
Deliberately and persistently misrepresented the findings of the previous tribunal;
Misrepresented the council and its policies and despite the findings of the tribunal on April 13, had knowingly published confidential information and failed to seek advice from the appropriate authorities.
Mr Brown, was shocked to discover that he had been banned when contacted by the Express.
'This is the first I have heard of it,' he said. 'I can't believe the council continued to pursue that.
'I was just trying to do my duty as a councillor.
'My conscience is clear and I would not try to stand as a councillor again as it has put myself and my family through too much.
'In five months, I have earned five times the amount I earned as a councillor on a yearly income, running a recruitment firm.
'My name is not in the papers these days and if I was a Merthyr taxpayer, I would be questioning how much has been spent on the tribunal. I just think it is disgusting.'
Brendan Toomey, leader of Merthyr Tydfil Council, said: 'The disqualification in this instance is unprecedented as far as I am aware - certainly in the last 20 years.
'It demonstrates the seriousness of Mr Brown's misguided actions throughout this saga.'
It is not the first time Mr Brown has courted controversy.
In July 2009, the then-councillor sparked an outcry following a web forum poll he created asking people if they wanted to bed former murder suspect Amanda Knox - dubbed Foxy Knoxy by national newspapers.
More recently, he was criticised after calling for a 9pm curfew for under 16s in Merthyr and in August, he was lambasted for posting a controversial joke making light of the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking disaster which claimed the lives of 21 Chinese workers.
by Jonathan Whiley, Merthyr Express
A FORMER Merthyr Tydfil councillor has been banned from standing in an election for the next three years after a damning tribunal into his conduct.
Adam Brown, who lost his seat for the Gurnos ward in the May elections, will not be able to try to reclaim his post following a ruling from the Adjudication Panel for Wales.
The tribunal concluded by unanimous decision that Mr Brown should be disqualified for three years from being or becoming a member of Merthyr Tydfil Council or any relevant authority with immediate effect.
Mr Brown was found to have deliberately failed to abide by the council's code of conduct and persistently breached it.
It was found that his actions had brought the council into disrepute, he had unfairly blamed others and failed to heed appropriate advice or warnings.
The tribunal centres around claims made by Mr Brown that Merthyr Tydfil Council and Merthyr Valleys Homes had been overcharging tenants.
In March 2010, the Express revealed confidential documents, leaked by then Gurnos councillor Adam Brown, claiming that MVH would be facing a 'significant' loss - suggested to be £11.1m - after issues arising from the housing stock transfer.
After a thorough investigation into the rent option policy - which meant residents were paying extra rent for improvements to their home - only a small number of households were found to be affected, with MVH saying the payment would instead only be a maximum of £29,000.
But Mr Brown continued to claim that the £11.1m figure was correct, using it in a campaign leaflet ahead of the local elections in May this year.
The findings of the tribunal state that former councillor Brown during the period April 13 2011 to June 13, 2011 had:
Persistently and deliberately misrepresented his position as a councillor following his suspension by a previous tribunal, in e-mails, blogs, letters and articles to the press and a radio phone-in a three-month period following the tribunal
Deliberately and persistently misrepresented the findings of the previous tribunal;
Misrepresented the council and its policies and despite the findings of the tribunal on April 13, had knowingly published confidential information and failed to seek advice from the appropriate authorities.
Mr Brown, was shocked to discover that he had been banned when contacted by the Express.
'This is the first I have heard of it,' he said. 'I can't believe the council continued to pursue that.
'I was just trying to do my duty as a councillor.
'My conscience is clear and I would not try to stand as a councillor again as it has put myself and my family through too much.
'In five months, I have earned five times the amount I earned as a councillor on a yearly income, running a recruitment firm.
'My name is not in the papers these days and if I was a Merthyr taxpayer, I would be questioning how much has been spent on the tribunal. I just think it is disgusting.'
Brendan Toomey, leader of Merthyr Tydfil Council, said: 'The disqualification in this instance is unprecedented as far as I am aware - certainly in the last 20 years.
'It demonstrates the seriousness of Mr Brown's misguided actions throughout this saga.'
It is not the first time Mr Brown has courted controversy.
