An Apology from Barnet Council for an inappropriate FoI response

Here is a response from Barnet Council concerning a Freedom of Information response they sent me which failed completely to answer the question I asked and also failed completely to give an explanation as to why they did not answer it. It also contains an apology from the Council for not providing an appropriate answer or an explanation. It also admits that the correct procedure for processing an FoI request was not followed.

Sadly it does not contain the information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information request
Our reference: 177838

Dear Mr Tichborne

I write further to our email of 28 August 2012 acknowledging your request for an internal review into the handling of your request for information. 

You have requested an internal review of the Council’s response in relation to your request for:

all details, plans and correspondence regarding the East-West Link Road ASAP, by means of an FOI request if necessary.

I have undertaken the internal review and the outcome of my review is set out below.

Response

Having reviewed your request and the response sent by the Highways Service, I can inform you that I partially uphold your request for review for the following reasons:

1. The original response did not include correspondence, which was stipulated in your original request.

2. No mention was made in this response as to why correspondence was not provided.

This contravened your information rights under the Freedom of Information Act, as at the very least an explanation should have been given as to why the information was not provided. The response was, unfortunately, not handled using the correct processes for FOI requests put in place by the council, and for this I apologise.

However, I am upholding the council's original decision not to provide the requested information. I estimate that identifying, locating, retrieving and extracting the relevant correspondence would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12 of the FOIA. This is currently £450, or 18 hours of officer time at a standard rate of £25 per hour. Elements of processing the request that fall under section 12 are limited to the council:

(a) determining whether it holds the information,

(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the
information,

(c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the
information, and

(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.

I have contacted the relevant officers in Highways and it is estimated that between them over 5,380 emails would need to be reviewed to (a) determine whether they contain any relevant information, (b) locating said information and (c) retrieve the information contained within them. A low estimate of 1 minute per email to conduct this exercise would mean it would take a total of close to 90 hours to fulfil the request. It is the council’s policy, in line with the FOIA, to refuse requests where the appropriate limit is exceeded.

You may wish to narrow the scope of your request in order to bring it below the 18 hour threshold. However, with the volume of information involved, I cannot guarantee that this will be the case.

Your rights

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Telephone: XXXXXXXXXXX

Website: www.ico.gov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

Jon Hill
Information Governance Officer
Standards & Information Rights Team

London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk

Electoral Issues - Barnet FoI response to Barnet Eye FoI Request

	24 August 2012
	Our ref: 179556

Thank you for your request received on 4 August 2012, for the following information:

For the purpose of clarity, please can you provide documentary verification that all of the items recommended have been implemented and regularly reviewed.

This request relates to your email of 25 July 2012 below:

…Please can you confirm that all recommended actions in the report have been completed and produce documentary evidence to support this.

Specifically,
---------
 

1.    There should be an elections book to pick up lessons learned from one election to the next, and which can be picked up to inform any member of a future elections team what needs to be done.

2.    Consider future recruitment of an elections manager

3.    Put in place a more detailed project plan for next election, with clearer contingency arrangements. This should use the Electoral Commission template that has been produced , supplemented as necessary to take account of Barnet specific circumstances and the findings of this report.

4.    Review polling districts and the location of poll stations within them to ensure an appropriate number of electors are within each district

5.    Write to the appropriate body to support The Electoral Commission findings in respect of the timetable for Parliamentary elections and the arrangements to enable overseas voters and service personnel to vote

6.    Communications campaign to encourage voters to vote early.

7.    Procurement arrangements for next election should all use central arrangements (incl written contracts with clear levels of service)

8.    A review of STRAND should be conducted

9.    Others:
Staffing arrangements HR to handle recruitment of count staff for large elections in future
Role of DROs 
Precise arrangements for agents briefing meeting

----------

Given that two years have elapsed since the problems occurred and we have a coalition government, would it be reasonable to expect that all of these actions have been completed?

Given that we recently had the GLA elections, it is interesting to note that I was unaware of any effort to encourage voters to vote early as recommended. Maybe you could provide details of such a campaign?

