Letters sent to senior Pembrokeshire County Council officers inviting repayment of 'unlawful' pension cash

Western Telegraph: Letters sent to senior Pembrokeshire County Council officers inviting repayment of 'unlawful' pension cash Letters sent to senior Pembrokeshire County Council officers inviting repayment of 'unlawful' pension cash

LETTERS inviting two senior Pembrokeshire County Council officers to return money they received through ‘unlawful’ pension payments have been sent out.

But when asked if the officers had agreed or declined to return the money, Pembrokeshire County Council said it would be making no further comment on the issue.

The matter relates to the controversial pension arrangements of chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones and another senior officer that were declared unlawful by the Wales Audit Office (WAO).

The pair received payments in lieu of pension contributions after opting out of the local government pension scheme.

In a special report, the WAO described the arrangement as unlawful but a subsequent investigation by Gloucestershire police found no evidence of criminality.

An extraordinary meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council on May 1st backed a proposal to invite the officers to repay the money paid under the scheme - more than £50,000.

The Western Telegraph asked this week if the ‘invitation’ to repay had been sent out and whether the officers had agreed or declined the offer.

A council spokesman said: “The Council can confirm that the letters to the two employees have been sent.

“However, the detail of the correspondence relates to contractual matters between the Authority and two of its employees; as such it will remain private.

“There will be no further comment on the matter.”

At the meeting on May 1st it was agreed that the responses from the officers would be made to the July meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council.

Members agreed that if responses had not been received by that meeting, they would look again at formally recovering the money.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:56pm Wed 11 Jun 14

williamsmum says...

Pay the money back - you'll be lucky.
Pigs have a better chance of flying!
Pay the money back - you'll be lucky. Pigs have a better chance of flying! williamsmum
  • Score: 11

2:08pm Wed 11 Jun 14

hardcheese says...

"A council spokesman said: “The Council can confirm that the letters to the two employees have been sent.
“However, the detail of the correspondence relates to contractual matters between the Authority and two of its employees; as such it will remain private.
“There will be no further comment on the matter.”

The reason it is being made private is so the chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones can get away from more investigation...IT IS ABOUT TIME BRYN PARRY-JONES GAVE HIS NOTICE IN. HE IS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE PEOPLE OF PEMBROKESHIRE, THE ONLY SUPPORT HE GETS IS FROM THE 30 OR SO CREEPY CORRUPT COUNCILLORS.....
"A council spokesman said: “The Council can confirm that the letters to the two employees have been sent. “However, the detail of the correspondence relates to contractual matters between the Authority and two of its employees; as such it will remain private. “There will be no further comment on the matter.” The reason it is being made private is so the chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones can get away from more investigation...IT IS ABOUT TIME BRYN PARRY-JONES GAVE HIS NOTICE IN. HE IS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE PEOPLE OF PEMBROKESHIRE, THE ONLY SUPPORT HE GETS IS FROM THE 30 OR SO CREEPY CORRUPT COUNCILLORS..... hardcheese
  • Score: 15

2:22pm Wed 11 Jun 14

teifion says...

Bryn's reputation is in tatters, most ppl think he's a complete and utter **** (please feel free to put your own word in there - I have several but wouldn't dream of trying to publish them;)

He's shown utter contempt for his co-workers, the rule of Law - while still boasting about his Oxbridge training, our democratically elected members (well, those ones that cannot be "bribed" to join his club anyway)

- he will have to be sacked or dragged out of his office kicking and screaming cos as sure as eggs is eggs he knows how to play dirty to hang on to his discredited post - he's not the sort to fall on his sword, on the other hand he could fall of his wallet, bet that would hurt even more ;)
Bryn's reputation is in tatters, most ppl think he's a complete and utter **** (please feel free to put your own word in there - I have several but wouldn't dream of trying to publish them;) He's shown utter contempt for his co-workers, the rule of Law - while still boasting about his Oxbridge training, our democratically elected members (well, those ones that cannot be "bribed" to join his club anyway) - he will have to be sacked or dragged out of his office kicking and screaming cos as sure as eggs is eggs he knows how to play dirty to hang on to his discredited post - he's not the sort to fall on his sword, on the other hand he could fall of his wallet, bet that would hurt even more ;) teifion
  • Score: 13

4:28pm Wed 11 Jun 14

mayday says...

