Metropolitan Police refuse to answer questions over Wirral care home fraud investigation

Metropolitan Police refuse to answer questions over Wirral care home fraud investigation

Metropolitan Police refuse to answer questions over Wirral care home fraud investigation

                     

Exactly a month ago I made my first Freedom of Information Act request to the Metropolitan Police about the care home fraud of £45,683.86 involving Wirral Council.

Below are the five (perfectly reasonable) questions I asked.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

A report to Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee states that a fraud of £45,683.86 and £95.60 against Wirral Council was referred to the Metropolitan Police and that it is being “actively pursued”.

In relation to this investigation could you please answer the following questions.

1) Have the Metropolitan Police concluded their inquiries into the issues raised by Action Fraud/Wirral Council into the alleged fraud?

2) Has anyone been charged with a criminal offence in relation to matter? If so, how many people have been charged?

3) Who is conducting (or if it has concluded conducted) the investigation and what are their contact details? What rank is the investigating officer assigned to the case?

4) If the investigation is currently ongoing when is it likely to reach a conclusion?

5) As the fraud involved a victim in Merseyside, why is the Metropolitan Police and not the local police force (Merseyside Police) investigating the matter?

Yours faithfully,

John Brace

In response (after a reply on the 25th November basically saying they have received my request) yesterday I got this reply (which includes my questions). Certainly it’s one of those cases that’s probably worthy of requesting an internal review of. As to their suggestion that I’d get a different response to my questions if I got in touch with their press office instead, if it’s anything like Merseyside Police’s press office I’m pretty sure I’d just get a “no comment” response from them if I tried anyway! Metropolitan Police’s response to my Freedom of Information Act request is below. I’ve added some line spacing between paragraphs to make it more readable but otherwise it’s verbatim except for correcting a small typographical error where there was a missing space between two words.

Dear Mr Brace

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013110002125

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 20/11/2013. I note you seek access to the following information:

* A report to Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee states that a fraud of £45,683.86 and £95.60 against Wirral Council was referred to the Metropolitan Police and that it is being “actively pursued”.

In relation to this investigation could you please answer the following questions.

1) Have the Metropolitan Police concluded their inquiries into the issues raised by Action Fraud/Wirral Council into the alleged fraud?

2) Has anyone been charged with a criminal offence in relation to matter? If so, how many people have been charged?

3) Who is conducting (or if it has concluded conducted) the investigation and what are their contact details? What rank is the investigating officer assigned to the case?

4) If the investigation is currently ongoing when is it likely to reach a conclusion?

5) As the fraud involved a victim in Merseyside, why is the Metropolitan Police and not the local police force (Merseyside Police) investigating the matter?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within Specialist Crime and Operations.

RESULT OF SEARCHES
The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

Having considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested.

This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION
The information requested relates to an ongoing investigation and is exempt by the virtue of Section 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred to in this email.

Section 30 Investigations
Under Sections 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release would or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the prosecution of offenders.

This exemption can be applied following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT).

The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the ‘Public Interest’ lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

To release this information would disclose MPS practices used in this and similar investigations thereby exposing operational procedures and investigative protocols.

Information relating to an investigation will rarely be disclosed under the Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure.

Section 30 being a qualified exemption there is a statutory requirement to carry out a PIT when considering any disclosure and this is detailed below.

Public Interest Test – Investigations.
The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS’s ability to complete any future criminal investigations.

Evidence of Harm – Investigations
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed we have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act we cannot and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world.

This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals or any possible criminal and/or civil process.

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide statements in relation to investigations.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Section 30 Investigations Public Interest considerations favouring disclosure.
The investigation into allegations of fraud at Wirral Council is a high profile matter.
There has already been a significant amount of information placed into the public domain through media articles.
The public therefore have a genuine interest in being informed as to the nature and circumstances of these incidents and who may have been involved.

Sect 30 Investigations Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
During the course of any ongoing investigation enquires are made to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and the public release of the modus operandi employed during the course of this enquiry could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar investigations.

It cannot be clear at present what effect disclosures through FOI of investigation material may have upon this case but care must be taken to not compromise any strand of the investigation.

Balance test
Disclosure under the Act is a disclosure to the world not just to the individual making the request.

On balance the disclosure of information relating to an ongoing police investigation cannot be justified.