I would expect all of these recommendations to have been completed prior to the Mayoral/GLA elections.

Response

Much of the information you are requesting is held by the Returning Officer (RO) and Electoral Returning officer (ERO).   EROs and ROs are separate legal entities from the council; they are not listed as public authorities in Schedule 1 of FOIA and are therefore not obliged to respond FOIA requests. The council can only provide information that it holds under FOIA however information held on behalf of the RO and ERO is not held by the council and therefore not covered by FOIA.  

The RO has already confirmed to you that the recommendations made following the Elections review have all been implemented as part of an action plan.  I can by way of advice and assistance provide the information:

• The ‘elections book’ has taken the form of the lessons learned and captured from the 2010 elections  and subsequently the review documents from both the 2011 UKPVS Referendum and the 2012 London Mayoral and GLA Assembly Member elections, which have been captured and reviewed in order to inform and assist  future election events.
• Following secondment onto the projects managing both the Referendum and GLA elections, an Election Projects Manager was permanently appointed in May 2012.

• The Elections Project Manager utilised detailed project and contingency planning for both the Referendum and GLA elections, which in both instances was based upon initial work completed using the Electoral Commission planning template.

• A review of polling districts and stations was carried out by the Elections Manager throughout autumn 2011 and considered at the General Functions Committee in January 2012 and implemented for the GLA elections.

•  The communications campaign for the GLA elections was managed across London by the team at London Elect, however Barnet specifically issued (and posted on its website) a press release on 30 April; a message dedicated purely to encouraging early voting on 3 May (GLA polling day). Please see  the following link  on the council’s website: http://www.barnet.gov.uk/news/article/67/get_there_early_on_3_may

• Central arrangements were adhered to for the required procurements (most specifically for election printing services) for both the referendum and GLA elections and contracts were put in place via Delegated Powers Reports (DPRs). The DPRs can be viewed by clicking on the links below:

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s2295/Referendum%202011%20-%20Printing%20Contract.pdf

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Director%20of%20Corporate%20Governance/20120302/Agenda/1527%20-%20gla%20election%202012%20printing%20contract.pdf

• A review of STRAND was conducted by IS staff who worked on the 2010 elections and hardware changes were implemented ahead of the referendum.

• Others:

-       for both the referendum and the GLA elections, an officer from HR was drafted into the elections project team to manage staff recruitment for both polling and count duties

-       both the role of DROs and arrangements for agents meetings were contained within the project plans for the election events.

Your Rights

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review within the next 20 working days by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email foi@barnet.gov.uk).

If, having exhausted our review procedure, you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you will have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 0303 123 1113; website www.ico.gov.uk).  There is no charge for making an appeal.

The porkie pies of Brian Coleman, GLA member for Barnet and Camden exposed

Last week I received a leaflet from the Back Boris campaign. In it there was this piece of "information" (apologies for the poor quality of the copy) :-

I was intrigued to read the claim that Brian Coleman had "worked tirelessly" to drive down crime in Barnet. It occurred to me that this is fantastic news and I should be reporting on this achievement as a responsible blogger. I immediately sent a Freedom of Information request to the Chief of Police in Barnet, to make sure I had the full details to make a proper report on the issue. I asked the following questions :-

I have just received a leaflet from the Conservative Party stating that "Boris Johnson and  Brian Coleman have worked tirelessly to drive down crime in Barnet. I would be interested to know how many meetings you or you predecessor have had with Brian Coleman to discuss crime reduction strategy in Barnet. I would also like to know how many anti crime initiatives have been instigated by Brian Coleman in Barnet since 2008. Please could you provide me with details of these as an FOI response. Please forward this to the appropriate department or furnish me with their details.

Now as regular readers of this blog will know, Barnet Council invariably answers FOI requests way beyond the statuatory time of 20 days, in which they are supposed to answer such requests. Usually there is no reason given for the delay. Even worse, the responses are as obtuse as possible. Information is not revealed, because the completely exact question was framed in a way which allowed a degree of interpretation and Barnet have chosen to interpret it in a way which means they don't give you the information they clearly know you are seeking.

