Agenda item

The Cabinet Member noted the report which sought approval for the extension and variation of the Nuisance Vehicle contract with NSL Limited. The report also sought approval to vary the contract to increase the annual payment by a maximum of £28k per annum to pay for an additional abandoned vehicle inspector and performance related payments towards additional operating costs.

 

RESOLVED

 

I. That the extension of the nuisance vehicle contract be approved, for a period of

two years, as permitted under the Contract and in accordance with CSO

10.021(b).

 

II. That approval be given for a variation of the contract as permitted under Clause 45.1 and in accordance with CSO 10.02.1(b), to increase the annual payment by

£28k to cover the cost of an additional abandoned vehicle inspector and

contribution towards rising operating costs, bringing the total cost to

£2,843,776.

 

Reasons for decision

 

The Council was required to make provision for the removal of nuisance vehicles,

which comprises of vehicles which are generally in a very bad condition

abandoned on the highway.

 

This contract was key to ensuring the delivery of the Council’s statutory duties

including the safety requirements in and around Spurs Football Ground, where

it is imperative that the surrounding streets comprising the emergency

evacuation routes and safety corridor are kept clear.

 

Additionally, this contract underpins the strategy for dealing with vehicles that

have accumulated high volumes of unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (commonly

referred to as Persistent Evaders) that represent a significant amount of debt;

there would be no ability to deal with this category of debt without the provision

of removal vehicles included as part of the contract.

 

The routine removal of vehicles under the Traffic Management Act also

supports road safety.

 

Extending and varying the current contract is the recommended option, the

reasons for this are provided below.

 

The original contract award allowed for the option to extend for two years.

There were operational difficulties at the beginning of the three-year contract, in

particular the council had to support the contractor in relation to the abandoned

vehicle operation. This area continues to be a pressure for them, possibly due

to a lack of their understanding at the bid stage about the full scale of the

operation.

 

However, overall performance has improved, and continues to do so this year,

with NSL consistently meeting the key performance indicators.

The contractor has in the past raised concerns about the financial viability of

this contract, and at the extension negotiations, were clear that they were

unwilling to extend the contract at the same cost. Some of these cost pressures

are due to them misunderstanding the scope of the abandoned vehicle side and

also due to there being no provision in the contract for RPI increases, which the

contractor has had to absorb.

 

Following negotiations between the Council and the contractor, the following

payments have been proposed:

 

1. The council to fund one abandoned vehicle inspector at a cost of £22k

per annum to improve the efficiency of the abandoned vehicle side of the

service.

 

ii.         An additional £6k per annum to be available to NSL via monthly

payments upon achievement of all six key performance indicators in the

contract, to drive overall contract performance.

 

While the council will be paying up to £28,000 per annum more in contract

costs, the council will benefit from an adequately resourced contract, that

delivers better across the piece. This will include improving further on the

excellent work undertaken in relation to persistent evaders. This work supported

by NSL has resulted in the recovery of an additional £200K debt annually over

the last two years.

 

NSL also asked for an RPI linked increase to be applied to the contract, which

Haringey rejected.

 

Alternative options considered.

 

The option to terminate the contract without implementing the extension period

has been rejected.

 

Conducting a tender for a new contract would be a time consuming exercise,

and there is a risk of a drop in performance from the incumbent supplier, and

from the new supplier while a new contract is established.

 

The council does not have a site that could be operated as a car pound, so

there is no opportunity to bring the service in house.