Tag: Birkenhead Liberal Democrats

Wirral Council Overcharges (again) Department of Law, HR and Asset Management

Interest Declaration: The writer was a candidate in the 2012 elections for the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. Interest Declaration: The writer sued the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats in the Birkenhead County Court over an alleged breach of s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Deputy District Judge Ireland found in favour of the author in April … Continue reading “Wirral Council Overcharges (again) Department of Law, HR and Asset Management”

Interest Declaration: The writer was a candidate in the 2012 elections for the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral.
Interest Declaration: The writer sued the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats in the Birkenhead County Court over an alleged breach of s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Deputy District Judge Ireland found in favour of the author in April 2012 and issued a court order in the author’s favour against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.
Interest Declaration: The writer is once again involved with litigation against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.

So there I was at work and I got handed 56 pages of election expenses returns from candidates in Birkenhead (cost to where I work was £11.20 (20p*56)).

It turns out though that Wirral Council however loves:

a) to cover things up,
b) doesn’t know what an individual is,
c) to overcharge and
d) has a very vague understanding of the law.

Hmm, doesn’t that all seem familiar? First however, a little bit of history. The Returning Officer for this election was Bill Norman. He got suspended on the 28th June 2012 shortly after the elections, to be replaced as Returning Officer on the 16th July 2012 by Mr. Surjit Tour.

However the day-to-day running of the electoral services is done by staff in the department that Mr. Surjit Tour is the Acting Head of (Department of Law, HR and Asset Management).

Last month I made a request to see various candidates election expenses returns, which include a donations page detailed where the money came from. I went to see them on Friday 31st August), I queried why the names, addresses and status of all donors had been “blacked out” from the copies I was inspecting. When I queried it I was told by an employee (who I won’t embarrass by naming here) that it was the law to do so. So I requested copies anyway.

I queried this “interpretation” with the Electoral Commission and I quote below from their response this afternoon:

“Hi John,

I’ve had a look into this and, although the addresses should be redacted for data protection reasons, the names of the donors should be made available. Paragraph 2.18 on page 6 of our guidance to Returning Officers explains this http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/141985/Part-F-After-the-declaration-of-result-LGEW.pdf

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.”

So I read the link, and sure enough on page 6 at 2.18 it states:-

“The addresses of individuals who have made donations to candidates, must by law, be removed from all inspection copies and copies supplied on request.”

Odd, I thought considering this candidate didn’t receive any donations from individuals, but from a political party (which is an unincorporated association not a living, air-breathing person like the individual writing this article). Then I remembered something, this candidate got herself elected, so the information on who donated the £984.33 to her campaign, is already in her published Register of Interests on Wirral Council’s website as Birkenhead Liberal Democrats. So Wirral Council in irony worthy of a Greek tragedy are ironically covering up some information already available on their website!

Sadly this only applies to twenty-two out of the hundred and nine candidates though. Ahh them, the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats, who lost to me in a lawsuit earlier on this year in the Birkenhead County Court. As agreed by all sides in that case (defendant and plantiff alike), they’re an unincorporated association, not an individual, but let’s move on.

Oh well, that’s 20p that Wirral Council owe me back then, plus an apology. However now somebody is going to have to re photocopy (from the originals) the donations pages of 109 candidates and I’ll have to rearrange another appointment to inspect them. Well at least this mistake costs them about £22 in photocopies and perhaps £20 in staff time and on the plus side it’s not as high as the extra £440,000 Wirral Council’s is having to pay back people it overcharged, but I’m hoping the refund of 20 pence won’t take twelve years to process! Perhaps I’d better not tell them I have a disability then. 🙂 Don’t worry Wirral Council I won’t charge you interest.