The public’s interest would not be served in releasing information if its release could compromise this or any current/future policing investigation.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS
If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please E-Mail me or contact me on 0207 230 6267 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London, SW1H 0BG.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

LEGAL ANNEX
Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

30(1) Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities.

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained-

(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London, SW1H 0BG.

Total Policing is the Met’s commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

Consider our environment – please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

NOTICE – This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

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

At least £3,787.20 spent by Wirral Council on losing health and safety case

At least £3,787.20 spent by Wirral Council on losing health and safety case

As was reported in the Wirral Globe earlier this year Wirral Council lost a case to the Health and Safety Executive leading to a fine of £25,000 and Wirral Council having to pay the other side’s legal costs of £9,417. The case was to do with twenty-nine workers in its parks and gardens department being affected by Hand Arm vibration syndrome and Wirral Council pled guilty to the case which was heard in Wirral Magistrates’ Court.

This Weightman’s invoice shows that Wirral Council’s costs for a month of Weightman’s work on the case was £3,787.20. It’s an interim invoice though and Wirral Council’s legal costs would’ve been higher were they represented in court.

I could write a lot about the subject of Wirral Council & health and safety, but as there has been much written before on this topic I won’t, but feel free to leave a comment on this topic if you wish. The main peak of the action in the form of anesthesia was observed 3-4 hours after ingestion. Enough anesthetic effect was for approximately 8 hours. With severe pains, Soma does not completely anesthetize, but they remove part of the pain and make it at least somehow portable, with moderate pain they reduce it to the level that one starts hoping for the best. Read more at http://www.shaynahiller.com/buysoma/ The pressure decreases, but for me it is within the normal range.

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

Police and Crime Commissioner Candidates (Merseyside), 2012

Most read page in the last seven days (23rd October 2012), polling day is 15th November 2012. In answer to a reader’s question, two candidates are based on the Wirral, Gubb (Conservative) and Jones (UKIP).

Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner Candidates | 15th November 2012

There are six candidates for the one Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner vacancy following close of nominations yesterday (19th October 2012). Polling day is on 15th November 2012. They are as follows (in alphabetical order):-

CANDIDATE
SURNAME
Candidate Full Name Commonly used surname (if any) Commonly used forename (if any) Party Description
GUBB Geoffrey Ian GUBB Geoff The Conservative Party Candidate
JONES Hilary Jane UKIP
KEAVENEY Paula Clare Liberal Democrats
KENNEDY Jane Elizabeth KENNEDY Jane Labour Party Candidate
REID Kiron John Cuchulain REID Kiron Independent
RIMMER Paul Duane English Democrats – “More Police – Catching Criminals!”

As there is more than one candidate it is a contested election. Each candidate is allowed to spend up to £182,529 on their election campaign and has to provide receipts for any expenditure over £20. Each candidate has had to pay either a cash deposit or banker’s draft deposit of £5,000 (6*£5,000 = £30,000 in deposits collected in total). If any candidate receives less than 5% of the vote their £5,000 deposit won’t be returned. Donations over £50 to a candidate’s campaign also need to be recorded.

The vote will be under the Supplementary Vote system, which means if any candidate gets more than 50% of the 1st choice votes they will be elected the winner. Everyone voting will get a 1st and 2nd choice vote. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the 1st choice votes, then the 2nd choice votes are used (but only 2nd choice votes that were for the candidates that had the most and second most 1st choice votes). So say for instance 100,000 ballots are cast. The candidates are Candidate A, B, C, D, E and F and the first choice result was D (32,600), E(32,400), C (15,000), F(8,000), A(5,000) and B(2,000) would result in:-

First round
Candidates C, F, A and B eliminated. B loses £5,000 deposit.

Second round

First Choice Second preference votes for D Second preference votes for E
C 5,000 4,900
F 2,000 3,000
A 1,500 1,500
B 600 600
Total 9,100 10,000

These votes are then added to the totals for the first round. So:-

Candidate D 32,600 (first round) + 9,100 (second round) = 41,700
Candidate E 32,400 (first round) + 10,000  (second round) = 42,400

Candidate E is declared the winner with a majority of 700.

