Why did Liverpool City Council release the names of children and their parents in childcare proceedings and a vulnerable adult?
Why did Liverpool City Council release the names of children and their parents in childcare proceedings and a vulnerable adult?
I do not have permission from either the Family Court nor the Court of Protection to publish the names of parties involved in these cases with Liverpool City Council. So those names I have blurred in green.
Yet, in what will not surprise anyone Liverpool City Council’s redactions of these documents during a public inspection meant the names of parents, children and parties was revealed to me. Their staff even let me take away copies.
Before publication I have covered some of these up in green.
Liverpool City Council’s Chief Executive in his capacity as Combined Authority Returning Officer states that we are not a media organisation.
Whereas Liverpool City Council may wish to live in a world where they can control the media, there is a point where it can backfire. The press is independent.
Maybe ICO will slap them on the wrist and tell them to improve.
Or maybe this sort of matter is taken seriously?
I don’t know, but tomorrow voters in Wavertree will get to vote whether they want more of the same or a change.
Is the way Liverpool City Council treats the personal information of vulnerable adults and children replicated in their attitude towards how they treat them? With a lack of care?
Liverpool City Council invoice 1Liverpool City Council invoice 2Liverpool City Council invoice 3 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 4 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 5 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 6 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 7
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.
