18 April 2003
The London Borough of Ealing has had its Comprehensive Performance Assessment upgraded from 'weak' to 'fair' after the Audit Commission was forced to admit the authority had been wrongly evaluated.
The London borough was threatening a legal challenge against its ranking, arguing that its corporate assessment failed to recognise apparent improvements in social services.
The council was pushing for its achievement score – one of the nine elements that make up the corporate assessment mark – to be raised from two
to three. After going through all three stages of the commission's 'disputed judgement process' and being allowed to present further evidence, this has now happened.
As a result, Ealing's overall corporate assessment score has also increased and it has been moved up a category.
Making the announcement, commission controller Sir Andrew Foster claimed Ealing's regrading would not lead to other disgruntled authorities demanding improved scores.
'The council's case was unique and we could not conclude the process for resolving disputes before scores were reported last year. Having now resolved this, we're clear that we have dealt consistently with Ealing and all the other 2002 CPA authorities,' he said.
Several councils, including Bury, Salford and Torbay, expressed annoyance following publication of the CPA tables in December 2002 and signalled their intention to challenge the results.
Torbay is the only authority still in dispute with the commission and 'discussions are continuing', according to a commission spokeswoman. But Ealing is the first to succeed in getting its category changed after publication.
Gillian Guy, Ealing's chief executive, welcomed the commission's climbdown.
'I am pleased that we were successful in getting the commission to conduct such a thorough review. This was, after all, something we were prepared to fight for.'
The news came the day after the commission put its draft framework for the district council CPA out to consultation.
It proposes a corporate assessment comprising a Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report; external audit; and assessments of housing and management of public space. Any council deemed poor on one of these measures could not be judged 'excellent'.
But Sir Jeremy Beecham, chair of the Local Government Association, expressed his reservations. 'These proposals could have the effect of unfairly dampening down performance scores. We would question the fairness of the rule in relation to benefit reports and are concerned that this will reduce the value of the CPA process for district councils.'
The consultation runs until May 28.
PFapr2003
