Time of hearing for EA/2016/0033 changed from 10.00 am to 10.15 am First a declaration of interest, as I am the Appellant in the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) case EA/2016/0033. The two respondents are the Information Commissioner’s Office and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. I received notification from the Tribunal yesterday that the time for … Continue reading “Time of hearing for EA/2016/0033 changed from 10.00 am to 10.15 am”
Time of hearing for EA/2016/0033 changed from 10.00 am to 10.15 am
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for the upcoming First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0033)
First a declaration of interest, as I am the Appellant in the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) case EA/2016/0033. The two respondents are the Information Commissioner’s Office and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
I received notification from the Tribunal yesterday that the time for this hearing has been changed. It has been altered by fifteen minutes.
The original date and time was:
10.00 am 16th June 2016
The new date and time is (I have underlined the change for emphasis):
10.15 am 16th June 2016
The venue remains unchanged and is still
3rd Floor (Tribunals Service),
Liverpool Civil and Family Court
35 Vernon Street
Liverpool
Merseyside
L2 2BX
As the matter is now sub judice, unfortunately for legal reasons I will have to turn comments off on this post.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
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
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?
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.
Liverpool City Council appeal ICO decision requiring release of bus lane suspension report
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 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.
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.
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.
