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.
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.
This invoice went to P (which stands for Paul) Merriman. Clicking on the thumbnail will load an easier to read version.
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.
Sadly not all the court orders were sent to me. I emailed the Birkenhead County Court on the 13th July (using the email address on their letter) pointing out that a court order dated 9th October 2013 had not been included, only to receive an automated reply stating “The recipient’s e-mail address was not found in the recipient’s e-mail system.”
I tracked down the correct e-mail address, resent the email, but pointed out the incorrect e-mail on the letter. Birkenhead County Court have written to me in a letter received today apologising for the incorrect email address and have pointed out that both the email address and fax number for Birkenhead County Court have recently changed.
The letter also included a copy of the court order dated 9th October 2013 which is below. Interestingly this court order shows that District Judge Peake struck out the schedule of allegations filed by letter dated 26th September 2013 as it didn’t comply with the court’s directive of the 12th September 2013 that it should be reduced to no more than 12 individual allegations. Unusually this was a court order made without a hearing and without service on the other party.
The invoice below shows that the allegations in a letter dated 26th September 2013 struck out by the Judge were sent on the instructions of a solicitor working at Wirral Council to Paul Burns of Exchange Chambers.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
EXCLUSIVE: 155 invoices paid by Wirral Council in 2013/14 for legal services, external audit, physiotherapy and psychological assessments
EXCLUSIVE: 155 invoices paid by Wirral Council in 2013/14 for legal services, external audit, physiotherapy and psychological assessments
Below are 155 of the invoices I requested during the 2013/14 audit. They range from invoices to the Council’s external auditor Grant Thornton UK LLP, criminal work, a couple of judicial reviews, appealing an ICO decision notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) as well as a lot of times Wirral Council have taken parents to court about their children. Some of these invoices I’ve previously written about on this blog, such as about the invoice about appealing the ICO decision notice. Turns out now I look at it more carefully there was a further invoice for £1,008 from February 2014 in that matter too.
Some of the others I’ve already on the blog as I received them in August 2014. However I didn’t publish them in August because I’ve had to go through a process of blacking out all the names (and partial names) of children and parents.
Added in green to many invoices are the representative (where known) from the list of payments in 2013/14 greater than £500. I’ve also added back in (on some) text which has been obscured by information blacked out on double-sided pages and bled through.
There is an index to all 155 invoices that can be downloaded here. I’ve tried to use the following file format when naming each file “Wirral Council invoice” followed by representative/organisation, amount, date, page number where there are multiple pages for the same invoice followed by invoice number.
Invoices 73 & 74 aren’t published here as they were cancelled and replaced by invoices 75 & 76. There is another batch of invoices I have yet to scan in, which is a mix of invoices for legal services and other general invoices. Below you should find all 155 invoices.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
£1800 invoice to Wirral Council for barrister Sarah O’Brien in Fernbank Farm matter (Kane & Woodley)
£1800 invoice to Wirral Council for barrister Sarah O’Brien in Fernbank Farm matter (Kane & Woodley)
Below is the invoice received for the services of a barrister called Miss Sarah O’Brien of Exchange Chambers to Wirral Council to do with the possession order for Fernbank Farm which was heard at the Birkenhead County Court earlier this year. I requested this as part of the 2013/14 audit.
I have added annotations in green which represent information that Wirral Council either incorrectly blacked out, or should’ve blacked out or information which was blacked out but is known to me from court reporting on the issue.
Detail of redactions 1: “Professional Fees of:” Reason incorrect: Sarah O’Brien is not an employee of Wirral Council. Unredacted text: Sarah O’Brien
Details of redaction 2: DX 708630 Reason incorrect: partial redaction as it was meant to redact next line, DX 708630 refers to Wirral Council’s document exchange number. Unredacted text: DX 708630
Details of redaction 3: Mr Ali Bayatti Reason correct: Redaction correct as person is Wirral Council employee, however due to earlier court hearing name of solicitor is known. Unredacted to aid in transparency as name said during open court hearing in Birkenhead County Court (2013). Also important to know which solicitor is instructing the barrister. Unredacted text: Mr Ali Bayatti
Details of redaction 4: AB / H19 / 25650 Reason correct/incorrect: Redaction partially correct as AB refers to Ali Bayatti. However redaction done incompetently by drawing a line in pen through after the other redactions were added as an afterthought by an accountant. Unredacted text: AB/ H19 / 25650
Details of redaction 5: METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – V – CAROL KANE & EILEEN WOODLEY Reason incorrect: refers to parties’ names in court case. Unredacted text: METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL – V – CAROL KANE & EILEEN WOODLEY
Details of redaction 6: “Name/info” Reason incorrect: refers to parties’ names in court case. Unredacted KANE. Rest is unknown. Unredacted text: KANE
Details of redaction 7: “Init” (three handwritten initials) Reason correct: Refers to initials of Wirral Council officer. Unredacted text:
Details of redaction 8: “Certified Correct for payment” (signature) Reason correct: signature of Wirral Council officer. Unredacted text:
Details of redaction 9: “To Miss Sarah O’Brien” Reason incorrect: refers to barrister of Exchange Chambers not Wirral Council officer. Unredacted text: To Miss Sarah O’Brien
Details of redaction 10: “Sarah Rotheram” Reason incorrect: Does not refer to Wirral Council employee. Unredacted text: Sarah Rotherham
Original document is below, followed by the same document with my annotations in green (although it is possible Wirral Council’s legal department have gone too far with the black pen in places).