In July 2009, the then-councillor sparked an outcry following a web forum poll he created asking people if they wanted to bed former murder suspect Amanda Knox - dubbed Foxy Knoxy by national newspapers.
More recently, he was criticised after calling for a 9pm curfew for under 16s in Merthyr and in August, he was lambasted for posting a controversial joke making light of the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking disaster which claimed the lives of 21 Chinese workers.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:10 am
Thanks for this Gav as its given me the opportunity to put my side across.
Firstly after losing the election I contacted both the Adjuction Panel and MTCBC and said 'as I'm no longer a Councillor and the worst thing that can happen to me is to be suspended as a Councillor then I feel theres no point to waste taxpayers money (over £10k) on this tribunal as I'm sure the local taxpayers would prefer that money to be spent on real issues within the borough'. That was in June and it was only until I was contacted by the local reporter a couple of days ago that I knew of this action against me.
I have kept all the paperwork because I was very proud of myself in uncovering such an overpayment of Social Housing Residents for so long. I am very happy to show the paperwork to whoever wants to see it and had I been invited to defend myself at the tribunal hearing then I would have produced the paperwork as evidence. However the way this has been forced through is in my opinion an absolute disgrace which the costs cannot be justified.
However on another point it interesting to see a so-called democratic Wales actually ban people from standing for election!!! How on earth is that democractic..?
Lets not hide from the fact that the people who are back in charge at MTCBC were the very people who overcharged the residents on their rent for so long so its very interesting to now see them now try and blacken my name and dismiss the issue even through people are/have been refunded up to £29,000 each for their actions.
Firstly after losing the election I contacted both the Adjuction Panel and MTCBC and said 'as I'm no longer a Councillor and the worst thing that can happen to me is to be suspended as a Councillor then I feel theres no point to waste taxpayers money (over £10k) on this tribunal as I'm sure the local taxpayers would prefer that money to be spent on real issues within the borough'. That was in June and it was only until I was contacted by the local reporter a couple of days ago that I knew of this action against me.
I have kept all the paperwork because I was very proud of myself in uncovering such an overpayment of Social Housing Residents for so long. I am very happy to show the paperwork to whoever wants to see it and had I been invited to defend myself at the tribunal hearing then I would have produced the paperwork as evidence. However the way this has been forced through is in my opinion an absolute disgrace which the costs cannot be justified.
However on another point it interesting to see a so-called democratic Wales actually ban people from standing for election!!! How on earth is that democractic..?
Lets not hide from the fact that the people who are back in charge at MTCBC were the very people who overcharged the residents on their rent for so long so its very interesting to now see them now try and blacken my name and dismiss the issue even through people are/have been refunded up to £29,000 each for their actions.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:14 am
Here you go:
Good afternoon Adam
I am sorry but until your email I knew nothing about the tree at 13 Forsythia Close. I cannot say without investigation as to whether this should come down or not as I do not know who the tree belongs to. If it is in someone else’s garden then they may not want it removed hence it being pruned. I have asked the are a housing officer to investigate and let me know so that I can respond to you.
I advised you at the last Board meeting that the rent option issue was sensitive and that we are in the process of understanding the full issue as MTCBC failed to advise us of this during the transfer negotiations. The rent roll information as I understand it included the total rent payable (which included the rent options) with no advice that at some stage there was the potential for rents to decrease as a result of the ‘loan’ coming to an end. The cost to MVH if the sums were to be removed is in the region of £300k per annum which under simple multiplication over 30 years comes to £9.9m and we would need to make a claim under breach of warranties.
Any ‘con’ would be addressed to the Council as they are the ones that put this system into place (presumably the system was approved by council members before being implemented) and when the last assessment of this took place at MTCBC they were aware that as at March 2007 they had received an overpayment in excess of £650,000. A further 2 years has then passed so at a reasonable estimate they have probably received closer to £775,000 over payment. This could of course be met from the £2.2m housing revenue surplus that remained with MTCBC on transfer – none of this benefit transferred to us! In addition, if this were just a loan then we should not have been undertaking any repairs as the system was effectively the tenants. Also there is an issue as to whether housing benefit was being paid on the additional sum as this was not strictly an item that would be recoverable as it is a loan and not an integral part of the rent and should have been seen more as a service charge and met in full by the tenant. As I told you at the meeting this is an extremely complex and sensitive area involving a significant number of tenants not just Mr Williams and not one that I am willing to rush into and am taking legal advice on.
