Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 8th March 2016

Why is Liverpool City Council not complying with ICO decision notice FS50591795?

Why is Liverpool City Council not complying with ICO decision notice FS50591795?

                                                     

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo

ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

A long time ago I made a FOI request to Liverpool City Council that resulted in ICO decision notice FS50591795 dated the 1st February 2016.

As it states in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that decision notice:

“3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

  • Issue a fresh response under the terms of the FOIA to the part of the complainant’s request that seeks copies of relevant invoices.

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

However 35 calendar days after the decision notice was yesterday and no “fresh response” has been issued.

You can see from yourself on the whatdotheyknow.com website that the last response received from Liverpool City Council was in June 2015.

So below is my response to Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer about the lack of compliance with this decision notice.


To: "McLoughlin, Janette" <Jeanette.McLoughlin@liverpool.gov.uk>

Dear Janette McLoughlin,

I write to you in your capacity as Monitoring Officer for Liverpool City Council.

A copy of ICO decision notice FS50591795 issued on the 1st February 2016 is attached to this email for reference. Please note that this is an enforcement notice, see s.52 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The enforcement notice states in paragraphs 3 and 4,

“3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

Issue a fresh response under the terms of the FOIA to the part of the complainant’s request that seeks copies of relevant invoices.

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

No fresh response has been issued within 35 calendar days of the decision notice.

Liverpool City Council has failed to comply with the decision notice, which is a breach of s.54(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please could this matter be rectified as soon as possible.

As you are Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer, I am also requesting that you write a report to the executive of Liverpool City Council (see s.5A of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) as Liverpool City Council’s lack of response would appear to constitute a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

A report would be useful so that lessons were learnt and there isn’t a repeat of this in the future.

I will also be contacting the regulator (the Information Commissioner’s Office) today about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.


Responses

  1. And the next questions…

    1 Where local authorities are concerned, why have the ICO in their entire history never contacted the High Court to make good on such promises?

    2 Why do the ICO feign such a tough stance in their public documents when they have absolutely no intention of taking any action?

    • Good questions, however I think there should just be a minor tweak to the law.

      Allow complainants (not just ICO) to start contempt of court proceedings for non-compliance with an ICO decision notice and then public bodies would start taking notice of them.

      The tough stance I would guess is on the basis that I doubt that many of the public bodies that these enforcement notices go to are aware of the low likelihood of ICO pursuing non-compliance through the courts.

  2. G’day John

    You say on a previous post

    Well to be fair to the councillor you refer to, the Beverly Edwards report wasn’t made public until quite a time after the Audit and Risk Management Committee met. If I remember it took an ICO decision notice for Wirral Council to release it didn’t it?

    John you must be aware that “fair” is not in the dick tionary of council?

    The Rosemary and Thyme report will be deposited where they deposit all their dirty filthy crud up “The Shyster’s” back o(ri)ffice until the ICO force them.

    They are beyond contempt “Phil the Very Very Deluded Dill” “Ankles” “The Pretend Friend” and “Uncle George”.

    “Crapapple” is just their hopeless joke.

    Ooroo

    James

    By the way John “Hailstone” would have been in on the full day briefing of Gra Gra or do they lie to each other as well?

    He might have been having sleepies with Adesdreaming of sheep up his great orme.

  3. Just goes to show laws in the land are an arse!
    Unless your white, disabled or in work!


Categories