UPDATED 20/10/2012: The author received his polling card in this election today.
Declaration of Interest: The author is an elector in this election.
Declaration of Interest: The author was a student at a university which employs one of the candidates (Kiron Reid).
Declaration of Interest: The author was previously in the same political party as two of the candidates (Kiron Reid and Paula Keaveney).

Search terms used to find this page
merseyside police commissioner candidates
english paragraph on a candidate without any criminal record should be eligible for contesting elections
election of the police and crime commisdionrt for merseyside police area candidates
wirral police elections
who are the 24 candidates for police commissioner on merseyside
english a candidate without any criminal record should be eligible for contesting elections
police commissioner merseyside
merseyside police nominees for post
hilary jones position in merseyside police

Merseyside Police Authority (30th August 2012) Declarations of Interests, Minutes, Chairman’s Announcements, Minutes of Meetings, Collaboration Agreement for the National Police Air Service Part 1

Merseyside Police Volvo
Merseyside Police Volvo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The papers for this meeting can no longer be found on the Merseyside Police Authority website as Merseyside Police Authority was abolished in November 2012 and replaced with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Some of the pages handed out at the meeting itself can still be found on this blog, Item 5 (Joint Report of the Chief Executive and Chief Constable) National Police Air Service: Collaboration Agreement (4 pages) (Page 1 of 4, Page 2 of 4, Page 3 of 4, Page 4 of 4, item 4G (minutes of the Grant Making Panel (Police Property Act Fund) of 23rd August 2012) (5 pages, Page 1 of 5), and 4H (minutes of the Transition Committee of the 23 August 2012) (3 pages). Copies were available at the meeting itself.

The former Mayor, Cllr Moira McLaughlin arrived in plenty of time at 1.39pm, as the meeting started a few minutes late at 2.04pm. Including the Police Authority Members (and staff), Merseyside Police officers (and staff) and public there were about forty people present.

The Chair, Cllr Weightman (Labour, Knowsley Council) welcomed Members of the Police Authority and public to the meeting. He asked for apologies.

Apologies were given for the only Conservative Councillor on the Police Authority, Cllr Blakeley (Wirral Council), Labour Cllr Frank Prendergast (Liverpool City Council), Mr Tom Kelly (Independent) and another Member of the Police Authority.

1. Declarations of Interest

The Chair, Cllr Weightman  asked for any declarations of interest.

A Member of the Police Authority declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 4G (minutes of the Grant Making Panel (Police Property Act Fund) of 23rd August 2012) as his interest was regards to one of the grants.

A Member of the Police Authority declared a personal interest in item 4F (minutes of the Estate Strategy Committee of the 16th August 2012) because it referred to the Joint Command and Control facility as Sefton Council may sell the Police Authority the land.

The Chair said these interests were noted, where there any others?

2. Minutes (Merseyside Police Authority, 21st June 2012)

The minutes of the meeting held on the 21st June 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

3. Chairman’s Announcements

The Chair said he had three things to raise. The first was that at the beginning of 2011, they had commissioned a training provider called The Learning Curve for management training. He said their aim was to build on existing skills that staff had, with an emphasis on organisational change and transferring to the new governance scheme. The Chair continued by saying that there had been the opportunity to do a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in Management at level seven, which was a diploma consisting of two management units with a choice of optional subjects which counted as points towards the award. Cllr Weightman said it was equal to a Masters Degree and three staff (who he named as Paul Caton, June Hackett and Mark Turley) had gained this qualification, he congratulated them for taking the time to increase their qualifications.

Professor Alf Zack-Williams (Independent) also offered them his congratulations and said it was the essence of a good employer to have training facilities. He gave the example of a female cleaner, who within five years of starting work had gained a BSc (Hons) within five years after starting on an access course. Prof Williams said they were leaving a good legacy for the successor [to the Merseyside Police Authority].

The second announcement the Chair wanted to make was to remember Cath Kane who had retired after thirty-six years service. He said that Cath had written to him and mentioned the close relationship, hard work and dedication of Members of the Merseyside Police Authority. He proposed that they invite her to the next meeting to give a small presentation and hoped Members would support and agree to this.

The third announcement the Chair made was about the proposed farewell dinner and the issue of internal correspondence. He said it had been decided closed, but one Member had put this on the internet and was claiming credit for stopping the dinner. The Chair felt that this was not true as it had been a decision of Members of the whole Authority, an all-Member Authority decision, not the decision of one individual Member, which he wanted recorded in the minutes.

