Category: First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

WIRRAL COUNCIL goes to the dentist: a short play about FOI and local government

WIRRAL COUNCIL goes to the dentist: a short play about FOI and local government The below is written in memory of my late Great-Uncle Joe who before he retired taught dentistry. I am currently writing an e-book about freedom of information of which the below is an excerpt. WIRRAL COUNCIL, a "most improved" Council is … Continue reading “WIRRAL COUNCIL goes to the dentist: a short play about FOI and local government”

WIRRAL COUNCIL goes to the dentist: a short play about FOI and local government

The below is written in memory of my late Great-Uncle Joe who before he retired taught dentistry. I am currently writing an e-book about freedom of information of which the below is an excerpt.

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

WIRRAL COUNCIL, a "most improved" Council is in the dentists’ chair looking worried.

Hovering above the patient in the dentists’ chair is MR BRACE, the dentist. Every tooth of WIRRAL COUNCIL he has taken out before is displayed proudly in a cabinet in the waiting area and visitors leave comments about them.

WIRRAL COUNCIL (mumbling and looking worried): You want to take my teeth out, again!? So the public can look at my teeth!?

MR BRACE: Only some of them, don’t worry you’ll grow new ones! Or I could take X-rays of them instead?

WIRRAL COUNCIL (mumbling): I’ll have to think about this and get back to you in twenty working days.

Twenty working days pass. Nothing happens. MR BRACE phones WIRRAL COUNCIL.

MR BRACE: You said you’d get back to me!

WIRRAL COUNCIL (alarmed): Sorry, it will all cost too much and end up taking over 18 and a half hours of my time! (slams the phone down)

MR BRACE rings WIRRAL COUNCIL again.

WIRRAL COUNCIL (even more alarmed): Sorry now you’re just being… vexatious! (slams the phone down again)

MR BRACE rings ICO and tells them what happened.

A year later WIRRAL COUNCIL rings the dentist.

WIRRAL COUNCIL: Sorry I’ve changed my mind you’re not being vexatious, but it’ll still cost too much!

ICO after a year of scratching their head tell WIRRAL COUNCIL it won’t cost too much.

WIRRAL COUNCIL takes some of its teeth out (reluctantly) and hands them to the dentist. It claims despite conducting a thorough search of its own mouth, that the teeth it thought it had, and claimed it had and had been telling everyone it used for chewing food for two years, aren’t actually there.

It tells MR BRACE and ICO that he cannot have the other teeth because they contain "personal data" and after consulting its solicitor that to hand over some teeth would be "prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs".

MR BRACE asks WIRRAL COUNCIL to think again. WIRRAL COUNCIL says no, so he asks ICO.

WIRRAL COUNCIL (after trying to ignore MR BRACE) tells him and ICO that MR. BRACE is being vexatious and he can have no more of its teeth.

Then WIRRAL COUNCIL changes its mind and over two years after this saga started, hands over one more of its teeth (but with bits blacked out). Eventually it removes the blacked out bits.

ICO tell WIRRAL COUNCIL it is being very naughty with MR BRACE, feels sorry for Wirral Council so it let’s it keep one tooth, but also says to stop calling MR BRACE vexatious. ICO asks WIRRAL COUNCIL to provide a fresh response.

WIRRAL COUNCIL doesn’t like this!

WIRRAL COUNCIL just refers MR BRACE and ICO to its earlier decisions.

MR BRACE contacts ICO again. However ICO conveniently lose what most of what MR BRACE told them.

ICO tell WIRRAL COUNCIL once again it is wrong, ICO tell WIRRAL COUNCIL to hand over two more of its teeth.

MR BRACE thinks the whole thing (now lasting over 3 years) is getting very silly indeed!

So he asks for a meeting, where independent people at a "Tribunal" can decide whether WIRRAL COUNCIL should have to hand over its teeth (whether blacked out or not).

WIRRAL COUNCIL hands over two more of its teeth, again with bits blacked out.

WIRRAL COUNCIL hires a barrister to plead with the Tribunal to help keep its teeth.

ICO says its not going to come to such a meeting about WIRRAL COUNCIL‘s teeth but sends a written response.

A hearing date is set (16th June 2016 starting at 10:00am at The Employment Tribunal, 3rd Floor, Civil & Family Court, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX) and the rest is yet to be decided!

But why is making a simple FOI request like pulling teeth?

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

Tribunal date set for 16th June 2016 over Wirral Council FOI request; but who’s being gagged?

Tribunal date set for 16th June 2016 over Wirral Council FOI request; but who’s being gagged?

                                                  

Letter from Tribunal 21st April 2016 EA/2016/0033
Letter from Tribunal 21st April 2016 EA/2016/0033

Edited on 1st June 2016 as the time of hearing has changed.

Firstly a few brief declaration of interests, I’m the Appellant in case EA/2016/0033 before the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). The other respondents are Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and the Information Commissioner (also called the Information Commissioners Office (ICO)). The letter also refers to case EA/2016/0054 which is another First-Tier Tribunal case I’m the Appellant in involving ICO and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. Oh and if anyone doesn’t know already I’m married to the Leonora referred to.

I need to point something out first. As a hearing date has been set the case is classed as "active", therefore although it’s only a Tribunal, all the rules about contempt of court apply.

Continue reading “Tribunal date set for 16th June 2016 over Wirral Council FOI request; but who’s being gagged?”

Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report

Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report

                                           

Mayor Joe Anderson speaking at a meeting of Liverpool City Council (8th April 2015)
Mayor Joe Anderson speaking at a meeting of Liverpool City Council

Edited 20th April 2016 by John Brace to add in missing closing parenthesis.

