Agenda item

The Panel was asked to scrutinise the Police and Crime Commissioner's (PCC's) actions in selling the rights to registration plate AB1 and having done so, decide whether it wished to make a report to the PCC on the matter.

The Panel had before it a Report which covered the background to the issue, the Panel's role in relation to complaints, the Panel's role in relation to Scrutiny, a summary of complaints received relating to the sale of AB1, a Report from the PCC relating to the sale of AB1 and an exempt appendix to the Report of the PCC (circulated to Panel Members only).

The PCC was invited to present the detail of the process he followed in selling the AB1 Registration Plate:

·       The PCC was concerned the regulations didn’t seem to be being followed in the spirit in which they were intended and although the Chairman suggested that he was not on trial, it could feel that way

·       The Panel were advised that pages 15-29 of the Agenda contained detail on the process for sale and pages 31- 35 were the exempt shouldn’t be discussed public part of the meeting due to commercial sensitivity

·       Specifically, the Panel's attention was drawn to pages 31 and 34 (exempt papers) which set out the offers received and the timeframe for sale as recommended by Brightwells (including how offers should be received to ensure transparency) and page15 which set out the timeline and sale process

·       The PCC believed that the papers demonstrated a clear marketing strategy as suggested by Brightwells, who were instructed on 15 June 2017

·       The value of the number plate was difficult to ascertain as all number plates were unique and worth what someone was willing to pay for them

·       On 17 July 2017, after receiving a number of offers as detailed on page 31 of the exempt papers the PCC received a direct offer of £160,000 (which was considerably higher than any others received).  The PCC was mindful that if this offer was accepted, it would be a private sale and would avoid the commission charge

·       Following legal advice, on 18 July 2017 the Registration Plate was withdrawn from sale with Brightwells and a sale was agreed in principle with Mr West

·       The necessary standard legal checks were undertaken including provenance of the funds to pay for the purchase under anti-money laundering legislation

·       The sale was then completed on 8 August 2017 and although there had been a time lapse between the sale being agreed and completed, it was not unusual

·       No higher offers than the one accepted were received.  Other people had subsequently indicated via media that they would have paid more

·       The PCC was confident that the process followed had given the maximum opportunity to the communities to achieve the highest value and had also avoided the commission charges.

Ultimately, the PCC believed that issues such as this could be very distracting but he was confident that the process stood up to scrutiny.  He had put in place appropriate measures in terms of a contract with Mr West should he choose to sell the number plate to protect the people of Worcestershire.  He believed that people were upset that he had decided to sell AB1 in the first place and had moved on to be critical of the process.

During the ensuing discussion the following main points were discussed:

·       Although there was no suggestion of an improper relationship with Mr West, a Panel Member suggested that it was very important to be mindful of public perception of the situation.  As there hadn't been a public auction for the sale of AB1, there could be a question as to whether proper public value had been achieved.  The PCC advised that page 33 onwards of the Agenda detailed the advice given by Brightwells on how best to sell AB1 and there was never a suggestion of a public auction as an option for sale, but that sealed bids should be submitted.  The PCC suggested that a public auction would have had a limited pool of bidders, whereas the method of sale chosen was a longer process with more opportunity to reach a wider audience

·       Given that a public auction was usually the preferred method of sale for such items and could be accessed in person, by telephone or over the internet, it was questioned why this wasn’t chosen as the preferred option.  The PCC confirmed that Brightwells had advised on the best method of sale for AB1, which he had followed and felt that his integrity was being called into question when had had followed professional advice throughout the process

·       In view of the fact that the advert went into the Telegraph on 15 July and then a private sale was agreed on 17 July, it was suggested that the timescale was too short and the plate was sold too quickly.  The PCC reminded the Panel that marketing had in fact commenced on 15 June and the sale was agreed on 17 July.  He reiterated to the Panel that he was given a marketing plan from Brightwells which he followed and no one was prevented from bidding. There was national and local press coverage and it was untrue to suggest that the plate had only been marketed for 2 days.  The PCC believed he had achieved the best value and had accepted the highest offer made