Also in relation to the Gurnos shops you will be aware from previous emails that this contract was retained by MTCBC until all the works are completed at which stage it will be handed over to us. If there is a shortfall in money available to finish works then this needs to be found by MTCBC not MVH as we are not in control of the contract and never have been. The agreement re shops was that Philip Pugh at MTCBC continued to negotiate with existing shop leaseholders over the moves/fit out and rent free periods. We agreed with him that this should be 6 months (endorsed by the Board). I am not sure that we need defending as we are not in control of this contract. As for new tenants into the shops we have engaged someone to negotiate as we did not have anyone here with the experience to manage shops (despite what we were told about abilities on transfer). William Hill has always been dealt with by Philip Pugh as part of the wider regeneration and getting them out of their current property if this is not longer happening, I have not been made aware of this but will ascertain the current position from Philip as this means that we will have another unit to let.
I hope that this answers your queries as to current state of play
Jackie
Good afternoon Adam
I am sorry but until your email I knew nothing about the tree at 13 Forsythia Close. I cannot say without investigation as to whether this should come down or not as I do not know who the tree belongs to. If it is in someone else’s garden then they may not want it removed hence it being pruned. I have asked the are a housing officer to investigate and let me know so that I can respond to you.
I advised you at the last Board meeting that the rent option issue was sensitive and that we are in the process of understanding the full issue as MTCBC failed to advise us of this during the transfer negotiations. The rent roll information as I understand it included the total rent payable (which included the rent options) with no advice that at some stage there was the potential for rents to decrease as a result of the ‘loan’ coming to an end. The cost to MVH if the sums were to be removed is in the region of £300k per annum which under simple multiplication over 30 years comes to £9.9m and we would need to make a claim under breach of warranties.
Any ‘con’ would be addressed to the Council as they are the ones that put this system into place (presumably the system was approved by council members before being implemented) and when the last assessment of this took place at MTCBC they were aware that as at March 2007 they had received an overpayment in excess of £650,000. A further 2 years has then passed so at a reasonable estimate they have probably received closer to £775,000 over payment. This could of course be met from the £2.2m housing revenue surplus that remained with MTCBC on transfer – none of this benefit transferred to us! In addition, if this were just a loan then we should not have been undertaking any repairs as the system was effectively the tenants. Also there is an issue as to whether housing benefit was being paid on the additional sum as this was not strictly an item that would be recoverable as it is a loan and not an integral part of the rent and should have been seen more as a service charge and met in full by the tenant. As I told you at the meeting this is an extremely complex and sensitive area involving a significant number of tenants not just Mr Williams and not one that I am willing to rush into and am taking legal advice on.
Also in relation to the Gurnos shops you will be aware from previous emails that this contract was retained by MTCBC until all the works are completed at which stage it will be handed over to us. If there is a shortfall in money available to finish works then this needs to be found by MTCBC not MVH as we are not in control of the contract and never have been. The agreement re shops was that Philip Pugh at MTCBC continued to negotiate with existing shop leaseholders over the moves/fit out and rent free periods. We agreed with him that this should be 6 months (endorsed by the Board). I am not sure that we need defending as we are not in control of this contract. As for new tenants into the shops we have engaged someone to negotiate as we did not have anyone here with the experience to manage shops (despite what we were told about abilities on transfer). William Hill has always been dealt with by Philip Pugh as part of the wider regeneration and getting them out of their current property if this is not longer happening, I have not been made aware of this but will ascertain the current position from Philip as this means that we will have another unit to let.
I hope that this answers your queries as to current state of play
Jackie
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:16 am
Please note the £11.1 million figure was the costs on top of the £9.9 million stated in that email.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:27 am
Great to have two sides of the story, very interesting.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:34 am
Gavlar wrote:Great to have two sides of the story, very interesting.
