Courts Service rapped for storage shambles

A highly critical internal audit also found the Courts Service had been accidentally overcharged for two years, did not factor in delivery and collection fees and may have awarded the contract to the wrong company.

It said this risked “legal and reputational consequences” and that if the Courts Service had fully understood the costs involved, the successful company would not have been awarded the contract in the first place.

The internal audit identified several “high risks”, saying prices quoted in a tender document had not ultimately applied and “expected financial savings were not realised”.

It also said there was a lack of oversight and reporting within the Courts Service on the contract performance, with accidental overcharging not identified for more than two years.

The audit also warned of potential breaches of data protection law and the National Archives Act because of a lack of consistent Courts Service policy on the retention of records.

It said there was a “lack of business knowledge or awareness of records and information held by the Courts Service and their location and accessibility”.

The saga began in October 2017 when the Courts Service concluded a competition for the provision of storage services for court records.

The internal audit said it had been anticipated that the new contract would deliver annual savings of around €83,000, or a 47pc reduction in costs. Instead, costs actually rose from a per annum spend of €176,133 in 2017 to €233,617 in 2019, an increase of almost a third.

The tender had been awarded to Glenbeigh Records Management [GRM] on the basis that its bid was “considerably lower” than that put forward by other companies.

The internal audit noted: “The abnormally low cost price quoted does not appear to have been queried by the OGP (Office of Government Procurement).”

It said prices charged by Glenbeigh during the contract included a delivery/collection fee which had not been factored into the contract decision.

“If this fee had been quoted in their tender response, Glenbeigh would not have been awarded the contract,” said the report.

The audit also found the taxpayer had been accidentally overcharged for two years as prices had not been adjusted to reflect those newly agreed.

It said this had not been identified by the Courts Service but was instead spotted by Glenbeigh, with the money credited back.

The report said when the new contract was signed, local court offices were simply notified a new arrangement was in place but not given instructions that prices had changed.

It said: “In the circumstances, it is perhaps somewhat understandable why offices, on receipt of invoices from Glenbeigh, did not identify the overcharging or query the incorrect fees charged.”

The internal audit was also critical of the fact that no review or analysis had taken place on why the new contract had not delivered the expected savings.

It also raised concern over the Courts Service’s retention of some documents for which there was no reason either related to official business or archiving.

“Retention of documents and files for longer than required could also result in unnecessary storage costs and breaches of the GDPR,” it said.

The audit also raised a case where some files were still being held with a different separate storage provider because of the “prohibitive” exit fees required to withdraw them.

The audit resulted in 17 recommendations — six that were categorised as high priority and 11 as medium.

A spokesman for the Courts Service said they constantly worked to ensure high standards in procurement and contract management.

On the overcharging, he said: “We have allocated a dedicated resource to reviewing all invoices paid during the contract in order for an exact amount of overcharging to be calculated.”