I don’t profess to be an expert where Data & Information Governance are concerned. I have a layman’s self-taught appreciation of FOIA and DPA. Experts will find fault in the following analysis, but I hope I’ve covered the basics OK. As time goes on, I will update the times and insert more context and background information on each request.
14 x FoI requests to Wirral Council – 2011 to present day
The majority of these requests (10) contain multiple breaches of Statutory Law.
→
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meeting_between_party_leaders_an#outgoing-220406
Summary: Requesting information around important initial meeting held between Anna Klonowski and all Wirral party leaders.
Date of request: 12th Oct 2011
Age of request in working days: 315 and counting
Response within 20 working days: reply on Day 20
Internal review requested: 9th Nov 2011
Working days for internal review to report: 281 and counting (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: NO
Note: Amid a background of proven malpractice, bullying and the targetting and disposal of a whistleblower, along with serious failures in governance, the council press office notified the Liverpool Echo to advise them of this meeting. In response to this FoI request, Wirral described it as “an informal gathering that didn’t require minuting”. Whereas the Liverpool Echo headline had screamed: “Wirral Council Leadership Hangs in the Balance”. After 315 woring days, I still await a measured and reasoned response.
I still await an internal review, originally requested over a YEAR ago.
UPDATE 12th March 2013
This one has died a death on a technicality. Although neither myself nor the council were aware of it, I asked for information in advance of its production (if it did exist) and this is not permitted under the FOIA.
I still see it as a victory because it exposed the complete absence of integrity / goodwill that appears to motivate the senior elected members of Wirral Council. If there is a chance of not leaving a checkable, auditable trail, they will seize it with both hands – such is the level of rampant cynicism ruling the roost.
→
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dass_recent_departure_of_two_sen#comment-30487
Summary: Requesting information around two ex DASS senior officers, gagged, paid off, allowed to leave, but never disciplined.
Date of request: 11th Jan 2012
Age of request in working days: 233
Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 21 (breach of Statutory Law)
Appealed with ICO: 13th Apr 2012
Working days for council to respond: 169 (breach of Statutory Law)
Decision notice: Published
Request completed: FS50438500 – Click to read ICO Decision Notice
Rosemary Lyon requested a 14 day extension. Surjit Tour requested a 7 day extension. Both granted. Both deadlines missed.
→
I’m currently waiting for the ICO to publish the Decision Notice on this. It’s been presented to me by the ICO as a “complex” decision. I regarded it as a pretty straightforward case of failure to discipline officers and the enablement of future abuse.
UPDATE December 2012
The decision notice is now in. The ICO appear to regard ‘personal privacy’ as more worthy of its attention than a dangerous threat to the wellbeing of learning disabled people. But the least said about that the better. The decision is being appealed to the First Tier (Information Rights) Tribunal. Here is a link to the appeal and its allotted number –
EA/2012/0264.
The appeal is being conducted on submitted papers. The date of the case is 25th March 2013 and the decision will be announced three weeks later.
UPDATE 24th April 2013
Still waiting for the verdict…
3. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/senior_officers_requirement_to_d#comment-29981
Summary: Requesting information on Senior Officers’ register of declared interests.
Date of request: 20th Jun 2011
Age of request in working days: 344
Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 27 (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 13th Aug 2011
Working days for council to respond: Internal Review not carried out (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: 21st December 2012. ICO refused to take formal enforcement action
Appealed with ICO: 15th July 2012
Decision notice: Published
ICO reference No. FS50416628 (Click to read ICO Decision Notice)
Contempt of Court proceedings are potentially about to be issued, depending upon the response I receive to the following email, sent this evening:
From: Paul C
Sent: 04 September 2012 21:15
To: ‘casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject: Freedom of information request re: Wirral Council Register of Senior Officers’ interests FS50416628
FAO [Senior Case Officer’s name redacted]
Dear [Senior Case Officer’s name redacted],
Further to the Decision Notice you issued to Wirral Council dated 13th August 2012, 35 calendar days have now expired, but I have not received any contact from Wirral Council specifying to me whether it holds further information which falls within the scope of my request as required by Section 1(1)(a) of the Act.