This is the first time I've had reason to send an FOI to Barnet Police. I was wondering how their response would measure up to the quality of service I usually get from Barnet Council?

Well, I sent the request on the 22nd January and received the response today. That is a working week. Barnet Council should take note. And what did it say? Well, here is the full response :-
TICHBORNE Final Reply Borough Commander

So what does this tell me? First and most obviously that Brian Coleman was telling porkies when he stated he'd been "working tirelessly" to drive down crime. As a GLA rep he's actually held no meetings that the Metropolitan Police can find any trace of. In fact the only meeting the Met can find on record is one to discuss licensing issues in his Council ward of Totteridge.

Now if it was just a question of a politician over egging the pudding in the run up to an election, in an attempt to preserve his £52K a year salary, I suppose no one would be too surprised. The trouble is that it is fundamentally more serious an issue than this. By printing such a misleading document, Brian Coleman has inadvertently drawn our attention to his complete lack of interest in engaging with the Metropolitan Police in his area. Why is this important?

Coleman gets paid £52,000 per year by the taxpayer to advise and assist the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson in his role as Mayor. Brian Coleman represents Barnet. Boris Johnson recently abolished the committee that oversees the Police and brought them under his direct control. It is clear that the priorities of Barnet Police will not be brought to the table, because Brian Coleman hasn't discussed them.

Every Borough has different issues. Barnet is a very diverse Borough. We have the largest Jewish population, so one would think that there may be the occasional meeting between our GLA rep and the Police to discuss issues relating to hate crime. We have many major road networks in Barnet (A1,M1, A406, etc) , which also fall under Brian Coleman's remit as the Council cabinet member with responsibility for roads. Barnet is plagued with traffic accidents and injuries. Most of these are caused by speeding vehicles, surely this would warrant the odd discussion with the Police. Then there are issues related to poverty in Barnet, Coleman has the Environment portfolio at Barnet. It is no secret that a bad environment breeds crime. Badly planned estates are hotbeds of crime. Given that Barnet has major redevelopments, and the Mayor has the final say on many of these, surely Coleman should at least canvass the views of the local Police on whether the plans are going to have an impact on crime in the Borough? It is not the job of the Police to tell the Police how to do their job, but they can help set priorities. They control huge budgets, which if spent wisely can bring crime down and if spent badly can send crime soaring.

Let us consider the current "growth" crime in Barnet. This is theft of mobile phones. Barnet has seen a 10% rise in crimes related to mobile phones in the last 12 months. It is becoming a major concern for the police as stolen phones have become a tradable commodity. What has this got to do with Brian Coleman and his policies? Well he is the man who brought in the "pay by phone" scheme. This requires people to stand on the street, talking on their phone, often with wallet and credit card in their hand. Did Brian Coleman consider the impact of his scheme on phone related crime? Well if he did, he didn't discuss it with the Police.

One final note about the FOI response. It is refreshing to see a response which is clearly in line with the spirit of the FOI act. It was on time and answered the question. It also provided additional information, which was clearly related to the inquiry and has forestalled the need for a follow up question. In short, the Metropolitan Police in Barnet have given the council a timely lesson in how to do their job. I suppose that the point Brian Coleman and Barnet Council should learn from this is that if you do your job properly, there is no need to tell porkies, no need to claim credit where none is due and no need to waste everyones time with silly follow up enquiries.

How much have bloggers saved the London Borough of Barnet? Metpro savings revealed

Some things you can't quantify and some you can. Various stooge commenters have placed comments on stories on the Hendon Times website, making disparaging remarks about bloggers and the cost of Freedom of Information requests (FOI). The implication was that bloggers are merely a costly overhead and add no value to Barnet. As the bloggers of Barnet collectively uncovered the Metpro Securit scandal through FOI's and other enquiries, I thought I'd submit an FOI to see how much the bloggers of Barnet will be saving the Barnet Taxpayer. Since the Metpro Non Contract was terminated, two new suppliers have been used.