He moved the meeting onto agenda item 4.

4. Minutes of Meetings

4A The minutes of the Transition Committee of the 5th July 2012 were moved and agreed.

4B The minutes of the Service Improvement Committee of the 19th July 2012 were moved and agreed.

4C With reference to the minutes of the Finance and Audit Committee minutes of the 26th July 2012, on page 18, agenda item 5, resolution (iii) he wanted them to write to the Local Authorities with regards to changes in Council Tax Benefit and asked them to accept this change? They did.

4D The minutes of the Community Partnership Committee of the 2nd August 2012 were moved and agreed.

4E The minutes of the Performance Scrutiny and Review  Committee of the 9th August 2012 were moved and agreed.

A Member of the Police Authority having previously declared a prejudicial interest in item 4G left at this point.

4F The Chair asked for an amendment to the minutes of the Estate Strategy Committee meeting of the 5th July 2012 in respect of item 4. He wanted (a) to read rejects and (b) to read instructs the Chief Constable for a full and comprehensive report to the next meeting of this Committee. Another Member of the Police Authority said the amendment was in line with the mood of the meeting. The Chair asked if people were happy and the amendment and minutes were agreed.

4G The minutes of the Grant Making Panel meeting of the 23rd August 2012 were moved and agreed.

The Member of the Police Authority having declared a prejudicial interest who had left the room returned. The Chair thanked Julie for calling him back.

4H The Chair moved on to the minutes of the Transition Committee meeting of the 23rd August 2012 and drew people’s attention to item 13 which set up an Audit Committee and referred also to minute 12. The minutes were moved and agreed.

The Chair moved the meeting on to agenda item 5.

5. Collaboration Agreement for the National Police Air Service (Joint Report of the Chief Executive and Chief Constable)

Paul Johnson (Chief Executive/Treasurer) introduced the joint report (agenda item 5) of himself and the Chief Constable on the National Police Air Service: Collaboration Agreement.  He said that back in October [2011] they had had representations from Hampshire Constabulary regarding their willingness to enter a national collaboration, which they had agreed in principle.

A significant step had been to join the regional support air group which had led to savings. He wanted to clarify external perceptions with the public over the perceived loss of a helicopter. A major consideration had been the future of [the helicopter] G-XM11, as there was the expectation that they would donate it to the national pot, to be used as a general cover aircraft, but not as a free gift, but it would remain an asset on their balance sheet and be paid for. Paul Johnson had asked for a valuation and it had been valued at £800,000 to £900,000.

NPAS [National Police Air Service] had come back with a national agreement, but in June [2012] they had signed an agreement with the Norwegian Government on behalf of the Oslo Police Department, which had removed the final obstacle to signing up to NPAS. Beryl Heath and Chris Mar were going through the final agreement and they were more or less there, with the original deadline being tomorrow (the 31st August 2012), officers were working on the detail and there was confirmation on the third page at item five of the financial position. The lease to Norway, was not threatened by the NPAS agreement and NPAS had been helpful at approving the Norway situation. He was asking the Police Authority to authorise him and the Chief Constable to sign up to the agreement, once some small minor issues had been sorted.

Paul Johnson said that compared to other areas in the country it had been a wise decision to enter into regional arrangements, which had been ironed out last year. The issue of the redundant helicopter had been sorted out and hopefully there would not be a repeat of things suffered last year [in Norway]. He asked for authority from the Merseyside Police Authority.

The Chair said that there was a lot more to this for the region, but they wouldn’t be bullied by the Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP and the Home Office, they had done a deal with the Norwegian Government and got money back that they wouldn’t have received in the first place because it was old. All of the North West had gained as it had been extended from eight to twelve years, so the North West had got a good deal as Merseyside [Police Authority] had led the way. He said it was a “fait accompli” as a [statutory] instrument by the government said they had to, they could take out a lengthy court case but it would just waste money. The recommendation in the report was agreed.

The Chair then moved to agenda item 6 (Chief Constable’s Annual Report).

Continue to Merseyside Police Authority (30th August 2012) Part 2 Item 6 – Chief Constable’s Annual Report, 2011-12, Item 7 – Merseyside Crimestoppers Annual Report 2011/12 Part 2