Following the Court Order of 18th April 2012 and a Lib Dem smear: My response

Following the Birkenhead County Court order of 18th April 2012 naming Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats granted by Deputy District Judge Ireland following the court hearing of the 4th April 2012, the Lib Dems have finally coughed up the original complaint (not shared with me until now 12 months later, despite their constitution stating 10 weeks) made about me by Simon Holbrook in May 2011 (after he lost his seat). I’ve sought advice and am making parts of it public (as there’s a public interest to at least parts of it being made public), along with my version of events (which seems far closer to reality than his complaint, my comments are in italics). Here’s section 1:-

“1. Smearing of Sitting Councillors

In an email to Cllr Gilchrist dated 19 May 2011 at 09:59, John Brace did link the Standards investigation into Cllr Williams’ and Cllr Bridson’s part in the “special charging policy” with that of the recent investigation into the way in which Martin Morton was treated, despite the fact these are two separate matters.

Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson are not and were not under investigation into the alleged bullying of Martin Morton. This investigation, which was instigated by former Cllr Holbrook has now concluded and reported. It never was and never had been a matter for the Standards Board for England.”

As is detailed here it was considered twice by the Standards Board for England, as initially the complaint about Cllr Bridson hadn’t been sent to them. The complaint (or complaints as a second was submitted) were made by Martin Morton and had already been reported in the Wirral Globe under the headline Town hall blunder: Wrong paperwork sent to local government watchdog inquiry prior to Simon’s complaint about me.

One of these two councillors had been on the charging policy working group in 2005 that led to the overcharging policy, the other had been Cabinet Member for Social Care and Inclusion (which covers Social Services) during part of the period that the overcharging occurred.

The report referred to, the Martin Smith report, was reported to Cabinet on 14th April 2011, however it was not made public until the following year due to the Labour administration’s attempts to delay both its publication and the AKA report.

The relevant section of my email of 19th May to Cllr Gilchrist (and Cllrs Williams, Brighouse, Kelly, Bridson, Harney, Gilchrist, Mitchell and two other party members), is quoted below.

“Morale in the party is extremely low, the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the local party are currently (according to the Wirral Globe) under investigation on standards grounds following a decision by Wirral Council’s Independent Assessment Panel to refer the matter to Standards for England regarding their roles in the Social Services “special charging policy” and how Martin Morton was treated. This independent report (by now read by councillors but currently exempt) will be published within 2-5 months and will lead to a public discussion of their roles in this saga. Both are likely to be candidates in 2012 and the full reasons how and why they did things will have to be made clear to the public and party in the spirit of openness and accountability if we are to move on.”

Lastly Simon Holbrook refers to himself in the third person, which generally wouldn’t be the case if as claimed he was the author of the complaint. However it’s clear by the way it was written that somebody wanted me to stop asking questions by the way flat out denials were made regarding the standards complaints.

The decision notice of Standards Board for England with regards to Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson back me up as to what the complaint was about. As it was re referred back to Standards for England following the paperwork mixup, there are earlier decision notices regarding Cllr Williams, Roberts and McLaughlin too.

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

                          

I had an interesting afternoon at Birkenhead County Court as I was there for a case. Lady Luck seemed to be smiling on me as I was the first case (application hearing) starting at 2 p.m. in front of that particular judge.

Neither of the two defendants (Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats or Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats bothered to turn up and the Judge graciously granted the court order I requested. A thank you goes also to my McKenzie Friend, Leonora Brace for her help.

If only life was always this easy….

Edit: 11/11/2013 The above blog post didn’t contain much detail as it was an ongoing legal matter at the time that had not concluded. The application hearing related to who the defendants were. After the case had been filed the Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats (a David Allworthy replied on their behalf) had tried to get both defendants changed to Chris Fox (at the time this application was heard Chris Fox was a former Chief Executive of the Liberal Democrats).

However my application was to restore the original defendants in this case which were Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The Judge agreed to do this in an unopposed application.

The matter went to a final hearing at the Birkenhead County Court on the 18th April 2012. Cllr Alan Brighouse appeared on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats (accompanied by Roy Wood). Deputy District Judge Ireland agreed with the plantiff (myself) that the defendants (Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats had breached s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 c.29 and a court order issued under s.7 ss.9 of the Data Protection Act 1998 c.29 was issued by the Birkenhead County Court in my favour ordering the defendants to comply.