As Metpro were paid over one million four hundred thousand pounds, I estimate that the savings will be in the region of £200,000. That is to say nothing of any other contracts identified as a result of the various reviews instigated as a result of the inquiries.

Perhaps the most telling thing about this cosy arrangement is that Barnet have admitted paying over the top for unnecessary services, which have not been replaced.

Here is the response from Barnet Council to my request (my request is the second email)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ********

To: Roger Tichborne

Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:42 PM

Subject: Security services - Cost of MetPro Contract

Dear Mr Tichborne,

I am writing regarding your request, received by the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) on 29^th November 2011 for access to information regarding the cost of the security services.

We are processing your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA).  My response to your request is below.

Response

The supply of security services is currently in the process of being re-tendered.  Since suspending the use of MetPro, we have been using the services of a number of different suppliers (mainly Blue 9 Security at Barnet House, Comer Property Management (NLBP) and Magenta Security Services for the Mill Hill Depot and others) on an interim basis.  In addition, some of the services that would have previously been supplied by MetPro have not been “replaced” – in other words, we have chosen to manage without additional security in some instances.  It is therefore not possible to provide you with an overall cost saving in the way that you have requested the information which gives any level of accuracy in terms of comparing “like with like”.  

We can, however, give you a cost comparison in terms of the hourly rates paid, which are as follows:

MetPro Rapid Response (hourly rate):                £17.00

Comer Property Management (hourly rate):                   £14.68            (= 13.65% cheaper than MetPro)

Blue 9 Security (hourly rate):                                             £14.50            (= 14.7% cheaper than MetPro)

If you would like me to provide you with sample invoices from any of the above, please let me know.

Whilst I appreciate that this may not be as detailed a response as you might have hoped for, I hope that this will give you an idea of the cost saving to the Council, instead of simply refusing to answer the question at all on the grounds that it would go over the cost limit allowed for answering FOI enquiries.

Your Rights

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email foi@barnet.gov.uk).

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45; website: www.ico.gov.uk).

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

A********* ********
Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7***
net Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

From: Roger Tichborne

Sent: 29 November 2011 07:52
To: Freedom of Information Act; Freedom of Information Act
Cc: Walkley, Nick; Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative
Subject: FOI Request - Security services - Cost of Metpro Contract

Dear Freedom of Information,

Earlier this year, following the disclosure by bloggers that Metpro Security group were operating illegally withing Barnet Council, the council replaced their contract with a new supplier.

Please could you provide details of the amount saved by using the new contractor. Please calculate this assuming that the invoices paid to the new company would have been paid to Metpro at the old Metpro standard contract rate. Where this is not possible please provide invoices and an explanation as to why.

Regards

Roger Tichborne

Barnet Council FOI response - A well trained & properly resourced department is more efficient !

I've had an amazing FoI response from Barnet Council. Firstly it was within the 20 day legal deadline. In fact it was over 12 hours early ! Secondly, it details how when Barnet Council properly resource departments and provide adequate training, the productivity goes up. Sadly they are taking the opposite course with the audit department, despite the fact it was shown to be under resourced during the Metpro audit. Anyway, here is the good news for once. If they applied this strategy to internal audit, who knows how much they might actually save. And congratulations to Councillor Daniel Thomas for getting something right at last

Let's hope they start applying this principle to the rest of the Council.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Tichborne,

I write with the Council’s response to your request received on 11 October 2011 for the following information:

Please can you supply a summary of cash recovered by the Barnet Corporate anti fraud team (or its equivalent or predecessor dept) by year from 2004- to present, in the format. Should this prove too expensive to provide for the 9 year period, please restrict to the maximum period from the most recent year available backwards to cost less than £450 of supplying this response.

Please also detail headcounts for the period. If figures are unavailable for a particular year please state and provide explanation. These figures should be present in departmental accounts

Year     Amount  Caft Dept Headcount

2004 - £-----        Staff =

Councillor Thomas stated that collection is now improved in this article due to training.

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/9299642.Council_anti_fraud_team_expose___50_000_in_false_claims/

Please use the figures supplied to Councillor Thomas to justify this claim. If these figures are unavailable or inaccurate, please state this and state why.

