The Peter principle is alive and well at East Kent Hospital University Foundation Trust.
If for one moment one believes that the proposal for a new Hospital at Canterbury, is Quinn Estates idea alone, then you’d be very much mistaken. It is clear from emails received by our public face, the Trust have actively had considerable input into the shaping of the Hospital proposal. The Trust has sought various elements to be incorporated into the plans, such as a helipad for example.
Our public face sent two Freedom of Information requests (FoI) to East Kent Hospital University Foundation Trust (EKHUFT). The first was about the due diligence undertaken into Quinn Estates and Atlas Partners Group Limited (APG Ltd) who were also in the mix to potentially build a new hospital in Canterbury. We have blogged about APG Ltd before, not once but twice in relation to the former White Lion pub in Cheriton.
EKHUFT paid Deloitte to undertake due diligence into both companies and produce a report for the Trust. This they duly did However, in the first FoI response EKHUFT made it clear in writing due diligence into Quinn Estates had taken place.
-
EKHUFT can confirm there were reports / document prepared
And regarding APG Ltd, EKHUFT stated:
-
EKHUFT can confirm there were no reports / documents.
Then in a phone call the same day as the response, EKHUFT retracted the first statement relating to Quinn Estates saying the “FoI response was a mistake“. The Trust also confirmed there were no costs paid to undertake any due diligence into Quinn Estates or APG Ltd.
Now in the second FoI response released less than 24 hours later an email makes it very clear that EKHUFT informed Quinn Estates on the 23rd August 2017, Deloitte would be undertaking due diligence into Quinn Estates.
So it is clear that in Aug 2017 the trust appointed and paid for Deloitte to undertake due diligence into Quinn Estates. Deloitte would not undertake such work for free. Whether or not APG Ltd had due diligence undertaken on them is NOT yet clear.
It was Finbarr Murray (pictured) Director of Estates and Facilities at EKHUFT who informed the Quinn Estates representative of the due diligence being undertaken by Deloitte as is clear from the email above.
So how could it be at one moment no due diligence was undertaken, then in less than 24 hours, emails released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 demonstrate that a EKHUFT representative makes it clear to Quinn Estates, Deliotte had been appointed to undertake due diligence?
In the second FoI response EKHUFT make it clear that meetings between EKHUFT & Quinn Estates have been ongoing since 11 April 2017. In all, nine meetings have taken place between EKHUFT and a Quinn Estates representative, as is clear from the chart below.
EKHUFT are expecting us to believe that Finbarr Murray who attended these meetings, remembered everything in his head and took no notes and he was able to recall every aspect of his meetings with Quinn Estates to his boss Liz Shultler (centre) and Susan Acott (right). Really! Pull the other one please.
EKHUFT claim there were only four emails between Finbarr and Quinn Estates, the first on the 23rd August 2017 and the last on the 23rd Feb 2018. It is clear in these emails other emails exist, but these have not been provided, nor has any reason been given for withholding them. Also there were attachments to these emails which have also been withheld because it would be a “prejudice to commercial interests“. These attachments relate to the hospital proposal put forward by Quinn Estates
However, we have to ask whose commercial interests would be prejudiced if they the attachments were released? EKHUFT or Quinn Estates?
How would the release of the “proposal” to build the hospital prejudice the Trust, as it is Quinn Estates proposal?
It is clear the persons at EKHUFT dealing with the FoI response (NOT the Information Officer) are fully compliant with the Peter Principle perfectly at the Trust.
