What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?
What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0033)
I will start by declaring an interest as I was the Appellant in case EA/2016/0033. I am also married to my McKenzie Friend in this matter Mrs Leonora Brace.
Court | Room: Tribunal Room 5, 3rd Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Oral Hearing
On: 16th June 2016
Time: 10.15am
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
Case Ref: EA/2016/0033
Parties Mr | John Brace (Appellant) ICO (First Respondent) Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Second Respondent)
Before: Mr. David Farrer QC Tribunal Judge Mr. Michael Hake Tribunal Member Dr Malcolm Clarke Tribunal Member
Hearing date of 21st September 2016 set for Tribunal over FOI request to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for the upcoming First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0054)
First a declaration of interest, as I am the Appellant in the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) case EA/2016/0054. The two respondents are the Information Commissioner’s Office and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.
A date and time has been set for the hearing. It will take place on the 21st September 2016 starting at 10am.
The location for the hearing is Tribunals, 3rd Floor, Civil & Family Court, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX. A room number (one of the five tribunal rooms) will be allocated on the day.
As a hearing date is now set, the case is sub judice. Therefore comments are turned off for legal reasons.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
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.
It wasn’t the bit about gagging orders, or how a councillor was asked to resort to making a Freedom of Information request that I got cross about, but this part.
“Interestingly I have tried to involve the local media in this story. I didn’t get the tiniest response from them. It is part of the role of the ‘fourth estate’ to publicly shine a light on the doings and affairs of those in power. This seems to be lamentably missing in Greater Liverpool these days.”
I will point out at this stage that Cllr Richard Kemp hasn’t contacted me or as far as I know anyone to do with this blog! Of course politicians complaining about the press coverage (or in this case lack of press coverage) is nothing new.
Returning to a story on this blog earlier this week Why is Liverpool City Council not complying with ICO decision notice FS50591795?, the response from Liverpool City Council as to why the decision notice hasn’t been complied with has been the somewhat disappointing, “I acknowledge receipt of your e mail [sic] and I am now making enquiries as to the points made”
So, if Liverpool City Council want to do the local government equivalent of sulk because ICO didn’t agree with them and then go and ignore the enforcement notice, well I don’t want their bad habits on freedom of information to be picked up by Wirral Council do I?
Except you know, being the sort of person that believes in the public being informed I might not be withholding as much information as Liverpool City Council would. Please note these documents were not received through the freedom of information process (which seems to be utterly broken at Liverpool City Council).
Let’s start with a £3,000 invoice for the services of the rather scary looking Simon Burrows of Kings Chambers in a case in the Administrative Court (case reference number CO/932/2014 Karl Downey -v- Liverpool City Council). So therefore it was a judicial review. This invoice went to a Mr. Brendan McGrath who is a solicitor employed by Liverpool City Council.
Quite what the case was all about I really don’t know, but the scary looking guy invoiced Liverpool City Council £3,000 for a "Brief on Hearing" which was £2,500 + VAT. You can click on the thumbnail below for an easier to read version.
Kings Chamber invoice £3000 Liverpool City Council Simon Burrows thumbnail
Judicial reviews of Liverpool City Council decisions are hardly a big secret are they?
Let’s move onto something that led to one of the budget savings (if I remember my Liverpool City Council budget for 2016-17 correctly).
This is a £978 payment (although as a previous payment has been made in the same matter the total is £4,206) for “In the Matter of Advice regarding the refund of charges made by Liverpool for mental health aftercare services provided pursuant to s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983”
The invoice went to Duncan Dooley-Robinson and Jeanette McLoughlin (who is Liverpool City Council’s Monitoring Officer). As above you can click on the thumbnail for an easier to read version.
Exchange Chambers invoice £978 Liverpool City Council Neil Cadwallader thumbnail
This invoice went to P (which stands for Paul) Merriman. Clicking on the thumbnail will load an easier to read version.
Six Pump Court invoice £2400 Liverpool City Council David Hercock thumbnail
Well that’s three out of the twenty-two invoices. Hopefully the release of this information will prompt Liverpool City Council into complying with the ICO decision notice!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