We have processed this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 

Response

I can confirm that the Council holds the information you are requesting. Please see the table below.  I have been informed that CAFT did not keep a record of recovery prior to 2009.

Year	Amount	CAFT-Head Count
2009/10	£128,298.58	3.5 Benefit Fraud Investigators + 2 Corporate Investigators
2010/11	£172,773.40	3 Benefit Fraud Investigators + 2 Corporate Investigators
2011/12*	£204,596.84	3.5 Benefit Fraud Investigators + 3 Financial Fraud Investigators

*Please note that the amount for 2011/12 is from April till October 2011and includes the amounts recovered from Bajram Bytiqi (£27,482.84) and Janet West (£21,541.96).

I can also confirm that that the recovery of benefit overpayments is usually dealt with by the Council’s Benefits Service overpayments section, however CAFT have recently become involved in the recovery of benefit overpayments where there as been a fraud investigation, due to the new powers they possess as accredited financial investigators.   

I can advise that in the last two years members of CAFT have undergone intensive training from the National Police Improvement Agency, and are now accredited Financial Investigation Officers. This means that in exercise of their powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act, CAFT Financial Investigation Officers can under certain criteria request that a restraint order be placed on a person, property and/or cash in connection with a criminal investigation.  The advantage of this training is evident in the prompt recovery (in full) of £49,024.80 from Ms West and Mr Bytiqi; this was the first investigation where CAFT investigators exercised the skills acquired since receiving their accreditation.  

Please note that we have not addressed the following element of your request:

Please use the figures supplied to Councillor Thomas to justify this claim. If these figures are unavailable or inaccurate, please state this and state why.

This is because the Council’s obligation under FOIA is to provide recorded information that it holds and we have done this. We are not required to manipulate figures in order to justify claims as stated in your question above. 

Your rights

If you are unhappy with the handling of your request you can ask for an internal review.  Please send such requests to our postal address or to foi@barnet.gov.uk and address them to the “FOI Officer”.  Please also explain why you feel we have not correctly processed your request.

If, having exhausted our review procedure, you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you will have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745; website www.ico.gov.uk).  There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely,

T******* A********
Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8*** 7***
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

Barnet Eye response to Barnet Council war on bloggers

The Barnet Eye has sent the following email to Barnet Council in relation to their response (Detailed here - http://barnetfutureshape.blogspot.com/2011/11/barnet-council-foi-response-reveals.html) which revels details of an attempt to silence a local blogger. This email was copied to the CEO Nick Walkley, Council Leader Richard Cornelius and Deputy Leader Daniel Thomas. A separate response is being prepared by the United Front for Barnet Blogging
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr S******r,

 

Thank you for your response.  Please would you be so kind as to do the following.

 

a) Please could you provide an explantion as to why this response was not completed within the statuatory period.

 

b) Please could you raise a new FOI reqest and provide copies of all internal  emails and other communications regarding the complaint to the ICO as detailed in your response.

 

c) Please could you raise a seperate FOI request and provide copies of all internal  emails and other communications regarding your response to my request for this information.

 

d) Please could you provide an explanation as to why the attached email was not included in this response and details of any other emails or documents which should have been sent.

 

I have copied this response to the CEO, Council Leader, Deputy Leader and Head of Legal as I believe that this matter is extremely serious and shows a culture of secrecy, obfusication and obstruction of transparency within Barnet Council.

 

I would appreciate a prompt response.

 

Regards

Roger Tichborne

---------------------------------------

email1 (1)

Barnet Council FOI special : You really couldn't make this up

As Councillor Daniel Thomas publicly complained that a blogger was costing Barnet Council £40,000 answering FOI requests. His comments were a vicious slur on the reputation of Mr Mustard, the blogger who has worked tirelessly to expose waste at Barnet Council. When I got a non answer that took 20 days to reply to, I asked them how much this non answer cost to produce.