So the Council (employer) offered a choice to some of its employees and some accepted. This arrangement then deemed unlawful. The employees should have no option other than to return to the old contractual arrangement since continuing with the one in place is unlawful. As posted before there is NO massive net financial benefit to the Council since they are contractually obliged to pay into a pension. The arrangement was one that gave apparent tax benefits (possibly on both sides). The impression from the WAO report was that it was the presence of the employee in the room at the time the arrangement was voted in that caused the unlawful status?
So the Council (employer) offered a choice to some of its employees and some accepted. This arrangement then deemed unlawful. The employees should have no option other than to return to the old contractual arrangement since continuing with the one in place is unlawful. As posted before there is NO massive net financial benefit to the Council since they are contractually obliged to pay into a pension. The arrangement was one that gave apparent tax benefits (possibly on both sides). The impression from the WAO report was that it was the presence of the employee in the room at the time the arrangement was voted in that caused the unlawful status? mayday
  • Score: 4

7:39pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Welshman23 says...

Who is this other officer.
Reply
Dear Council members
I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money.
Who is this other officer. Reply Dear Council members I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money. Welshman23
  • Score: 1

10:00pm Wed 11 Jun 14

teifion says...

Welshman23 wrote:
Who is this other officer.
Reply
Dear Council members
I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money.
MUST be well paid, is it a superinjunction or are the meedja just scared of this guy?
[quote][p][bold]Welshman23[/bold] wrote: Who is this other officer. Reply Dear Council members I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money.[/p][/quote]MUST be well paid, is it a superinjunction or are the meedja just scared of this guy? teifion
  • Score: 3

10:06pm Wed 11 Jun 14

teifion says...

PS IF a council employee is paid to much in salary or expenses will the Council "invite" THEM to pay the over payment back?

No Flippin chance - its obscene, its wrong, its corrupt

On the other hand do the give a flying fig?

Of course not, they're content being called crooks and parasites so long as they get the money and don't land up in jail
PS IF a council employee is paid to much in salary or expenses will the Council "invite" THEM to pay the over payment back? No Flippin chance - its obscene, its wrong, its corrupt On the other hand do the give a flying fig? Of course not, they're content being called crooks and parasites so long as they get the money and don't land up in jail teifion
  • Score: 2

10:16pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Welshman23 says...

teifion wrote:
Welshman23 wrote:
Who is this other officer.
Reply
Dear Council members
I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money.
MUST be well paid, is it a superinjunction or are the meedja just scared of this guy?
Correct no one has the balls to face this dictator, what he says goes.
[quote][p][bold]teifion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshman23[/bold] wrote: Who is this other officer. Reply Dear Council members I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money.[/p][/quote]MUST be well paid, is it a superinjunction or are the meedja just scared of this guy?[/p][/quote]Correct no one has the balls to face this dictator, what he says goes. Welshman23
  • Score: 6

7:28am Thu 12 Jun 14

teifion says...

Welshman23 wrote:
teifion wrote:
Welshman23 wrote:
Who is this other officer.
Reply
Dear Council members
I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money.
MUST be well paid, is it a superinjunction or are the meedja just scared of this guy?
Correct no one has the balls to face this dictator, what he says goes.
maybe someone can give us the name here?


The WT might censor and delete the comment BUT If its here for only an hour or so lot of people can find out

OR

Go to twitter and give us the name there using #pembs or #pembrokeshire hash tag so we all know what to look for
[quote][p][bold]Welshman23[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]teifion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welshman23[/bold] wrote: Who is this other officer. Reply Dear Council members I am in receipt of your letter, I will not be repaying the money.[/p][/quote]MUST be well paid, is it a superinjunction or are the meedja just scared of this guy?[/p][/quote]Correct no one has the balls to face this dictator, what he says goes.[/p][/quote]maybe someone can give us the name here? The WT might censor and delete the comment BUT If its here for only an hour or so lot of people can find out OR Go to twitter and give us the name there using #pembs or #pembrokeshire hash tag so we all know what to look for teifion
  • Score: 2

9:10pm Thu 12 Jun 14

KeanJo says...