·       On 19 July, after the private sale had been agreed in principle, the PCC received an email from Brightwells saying that they had a bidder who intended to start bidding at £300,000 but he reiterated that this was after the sale was agreed

·       The PCC confirmed that AB1 was marketed from the day that Brightwells were instructed and that Brightwells stood to gain a significant commission fee if they sold the plate, so it was in their interest to sell it

·       The PCC did not believe that his actions compromised Brightwells marketing strategy.  The advert referred to the best offer and as page 31 of the Agenda demonstrated, 3 offers were received so the marketing strategy had worked as there was interest in AB1

·       In response to the question as to why only one auction company was approached to market AB1, the PCC advised that Brightwells were an internationally renowned company who were able to do the job.  The PCC regretted the controversy that sale of AB1 had caused but he was ultimately confident that the right process had been followed in order to get best value

·       It was suggested that Brightwells would have regretted the loss of income from not negotiating the sale, but the PCC was confident that all offers made to Brightwells before the private sale had been agreed had been forwarded on to him.  He confirmed that he had not received an offer of either £250,000 or £300,000 from Brightwells

·       The PCC was questioned as to why he didn’t consider any other specialist auction houses eg Bonhams or Sotheby's in deciding which company to market AB1 with.  The PCC confirmed that Brightwells were local with a very good track record of selling similar items and that he believed the marketing plan suggested was acceptable

·       The PCC reiterated that he was the accountable person, had confidence in the chosen approach but, as with any process it wasn’t perfect.  The plate was marketed widely and sufficient opportunity was given to the public to submit bids

·       It was confirmed that that the Chief Executive was fully aware of the private bid made by Mr West and that the PCC had taken legal advice before accepting the offer

·       The offer of £160,000 included VAT, so the actual income received was £133,333.33.  All bids were inclusive of VAT

·       Up until the private sale was agreed in principle, the PCC would have accepted other bids

·       When the £300,000 offer was made on 19 July, the private sale had already been agreed in principle and this agreement was binding

·       A Panel Member suggested that if an offer of £300,000 had been made before the private sale had been agreed in principle, then Brightwells would be taking appropriate action as they would have lost a considerable amount of commission.  The PCC confirmed that before agreeing the private sale in principle he had checked with Brightwells that there were no outstanding offers

·       It was suggested that it would have been wiser to have let the 3 month marketing process run its full course

·       The PCC stated that if the £300,000 bid had been submitted to him before the private sale was agreed in principle, then he wouldn't have agreed the private sale.

The PCC was asked whether he would act in the same way again if the situation arose and confirmed that with the benefit of hindsight he wouldn’t have agreed the sale with Mr West and would have spoken to Mr Brookes.  He had never met Mr Brookes during the process.  He further made the point that there could have been other higher bids and the situation could have still been subject to Scrutiny. 

The PCC pointed out that his integrity had been impugned, there had been suggestion that he had broken the law and that there had been a misconduct of public office.  The issue had been referred to the IOPC and the West Mercia Police Internal Audit process and he had not broken the law, but had sold AB1 within agreed principles.

The PCC stated that advice from the Panel was welcomed.

The Chairman suggested that he was picking up that the Panel had some concerns about the process for the sale of AB1 and that he proposed to send a letter on behalf of the Panel summarising its views.  The majority of members supported this suggestion but two members were not in favour of such action.  The letter would therefore represent a majority, not a unanimous Panel view.

In summary, as well as the main discussion points from the meeting, the Panel highlighted that:

·       The PCC's integrity was not being called into question, the Panel was confident that he had acted as the responsible person and decision maker acting on professional advice and in good faith.  The Panel did however consider he needed to be very careful about public perception and putting himself in a position where he could be criticised when dealing with such matters

·       given the process chosen for sale, it would have been more open and transparent if the auction had run for the full time period

·       with the benefit of hindsight, it may have been better to run an open public auction which would have been more open and transparent

·       Policies and procedures relating to the sale of assets should be reviewed and revised regularly.

The Panel adjourned from 12.55pm until 1.30pm