It seems that whilst Councillor Thomas can tell us how much bloggers cost Barnet Council, they can't actually tell me how much it costs to reply to a single email.  It is patently clear that Councillor Thomas was playing fast and loose with the truth and the taxpayer. I wonder if all of the national media outlets which covered Councillor Thomas comments will now print a retraction and an apology to Mr Mustard for the damage to his reputation, given that there is no basis at all for the claim by Thomas and they should have checked their facts.

I've redacted the name of the officer who sent this as doubtless they are just the messenger.

Here is the reply :-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Tichborne

I am writing in relation to your email to the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) dated 6 October 2011.  I am treating your email dated 6 October 2011, as a request for an internal review as recommended in the Code of Practice made under section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA), because I have had to review how the Council handled your request for information dated 8 September 2011. This internal review is being processed under the FOIA.  My response to your request for an internal review is below.

You have requested an internal review of the Council’s response in relation to the following:

“Please can you provide a full breakdown of all costs associated with providing the answer in your email?

Please also provide a breakdown of the time taken by staff to answer it and an explanation as to why it has taken 20 days to supply an answer refusing to provide the information for this reason.

  

I acknowledged your request on 11 October 2011.  I have undertaken the requested internal review. The outcome of my review is set out below.

Response

Part 1

I can confirm that the Council does not hold any information in relation to a full breakdown of all costs associated with providing its response dated 6 October 2011. 

Part 2

I can confirm that the Council does not hold any information in relation to a breakdown of time taken by staff to answer your request for information dated 8 September 2011.   Under the FOIA you were entitled to a prompt response which in any event should have been sent within 20 working days from the date your request is received.   However due to a change of staff and staff shortages which has caused a backlog of work within the Corporate Governance Directorate, Standards and Information Rights Team, the Council responded to your request for information within the statutory 20 working days as prescribed by section 10 of the FOIA.  I am satisfied that the Council has complied with its duty under the FOIA. 

Your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner

We consider we have complied with our obligations under the FOIA. However, if you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456  30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45; email casework@ico.gov.uk; website www.ico.gov.uk). There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely

  

M**** B*****

Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7***
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

Time for Councillor Daniel Thomas to apologise for crass remarks about the cost of FoI Responses

Yesterday the Barnet Eye wrote to Councillor Daniel Thomas, concerning his comments to the press regarding FoI requests. The Barnet Eye believes that Councillor Thomas has betrayed a complete lack of judgement in his comments and displayed extraordinary ignorance concerning the state of the systems involved in producing responses to requests. It is clear from the audit committee report, mentioned below, that the figures for the cost of answering FoI requests are, at best, pure guesswork.

We believe that the only option for Councillor Daniel Thomas is to issue a full apology for his ill considered comments. I can confirm that Councillor Thomas has read this, as I got a read receipt. I await his reply.

As you will see, I copied in his boss, Councillor Richard Cornelius, who I hope will explain what the honourable thing to do is
---------------------------------

 From: Roger Tichborne

To: cllr.d.thomas@barnet.gov.uk

Cc: Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative ; Palmer, Cllr Monroe Liberal Democrat ; kim.inam@nlhnews.co.uk ; jdarlington@london.newsquest.co.uk ; Derek Dishman ; vicki morris ; mrs angry ; John Dix ; Nick.Walkley@barnet.gov.uk

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 6:53 PM

Subject: FoI requests - Audit report findings

Dear Councillor Thomas,

Having read your comments to the media regarding the cost of answering FoI enquiries from members of the public to the media, it is clear to me that you are unaware of the shambolic state of the systems used by Barnet Council to provide the answers to FOI enquiries. This was highlighted on page 152-154 of the Internal Audit Progress Report dated 16th June 2011.

The recommendations on page 154 state :-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority 1 recommendations

There was one High (priority 1) recommendation made as part of this review:

(1) The S&IR Team should take steps to remind Link Officers that they must:

- comply with statutory timescales under the FOI and EIRs when responding to a request;

- record the date the request is received by the Council and not the date the request is passed to them for processing.

- when closing a request on the system, record the actual number of days taken to deal with the request (ie no. of working days from receipt to response); this will assist to monitor time scales met.

