Gill Farrington reports on a chaotic year for Brighton and Hove's waste services which has culminated in the return of the council as the city's bin collector.

In the summer of last year, plastic sacks of rotting refuse filled the city streets after contractor Sita altered collection days.

The changes, meant to increase productivity, plunged the system into chaos.

In the following ten months up to June this year, relations between workers and managers deteriorated as Sita put forward ideas to Brighton and Hove City Council to try to boost performance.

Its efforts failed and poor worker/management relations got worse, culminating in a four-day occupation of the Hollingdean depot by binmen in support of suspended colleagues in June.

A week later, Sita agreed to pay £3 million to end its £6.9 million contract.

The workforce punched the air in delight and union officials praised council leader Ken Bodfish and environment Cabinet councillor Chris Morley for doing a "marvellous job".

Coun Bodfish blamed the bad refuse service on Sita, saying: "The sooner we can get somebody else in to do the job properly, the better."

As the council worked to find a replacement, its attitude soon changed. Less than two months later, the spotlight was turned on the workforce.

After examining paperwork, the council decided Sita was not wholly to blame for the city's dirty streets.

Council sources told The Argus that evidence had emerged showing the workforce operating unofficial go-slows, staff intimidating willing colleagues and of sickness rates roughly seven times higher than the national average Union representatives claimed workers were being used as scapegoats and the council was arrogant.

As tensions heightened, Alan McCarthy, strategic director of environment and housing, sent a letter to councillors saying only one contractor had shown interest in taking over a short-term contract lasting up to two years.

Onyx had wanted £12.5 million for it, enough to make the council blanch. Industry observers believe the true cost of the service is about £15 million.

As time passed and no solution was found, officers started considering all possible options, including managing the service in-house.

Mr McCarthy made it clear this was a last resort, as the council did not have the experience, managers or vehicles to do an "incredibly difficult" job.

Then Serviceteam arrived on the scene. Quickly endorsed as the preferred bidder, the firm, known for working in inner-city London, was hailed as having the experience to take the workforce in hand and turn the contract around.

At first, negotiations appeared to be going well but were soon hampered by delays. Sita was asked to stay on for two weeks, then another two, as Serviceteam bosses and council officers haggled over money.

Both sides knew the service had been underfunded for years but could not agree by how much.

Under emergency measures, the council was allowed to bypass normal tendering rules to offer a short-term contract of 18 months. Serviceteam managers were unwilling to commit, wanting five years instead.

The council called in lawyers to ensure the length of contract, which would be longer than Sita's, would not open it to a legal challenge. The decision to agree the term was made on a knife edge.

Complicated analysis of figures was made more difficult by the lack of workforce records. Ad hoc working agreements were often based on trust and bundles of papers were burnt during the depot sit-in.

Serviceteam walked away from talks twice, claiming the council wanted a decision too quickly and their target price of £8.25 million was utterly unrealistic.

Officers have admitted they did not know the true cost of a contract until a few weeks ago, claiming for years they had been left in the dark because responsibility had been devolved to the private sector.

The Argus understands Serviceteam's first offer astounded the council. It returned with a lower price, convinced the contract was theirs after a robust costing process.

Conflict had cropped up over spreading the risk of the contract with the council.

Officers were uneasy with Serviceteam's refusal to accept any costs of industrial action, which may arise during the first three years of the contract.

They were also nervous Serviceteam's guaranteed profit margin would reduce incentives to run the service more efficiently.

Labour Cabinet members eventually rejected the bid because they said it did not represent value for money. They decided to go it alone.

After criticising sectors of the workforce for bad practice, the council gave itself three working days to employ them in-house, an option Mr McCarthy was desperate to avoid two months earlier.

The Cabinet's recommendation, which was rubber-stamped by the policy and resources committee on Saturday, shocked Serviceteam.

Company managers believe their expertise, time and resources were plundered by officers of a council who never let on they were considering running the service in-house. If it had, Serviceteam would have walked away.

As they consider a possible judicial review, directors are looking at ways of recouping some of their costs, believed to be more than £100,000.

Officially, representatives from the workforce and the council have issued positive statements about a new start but the relationship between them will be an uneasy one.

It will take more than new trucks and brooms to make a clean sweep of the mess the city waste service has become.

A source, who has worked in the waste industry for more than 20 years, said: "In our circles Brighton and Hove has become a buzz word for cock-up.

"No one will touch it with a bargepole."