Not only does so-called democratic Wales ban people from standing but the main media outlet in the country (MediaWales) i actually owned by Mirror Group who are in fact Labour supporting so any reports against non-Labour politicans are never going to be balanced unfortunately.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:34 am
Gavlar wrote:Great to have two sides of the story, very interesting.
not really
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:40 am
Deano1 wrote:Gavlar wrote:Great to have two sides of the story, very interesting.
not really
I'd doubt you'd be saying that if you had been recently refunded up to £29,000 or your relatives who has since passed away had been overcharged for many years when they were alive.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:08 pm
Gavlar wrote:More recently, he was lambasted for posting a controversial joke making light of the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking disaster which claimed the lives of 21 Chinese workers.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:43 pm
Angry Man wrote:Deano1 wrote:Gavlar wrote:Great to have two sides of the story, very interesting.
not really
I'd doubt you'd be saying that if you had been recently refunded up to £29,000 or your relatives who has since passed away had been overcharged for many years when they were alive.
On a football forum, I couldn't give a shit about this stuff, whether I was involved in it or not. I appreciate it wasn't you who brought it up.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:00 pm
Mario Polotelli wrote:Gavlar wrote:More recently, he was lambasted for posting a controversial joke making light of the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking disaster which claimed the lives of 21 Chinese workers.
tickled me too
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:03 pm
Mario Polotelli wrote:Gavlar wrote:More recently, he was lambasted for posting a controversial joke making light of the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking disaster which claimed the lives of 21 Chinese workers.
is adam like the prince philip of myrther?
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:13 pm
jtc wrote:Mario Polotelli wrote:Gavlar wrote:More recently, he was lambasted for posting a controversial joke making light of the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking disaster which claimed the lives of 21 Chinese workers.
is adam like the prince philip of myrther?
Nah more like michael barrymore. a bit fruity and always looking for attention.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:14 pm
Mario Polotelli wrote:jtc wrote:Mario Polotelli wrote:Gavlar wrote:More recently, he was lambasted for posting a controversial joke making light of the Morecambe Bay cockle-picking disaster which claimed the lives of 21 Chinese workers.
is adam like the prince philip of myrther?
Nah more like michael barrymore. a bit fruity and always looking for attention.
councillor ,leader,legend
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:23 pm
Classic
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:29 pm
bluebird1977 wrote:Classic
that quote on the bottom of your page kills me
.mind you mr mario put a classic up the other day about tan turning the ccs into a shrine for malaysia and peters pies.superb
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:32 pm
jtc wrote:bluebird1977 wrote:Classic
that quote on the bottom of your page kills me
Grampys is the best EVER
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:40 pm
Mario Polotelli wrote:jtc wrote:bluebird1977 wrote:Classic
that quote on the bottom of your page kills me
Grampys is the best EVER
world class
one of my all time favs is-WE CAN BE AS BIG AS REAL MADRID.thought i was back on the piss when i read that one
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:41 pm
Mario Polotelli wrote:jtc wrote:bluebird1977 wrote:Classic
that quote on the bottom of your page kills me
Grampys is the best EVER
Did we ever find out what car Grampy drives
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:45 pm
It seems to me that Merthyr council think that £29,000 is an acceptable mistake to make. I can't for one minute understand why Adam Brown should be suspended for pointing out a discrepancy never mind how ‘small’ some might think the amount is.
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:56 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:It seems to me that Merthyr council think that £29,000 is an acceptable mistake to make. I can't for one minute understand why Adam Brown should be suspended for pointing out a discrepancy never mind how ‘small’ some might think the amount is.
tbf he should be congatulated not suspended
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:48 pm
Xcasual wrote:Mario Polotelli wrote:jtc wrote:bluebird1977 wrote:Classic
that quote on the bottom of your page kills me
Grampys is the best EVER
Did we ever find out what car Grampy drives
A Robin Reliant
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:01 pm
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:55 pm
Mario Polotelli wrote:Xcasual wrote:Mario Polotelli wrote:jtc wrote:bluebird1977 wrote:Classic
that quote on the bottom of your page kills me
Grampys is the best EVER
Did we ever find out what car Grampy drives
A Robin Reliant
Re: Adam Brown / Angry man - back in the headlines again
Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:02 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:It seems to me that Merthyr council think that £29,000 is an acceptable mistake to make. I can't for one minute understand why Adam Brown should be suspended for pointing out a discrepancy never mind how ‘small’ some might think the amount is.
totally agree the man should have never been suspended,well done adam hope you have great success in your
new career