If the two officers do not return the money voluntarily ,guidance on the next step to be taken is given in 'Local and Regional Democracy: United Kingdom.
Viz - If an elected representative votes in favour of unlawful expenditure by a local authority, he/she is personally and jointly responsible for recovering the expenditure incurred. Proceedings may be initiated in such a case by the district auditor. If the amount certified exceeds £2,000 the elected representative(s) is disqualified and may not stand for elective office for a period of 5 years. Furthermore, auditors may apply to the courts for such unlawful expenditure to be recovered through surcharge arrangements.
This should give the members who voted yes a lot to think about.
If the two officers do not return the money voluntarily ,guidance on the next step to be taken is given in 'Local and Regional Democracy: United Kingdom. Viz - If an elected representative votes in favour of unlawful expenditure by a local authority, he/she is personally and jointly responsible for recovering the expenditure incurred. Proceedings may be initiated in such a case by the district auditor. If the amount certified exceeds £2,000 the elected representative(s) is disqualified and may not stand for elective office for a period of 5 years. Furthermore, auditors may apply to the courts for such unlawful expenditure to be recovered through surcharge arrangements. This should give the members who voted yes a lot to think about. KeanJo
  • Score: 5

10:50pm Thu 12 Jun 14

teifion says...

KeanJo wrote:
If the two officers do not return the money voluntarily ,guidance on the next step to be taken is given in 'Local and Regional Democracy: United Kingdom.
Viz - If an elected representative votes in favour of unlawful expenditure by a local authority, he/she is personally and jointly responsible for recovering the expenditure incurred. Proceedings may be initiated in such a case by the district auditor. If the amount certified exceeds £2,000 the elected representative(s) is disqualified and may not stand for elective office for a period of 5 years. Furthermore, auditors may apply to the courts for such unlawful expenditure to be recovered through surcharge arrangements.
This should give the members who voted yes a lot to think about.
Bryn's cruel and doesn't give a darn about his followers - his IPG party should do their own research into Shirley Porter.

A;ll his sycophant idiots should be getting ready to tell their wives and partners - sorry we have to sell the house to pay off Bryns greed

The only good thing about this dreadful story ?
[quote][p][bold]KeanJo[/bold] wrote: If the two officers do not return the money voluntarily ,guidance on the next step to be taken is given in 'Local and Regional Democracy: United Kingdom. Viz - If an elected representative votes in favour of unlawful expenditure by a local authority, he/she is personally and jointly responsible for recovering the expenditure incurred. Proceedings may be initiated in such a case by the district auditor. If the amount certified exceeds £2,000 the elected representative(s) is disqualified and may not stand for elective office for a period of 5 years. Furthermore, auditors may apply to the courts for such unlawful expenditure to be recovered through surcharge arrangements. This should give the members who voted yes a lot to think about.[/p][/quote]Bryn's cruel and doesn't give a darn about his followers - his IPG party should do their own research into Shirley Porter. A;ll his sycophant idiots should be getting ready to tell their wives and partners - sorry we have to sell the house to pay off Bryns greed The only good thing about this dreadful story ? teifion
  • Score: 3

11:18pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Cymru bach says...

Employees of PCC who have been wrongly paid, (as has been commented on this website before) have had the money deducted from their pay packet at source without ANY regard for any hardship that that would cause the employees concerned.