Neither have I received any further information contingent upon the Council’s consideration of any further information it holds for disclosure to me, the complainant, as required by section 1(1)(b) of the Act.
Neither have I had any indication that the Council has considered any information which it does hold for disclosure bearing in mind the First Tier Tribunal’s decision in the case of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137).
I therefore request that you take this case to the next stage and also update me with the details of any action that you are taking,
Best regards,
Paul Cardin
11th October 2012
After 16 months, Wirral Council has finally and reluctantly provided some information on the declared interests of 26 x Senior Officers. Given that Wirral are making frequent claims to a newly emerging climate of transparency and openness, I have no idea why it took them so long. I haven’t yet checked whether the list is complete and includes all of the council’s officers above the pay level of £58,200 (a stipulation made at the Information Tribunal in the case of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137), but will be doing so in the near future.
Here’s a link to the blog post specifically covering this and holding links to all the information that Wirral Council supplied.
→
The Council have now provided information, however it was provided piecemeal, over several days, in shoddily presented documents, and has not come up to standard. I have now asked the ICO to consider issuing an Enforcement Notice.
The ICO, true to form, has backed the Council. However I’m querying why they’ve allowed the Council to claim a Section 40(2) exemption on an obvious conflict of interest – which patently cannot represent personal data in any shape or form.
→
4. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copy_of_letter_published_on_webs#outgoing-216044
Summary: Requesting copy of a letter published on Council website “mistakenly” identifying Highways Contract whistleblower.
Date of request: 11th Jul 2012
Age of request in working days: 120 and counting
Answered within 20 working days: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 11th Aug 2012
Working days for council to respond: 89 (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: NO
Appealed with ICO: 6th October 2012
UPDATE 12th March 2013
Waiting for the ICO to get their act together. I emailed them in January and its now March, but I’ve had no response. Ironically, they’re monitoring Wirral Council for “Timeliness”.
→
5. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/helpline_regarding_illegal_delay#outgoing-216036
Summary: Requesting information on results of a helpline set up following exposure of a hidden, illegal 4 week delay on care packages.
Date of request: 8th May 2012
Age of request in working days: 112
Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 66 (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 6th July 2012
Working days for council to respond: 112 (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: NO (currently considering appeal to ICO)
Appealed with ICO: Reply received from Wirral Council on 10th October 2012
SHOCKING DEVELOPMENTS…..
UPDATE 12th March 2013
Please see the following two blog posts for comment and analysis of the information received:
https://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/report-on-wirral-councils-illegal-4-week-delay-on-care-is-published/
https://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/wirral-councils-unlawful-implementation-of-a-4-week-delay-on-social-care-packages/
→
6. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/agreed_departure_of_chief_execut#comment-29785
Summary: Request for information regarding the departure of CEO Jim Wilkie, again shrouded in secrecy, possibly gagged, paid off.
Date of request: 7th Jun 2012
Age of request in working days: 144 and counting
Answered within 20 working days: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 6th July 2012
Working days for council to respond: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: NO
Appealed with ICO: 5th October 2012
UPDATE 12th March 2013
This is another one where the ICO have dragged their feet. I told them I was appealing back on 12th December – 3 MONTHS AGO – but have heard nothing. I sent this tonight:
[Ref. FS50467476]
FAO ANDREW WHITE
NOEL MULLARKEY
Dear Mr Mullarkey,
Further to my earlier email, this one goes back even further, but you’ve failed to respond to the email below which is just over 3 MONTHS OLD.
In this case, if you check the link further down which takes you to the whatdotheyknow website, you’ll see that the council responded with a Section 40 exemption – but outside the 10 days you allowed them.
