Pay up, judge orders council

Oldham taxpayers will have to pay the estimated £5 million cost of the bungled prosecution of controversial kitchens boss Vance Miller, a judge ruled yesterday.

Judge Jonathan Foster QC said it was a ‘’matter of general principle’’ that Oldham Council and not central government should pay the massive bill because of the way the case against the businessman was handled.

Last month the judge threw out fraud allegations against Mr Miller after declaring the four-year investigation into his commercial affairs was ‘’misconceived from the start.’’

He condemned Oldham chief trading standards officer Tony Allen for wasting taxpayers’ money staging a “personal vendetta’’ against Mr Miller and blasted raids on his mill in Oldham as “heavy handed and overzealous.”

The trial was due to last six months and was hailed as the largest, most expensive fraud case ever brought by a Trading Standards authority in the UK, but it collapsed in its 14th week.

Mr Allen is now suspended pending a disciplinary investigation.

Yesterday, at a hearing to decide the costs of the court case, Judge Foster rejected pleas from Oldham Council lawyers to not be “unduly punitive” on the people of Oldham.

At Manchester Crown Court the judge retorted: “It seems to me that, in light of the findings that I made in my determination, it is proper that Oldham should, as a matter of general principle, bear the costs of these proceedings.

“As a starting point, they, rather than central funds, should bear the costs.”

Mr Miller (44), had been arrested and charged with fraud in 2006 after 130 officers raided his factory while investigating allegations his kitchen supply firm was the most complained about independent trader in Britain.

It was alleged thousands of customers had complained to trading standards officials nationwide about the shoddy workmanship of kitchen units supplied.

It was said Mr Miller’s company claimed to have “real” and “solid” wood kitchens at bargain prices — but instead fitted cheap chipwood and MDF products. Miller denied all the charges, claiming he was the victim of a publicly-funded “witchunt”.

At yesterday’s hearing, Mr Patrick Field QC, for Oldham Trading Standards, argued that it would be “unduly punitive on Oldham” to make a costs order against the town.

He said that as the officials who had brought the case were not elected officers of the council it would be unfair for ratepayers in the town to bear the costs.

Mr Field added: “These are paid employees, the relationship between them and the electors is entirely different. There is already a burden being born by Oldham.”

No official figures were revealed to the court after Mr Miller failed to produce his costs application with specific breakdowns by January 29 as directed.

Mr Field said: “Mr Miller’s application was served on me by e-mail on February 9. No notice of the application, formal or informal, had been given before this time.

“We say therefore, in summary, that your honour should take the step at this stage of refusing that application.”

Judge Foster QC refused, and the defence teams for all defendants in the case were granted extra time to gather the information before it comes before the court again for a costs assessment by the judge.

The case was adjourned until April.

Later, Oldham Council’s chief executive, Charlie Parker, said: “Oldham Council has received the ruling in relation to costs in this case.

”This decision is at the judge’s discretion and he has now adjourned the case pending clarification of the final defendants’ costs.

“During this time we will review his decision in detail and consider our options, including whether to appeal.”




Council leader Howard Sykes, asked last week if the council was fully covered for any claims resulting from the court case, said insurance was ‘appropriate.’