One rule for Bryn and the unnamed person and another for everyone else.
Employees of PCC who have been wrongly paid, (as has been commented on this website before) have had the money deducted from their pay packet at source without ANY regard for any hardship that that would cause the employees concerned. One rule for Bryn and the unnamed person and another for everyone else. Cymru bach
  • Score: 8

10:15am Mon 16 Jun 14

mammatt says...

mayday wrote:
So the Council (employer) offered a choice to some of its employees and some accepted. This arrangement then deemed unlawful. The employees should have no option other than to return to the old contractual arrangement since continuing with the one in place is unlawful. As posted before there is NO massive net financial benefit to the Council since they are contractually obliged to pay into a pension. The arrangement was one that gave apparent tax benefits (possibly on both sides). The impression from the WAO report was that it was the presence of the employee in the room at the time the arrangement was voted in that caused the unlawful status?
Why did the council only offer this choice to "some" employees? I know many employees who have to make the hard decision that they cannot afford to lose some of their (miserly) salary to a pension, and would no doubt be overjoyed if they could actually have the employers contributions paid directly to them in order to give them more take home pay. After all, it (theoretically) costs PCC no more.....
One rule for all, please.
[quote][p][bold]mayday[/bold] wrote: So the Council (employer) offered a choice to some of its employees and some accepted. This arrangement then deemed unlawful. The employees should have no option other than to return to the old contractual arrangement since continuing with the one in place is unlawful. As posted before there is NO massive net financial benefit to the Council since they are contractually obliged to pay into a pension. The arrangement was one that gave apparent tax benefits (possibly on both sides). The impression from the WAO report was that it was the presence of the employee in the room at the time the arrangement was voted in that caused the unlawful status?[/p][/quote]Why did the council only offer this choice to "some" employees? I know many employees who have to make the hard decision that they cannot afford to lose some of their (miserly) salary to a pension, and would no doubt be overjoyed if they could actually have the employers contributions paid directly to them in order to give them more take home pay. After all, it (theoretically) costs PCC no more..... One rule for all, please. mammatt
  • Score: 2

1:26pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Cymru bach says...

mammatt wrote:
mayday wrote:
So the Council (employer) offered a choice to some of its employees and some accepted. This arrangement then deemed unlawful. The employees should have no option other than to return to the old contractual arrangement since continuing with the one in place is unlawful. As posted before there is NO massive net financial benefit to the Council since they are contractually obliged to pay into a pension. The arrangement was one that gave apparent tax benefits (possibly on both sides). The impression from the WAO report was that it was the presence of the employee in the room at the time the arrangement was voted in that caused the unlawful status?
Why did the council only offer this choice to "some" employees? I know many employees who have to make the hard decision that they cannot afford to lose some of their (miserly) salary to a pension, and would no doubt be overjoyed if they could actually have the employers contributions paid directly to them in order to give them more take home pay. After all, it (theoretically) costs PCC no more.....
One rule for all, please.
That is exactly why the Welsh Audit Office said that it was illegal as it was not offered to everybody. I believe there is a case for those that were not offered it to put a claim for discrimination. The WAO rightly said that the scheme was discriminatory against women and young people who are more likely to be on lower wages, both of which are illegal.
Speak to your Union and get your claim in now!
[quote][p][bold]mammatt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mayday[/bold] wrote: So the Council (employer) offered a choice to some of its employees and some accepted. This arrangement then deemed unlawful. The employees should have no option other than to return to the old contractual arrangement since continuing with the one in place is unlawful. As posted before there is NO massive net financial benefit to the Council since they are contractually obliged to pay into a pension. The arrangement was one that gave apparent tax benefits (possibly on both sides). The impression from the WAO report was that it was the presence of the employee in the room at the time the arrangement was voted in that caused the unlawful status?[/p][/quote]Why did the council only offer this choice to "some" employees? I know many employees who have to make the hard decision that they cannot afford to lose some of their (miserly) salary to a pension, and would no doubt be overjoyed if they could actually have the employers contributions paid directly to them in order to give them more take home pay. After all, it (theoretically) costs PCC no more..... One rule for all, please.[/p][/quote]That is exactly why the Welsh Audit Office said that it was illegal as it was not offered to everybody. I believe there is a case for those that were not offered it to put a claim for discrimination. The WAO rightly said that the scheme was discriminatory against women and young people who are more likely to be on lower wages, both of which are illegal. Speak to your Union and get your claim in now! Cymru bach
  • Score: 2

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