ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days
The Information Commissioner’s Office (which I will refer to as ICO) have issued a decision notice about a Freedom of Information Act request made by Nigel Hobro to Wirral Council. The unique number for this decision notice is FS50559883.
It’s not yet on ICO’s website but should be in the near future. ED: Updated 04/09/2015 I looked on ICO’s website and it has been published since this article was written and decision notice FS50559883 can be viewed on ICO’s website.
The Freedom of Information Act request is for an “incomplete internal audit investigation report” and was originally made on the 20th August 2014.
As you can read on the whatdotheyknow.com website Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer) of Wirral Council refused this request on the 26th November 2014 and at internal review it was refused by Eric Robinson (Chief Executive) on the 4th June 2015.
The reasons given by both Surjit Tour and Eric Robinson for not supplying the information requested (both times an apology was given for taking too long to reach a decision) were two-fold:
- section 36(2)(c) Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
- section 40(2) Personal information
The decision notice shows that ICO disagrees with the first of those reasons (section 36(2)(c)), but agrees with the second reason for part of the information (section 40(2)).
Interestingly the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council that applying section 36(2)(c) was reasonable but disagreed with the public interest test element.
ICO requires Wirral Council to take the action below within 35 calendar days of the date of the decision notice dated the 24th August 2015. This is assuming that Wirral Council do not appeal the decision:
- "Disclose the withheld information with redactions made under section 40(2) for the names of individuals within the report"
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
10 thoughts on “ICO requires Wirral Council to supply internal audit report within 35 days”
Removed at request of author 01/09/2015 10:47 am
Removed at request of author 01/09/2015 10:48am.
Mr Brace, I am not surprised that any Report from ” Internal Audit ” is ” Incomplete” I am still awaiting a Report myself! I will not withdraw my Criminal Complaint will I?
Wirral will appeal and then another year will go by!
Well below is how long the last three decision notices involving requests to Wirral Council took from the date of the decision notice to the date of the appeal decision. 2 were appeals by the person making the request against the ICO decision, 1 was by Wirral Council.
EA/2013/0191 6 months
EA/2012/0264 4 months 1 week
EA/2013/0191 6 months 1 week
So perhaps 6 months would be nearer the mark (although that could be rounded up to a year)?
Have you missed me?
Ps I’m back!!!!!!!
Yes I did wonder where you went.
I’m glad you are back Griff. Like John, I was a little concerned as to your whereabouts.
G’day John and Bobby
I did miss you but I was just giving “Ecca” aka “Spotty Dog” aka “Face like an Eccles Cake” aka “Who are ya?” aka “Where are ya?” to get the Wirral “Funny” Bizz conspirators and co-conspirators together and bang their peanut brains together for thinking they could outsmart, or, outlast “Highbrow” who has cast iron evidence on an approximate £2,000,000.00 fraud.
So I am back for as long as it takes bachgen.
They, the council, have the cast iron evidence as well Griffo, and as you know since a long, long time. Police funding difficulties brought forward the “no criminal evidence” answer from the Police, though to me the three policemen who passed through my house they were absolutely convinced fraud had taken place.
The council distributed responsability as bureaucracies do, to the Police using their delay to compound their own. A bad episode they wished to pass away but for your obduracy Master Griffo it might well have done so.
Now they can claim “Old hat, nobody cares anymore” except that it is not wirralbiz’s misdeeds that concern us but the EXTRAORDINARY passivity of WBC. That is something that does needs to be addressed because it is not healthy that a public body can bury bad news-not healthy at all and no way to improve services.The Garry report on BIG and ISUS is scandalous so scandalous that WBC did not dare use it-again thanks to both my hard evidence and your persistence.Again the idea that the senior counter fraud officer should be allowed to write as he did casts a worrying shadow over the past. Were there other scandals “written away” by the pen of Mr Garry?
Who will guard the guardians themselves?
Comments are closed.