However given the level of scandal this individual (former CEO) was mired in prior to his departure, the case is similar to that of Craven District Council here:
http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/info_tribunal/DBFiles/Decision/i485/Decision;%20EA.2010.0095;%2022-2-11.pdf
I therefore don’t believe it’s quite as simple and straightforward as slapping a Section 40 exemption down.
Given your erstwhile failure to respond to my emails, I am expecting a very rapid acknowledgment to both of the emails I’ve sent to you tonight. If this isn’t forthcoming, I’ll be contacting Andrew White, or whoever your supervisor is in order to get this moving. I must advise you that I don’t give up as easily as you appear to do………………….
Best regards,
Paul Cardin
→
7. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/consultant_anna_klonowski_declar#outgoing-210386
Summary: Request for information around Anna Klonowski’s declarations / costs / nature of association with Wirral Council.
Date of request: 12th May 2012
Age of request in working days: 162 and counting
Answered within 20 working days: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 11th July 2012
Days taken for council to respond: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: NO
Appealed with ICO: 6th October 2012
UPDATE 12th March 2013
The ICO are sitting on their hands. I lodged an appeal back in October and it hasn’t been acknowledged yet……………..
→
8. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/suspension_of_director_david_gre#incoming-286811
Summary: Requesting information relating to the procedure of suspending a Director and the potential consequences.
Date of request: 2nd May 2012
Age of request in working days: 170 and counting
Answered within 20 working days: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 4th September 2012
Days taken for council to respond: 225
Request completed: YES – although much information was exempted under Section 40
Appealed with ICO: 6th October 2012
UPDATE 12th March 2013
In the end, after 225 working days, they provided the procedure. WHY did it take them so long to do this? I’ve no idea………………….
→
9. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/out_of_hours_monitoring_of_stree#incoming-286806
Summary: Requesting information on street lighting night-time scouting rounds; areas; frequency; responsible contractor, etc.
Date of request: 5th May 2012
Age of request in working days: 36 (completion time)
Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 23 (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: N/A
Days taken for council to respond: N/A
Request completed: YES
Appealed with ICO: N/A
→
10. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_copies_of_correspond_2#outgoing-199397
Summary: Requesting copies of corresondence between Council & DLA Piper UK LLP – law firm assigned work within AKA report
Date of request: 4th Feb 2012
Age of request in working days: 179 and counting
Answered within 20 working days: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 6th March 2012
Days taken for council to respond: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: NO
Appealed with ICO: 21st April 2012
→
11. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/stephen_maddox_former_chief_exec#comment-26245
Summary: Requesting information relating to early departure of former CEO Steve Maddox; payments, correspondence, etc.
Date of request: 3rd January 2011
Age of request in working days: 296 (Completion time)
Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 31 (breach of Statutory Law)
Internal review requested: 26th April 2011
Days taken for council to respond: no answer (breach of Statutory Law)
Request completed: YES
Appealed with ICO: 26th July 2011
ICO Reference No. FS50406724 – Click to read Decision Notice
Ultimately, although this took well over a year, the ICO made the council produce the following report:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/56617/response/256393/attach/html/3/ER.pdf.html
→
12. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/letters_sent_to_abused_learning#comment-23443
Summary: Requesting copy of reimbursement letter to abused tenants of three supported living establishments in Moreton, Wirral
Date of request: 29th Oct 2011
Age of request in working days: 18 (completion time)
Answered within 20 working days: reply on Day 18
Internal review requested: N/A
Days taken for council to respond: N/A
Request completed: YES
Appealed with ICO: N/A
→
Wirral In It Together 
Pingback: Wirral Council to be monitored AGAIN for poor performance by Information Commissioner | Wirral In It Together
Pingback: Is this ‘death by bureaucracy’? Exposing Disability Discrimination at Wirral Council | Wirral In It Together
Pingback: #FoI Request ~ Wirral Council claim that my “David Garry departure” request is vexatious | Wirral In It Together