The procurement of a new FOI database should allow for more effective tracking and monitoring requests.

Management Responses  and agreed action dates

Management provided the following response:

(1) Recommendations Agreed. The S&IR Team will email Link Officers reminding them they must:

(i) comply with statutory timescales under the FOI and EIRs when responding to a request;

(ii) record the date the request is received by the Council and not the date the request is passed to them for processing;

(iii) when closing a request on the system, record the actual number of days taken to deal with the request (ie no. of working days from receipt to response); and

(iv) record acknowledgments of requests onto the FOI system

The S&IR Team will update the ‘Induction Pack’ which is sent to all new Link Officers to reflect these messages and will

also include them in an article in the next FOI/DP newsletter sent to Link Officers. To be implemented immediately.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is clear that the system is in a state of shambles, which adds considerable cost and management overhead to the process. This is borne by the taxpayer. It strikes me as extremely poor form to "blame a blogger" for the huge cost of answering simple questions, which could easily be dealt with in a cost effective manner, when it is clearly caused by ineffectual management. 

I would suggest that you immediately issue a public apology for making such a claim, when the councils own audit showed the system to be badly managed, costly and failing. It is clear that until the new system is purchased, Barnet Councillors such as yourself would be better engaged in trying to help Council officers manage the mess than blaming innocent third parties.

It is also clear that the figure quoted for processing the requests (£225) is pure guesswork, as the audit report shows that there is no accurate indication of the real costs incurred.

As such the only honourable course for you is to set the record straight immediately. As someone who writes a blog, I feel that you have besmirched my reputation and all of the other citizen journalists of Barnet, who were recently rightly praised by Eric Pickles. I've attached the audit report for your perusal.

It is clear reading the audit report that your comments in this article - http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17567 - demonstrate a complete lack of awareness of the problems detailed by Barnet Council's own audit process. I think you should pause for reflection on your comments and then do the decent thing.

Please note that this email, along with any response will be published in the Barnet Eye blog. I have circulated this to the relevant Barnet media outlets to explain why your claims are so unfair and misleading. As someone who has worked tirelessly to try and help Barnet Council reign in costs, I feel that this attempt to portray bloggers as "expensive to the taxpayer" is not only unfair but completely dishonest. I would appreciate an update as to when the new system referred to above will be implemented and when we can expect the current chaotic system to be replaced.

Regards

Roger Tichborne

An open letter to Cllr Richard Cornelius, Barnet Council Leader from David Miller, former chairman of Chipping Barnet Conservative Association

Dear Richard

I was extremely concerned to read in the local media that Cllr Daniel Thomas claimed that it cost the council £40,000 to respond to FOI requests from just one individual - reportedly the blogger known as Mr Mustard. Unless the council is forced to pay staff overtime in processing such requests, it is patently obvious that there is no marginal cost to taxpayers whatsoever and it is completely dishonest to suggest otherwise. Staff responding to FOI requests are merely using the time for which they are already being paid.

You should be aware that with regard to trying to embarrass members of the public exercising their legal rights, Cllr Thomas has form. In November 2008, he asked Mike Freer a clearly planted question which alleged that I had made the most FOI requests in the preceding 6 months. The stated figure of 29 requests was demonstrably incorrect and, as the Information Commissioner subsequently confirmed following my complaint, Barnet Council had no legal right to publish my name in this report.

The council nonetheless refused to redact my details arguing that the publication of my name did not identify me personally, as prohibited by law. Rather, they claimed that the report referred to all David Millers in the Borough. Somebody in the council was actually paid to write this errant nonsense and this should be of greater concern to you than the cost of complying with an Act of Parliament.

You will recall that when the Conservatives won control of the Council in 2002, the then leader made a speech in which he promised “an open and honest” Administration. Sadly, the opposite has proven true. There is a culture of obsessive secrecy which permeates through every fibre of the council’s being. Barnet is seemingly more concerned with spending money on lawyers in an attempt to keep secret that which should be public, than in allowing greater access to information in accordance with official Conservative policy.