The author of this piece is the Appellant in two cases before the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). These are John Michael Brace v Information Commissioner & Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (EA/2016/0033) and John Brace v Information Commissioner & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (EA/2016/0054).

Liverpool City Council have taken the step of appealing to the First Tier-Tribunal (Information Rights) a decision notice of the regulator ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office). The decision notice required Liverpool City Council to provide the draft report in response to a request. However due to the appeal, the outcome of the appeal will determine whether Liverpool City Council have to release the draft report.

The case is listed as case number EA/2016/0084. The decision notice issued on the 8th March 2016 (FER0601794 (which can be viewed on ICO’s website)) is about an Environmental Information Regulations request for a draft Mott McDonald report to Liverpool City Council about Liverpool’s bus lanes. The title of the report is Liverpool Transport Corridors & Bus Lane Suspension.

Had the decision not been appealed, Liverpool City Council would’ve had to release the draft report before polling day (5th May 2016) in the combined elections for local councillor, Mayor of Liverpool and Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside.

Liverpool City Council disagree that the draft report should be released on an alleged claim of commercial confidentiality and an alleged claim of adverse impact on those who supplied information to Mott McDonald. The Information Commissioner’s view is that Liverpool City Council have failed to show that these exceptions are engaged.

The final report can be read on Liverpool City Council’s website.

The suspension of various bus lanes in Liverpool has been unpopular with at least one major bus company who stated at a public meeting that it has affected the punctuality of buses on the affected routes. The representative of the bus company also called for the bus lane suspensions to be reversed.

The decision by the Labour administration on Liverpool City Council to proceed with the suspension of the bus lanes was opposed by the Green Party opposition on Liverpool City Council.

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

Tribunal confirms that Wirral Council paid ~£48,000 to Emma Degg connected to confidential compromise agreement

Tribunal confirms that Wirral Council paid ~£48,000 to Emma Degg connected to confidential compromise agreement

                                           

Emma Degg at the Wallasey Constituency Committee Working Group 1st October 2014
Emma Degg at the Wallasey Constituency Committee Working Group 1st October 2014

In a recent Tribunal judgement involving a freedom of information request made to Wirral Council by Paul Cardin, there has been official confirmation that the ~£48,000 payout by Wirral Council to a former employee was to Emma Degg (referred to in the judgement as X).

Emma Degg was a chief officer at Wirral Council. She was the Head of Neighbourhoods and Engagement on a salary of between £77,697 and £86,330.

It has been revealed in the judgement that before leaving Wirral Council Emma Degg signed a confidential compromise agreement with Wirral Council. This compromise agreement included not revealing the amount she was paid to leave Wirral Council or the date she was paid it.

The FOI request along with Wirral Council’s responses can be read on the whatdotheyknow.com website and ICO decision notice FS50522678 can be found on ICO’s website.

Mr. Cardin’s appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed. The judgement stated that the Article 8 (privacy) rights of Emma Degg was a factor in favour of not disclosing the information.

The Tribunal upheld ICO’s decision notice FS50522678 that the information requested should be withheld on grounds that it constitutes personal information.

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

What was the government’s response to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information report?

What was the government’s response to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information report?

                                                       

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

I will start this by declaring some interests in the area of freedom of information. I am the appellant in case EA/2016/0033 (which is a case with the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) involving decision notice FS50596346). A further case involving an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) involving decision notice FER0592270 was put in the post on Monday, but is yet to be received by the Tribunal. There are also numerous ICO decision notices that have been issued about FOI requests I have made.

Yesterday the government published the final report of the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information and there is a ministerial written statement here about it.

Introducing new fees for FOI requests (above those that can be already charged) has been ruled out partly because this would lead to a reduction in FOI requests from the media and others.

The ministerial statement also refers to updated codes of practice published. Interestingly one of the requirements of this new code of practice will be for public authorities with a hundred or more full-time equivalent employees to publish detailed statistics on how they deal with FOI/EIR requests.

I presume this will be something similar to the quarterly reports issued by central government which give a detailed account of how FOI and EIR requests have been dealt with over that timescale.

As the ministerial statement states “The publication of such data not only provides accountability to the public, but allows the Information Commissioner to identify and target poorly performing public authorities more effectively.”

Certainly once the new code of practice is published, a new requirement on local government bodies to publish this detailed information will provide an insight into how FOI/EIR requests are dealt with.

There is also going to be revised guidance on the application of section 14(1) (vexatious or repeated requests). The ministerial statement states that they expect this only to be used in “rare cases” and that “the ‘vexatious’ designation is not an excuse to save public officials embarrassment from poor decisions or inappropriate spending of taxpayers’ money”.

There is also going to be consideration by the government of whether to include a requirement to publish expenses and benefits in kind received by senior public sector executives. It seems FOI requests have been made for these, but turned down on data protection grounds.

As I’m the Appellant in the Tribunal case EA/2016/0033 (which isn’t classed as “active” yet (as “active” in such cases is defined as from the point when a hearing date is set), I can reveal that the only major development in that case is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has been added as a party to the appeal as second respondent (originally the case was just between myself and the Information Commissioner).

I’m still awaiting the Information Commissioner’s response (due by the 17th March 2016) and Wirral Council’s response is due not more than 21 days after they receive the Information Commissioner’s response.

Once the Information Commissioner responds and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council responds to the Information Commissioner’s response, I have up to 14 days to respond to their responses.

The Tribunal have asked all parties to notify them of any dates they are not available between 6th June 2016 and 29th July 2016, so I presume a hearing date will be set on some day between those two dates.

I’ve also been sent a copy of the practice note on closed material in information rights cases.

I’m sure there are those that could comment better than me about a practice direction that leads to hearings discussing the secret information while one of the parties to the appeal is excluded (secret hearings) and a guide to keeping information secret from one of the parties to the case.

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