The Information Commissioner’s guidelines state that the council’s default position should be to publish all information without the requirement of being asked. If the council adhered to these guidelines, it would obviate the need for most of the FOI requests submitted. Obviously certain categories of information must, by law, remain confidential but far too much is kept secret on spurious grounds. One such reason often cited is commercial sensitivity. It may have escaped your notice, but the council is not a commercial organisation. It is a public body whose sole raison d’être is to serve the public. Everything the council does is in our name and on our behalf. We have an absolute right to know what you are doing at all times.

It clearly grates on senior councillors and officers that members of the public are rather adept at exposing failures in the council’s processes, but an enlightened authority should thank residents for identifying their shortcomings, rather than indulge in petty obfuscation and vilification.

If any councillors are unhappy with the concept of public scrutiny of the decision making process, they are, of course, free to stand down from public office. It is called public for a reason.

Kind regards

David

Barnet Council misleads over £40,000 for FoI Enquiries and is exposed.

So there I was, enjoying a nice free lunch, courtesy of my good friend Brian (no, not that one!) at Gabriels Wharf in the beautiful sunshine. Just as I was about to take a mouthful of the delicious ceasar salad, my mobile goes. I don't recognise the number. I answer. A voice I don't recognise says "Hi, this is Josh from the Hendon Times, is that Roger Tichborne from the Barnet Eye?". I say "yes, how can I help?". Josh asks "Are you the blogger who has submitted 175 FoI requests since April and cost the Council £40,000? in costs". I was rather taken aback "Erm, no I think I've submitted about 10" (I just got home and counted, actually it's six + a couple of emails to Council officials which have been transformed into FoI requests).

I enquire. It transpires that Barnet Council planted this story on the public services website -

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17567 - in retaliation for the bloggers of Barnet having the audacity to write to Eric Pickles about the total failure of Barnet Council to respond properly to FoI requests. I have learned that when the Council start behaving like this, it means we've won. 

So off I went and read the article. Here is a quoye :-

Daniel Thomas, the council's deputy leader, said: "Barnet was one of the first councils in the country to publish all spending over £500 and we are committed to open government as well as responding to freedom of information requests in a timely manner."

Any reader of the blogs of Barnet will know just how misleading Councillor Daniel Thomas is being. The only question about Councillor Thomas response is whether he's being stupid, lazy or dishonest. How can I say with such certainty that he's misleading us. Because I have the proof to hand.

 

Labour GLA candidate Andrew Dismore tried to find out just how bad Barnet are at answering FOI requests. Barnet refused to answer on the grounds that it would cost too much to tell him. Now personally I'd have thought the FoI department would have a spreadsheet containing all of this info. I would have thought this would enable them to monitor compliance with the act. When requests come in and when they are responded to seems a sensible thing to log, given that they are supposed to respond within 20 days. Seems not. Here is the response the Council sent to Dismore :-

(Parts 1b to 1e)
Number of requests received between 21 July 2009 and 21 July 2011 that were
answered within the statutory time.
Number that were not answered relying on a statutory defence.
Number that were answered outside the statutory time
The average period for a reply during this period. 

Background information
Under the FOIA public authorities must respond promptly and in any event within 20 working days from receipt of a request. If a public authority has asked the requestor to clarify the request, this period starts on the day when it receives the clarification. If a public authority is withholding the information by applying an exemption for which it needs to consider the ‘public interest test’, it may extend its time for considering release of the information beyond 20 working days. Similarly, under the EIRs a public authority may extend the deadline for responding if a request is ‘complex and voluminous’. 

Refusal notice
From my preliminary assessment I estimate that identifying, locating, retrieving and extracting the information to respond to these parts of your request would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12 of the FOIA. This is currently £450. The council’s current request-management system does contain much of the information required to respond to these parts of your request. However to retrieve this information we would need to undertake a manual trawl though the 2283 entries. For many requests we would also need to search records saved by officers held outside of the system. I estimate that it would take approximately 20 minutes of officer time to obtain all the relevant information in relation to each of the 2283 requests, or 761 hours in total. At a cost of £25 per hour the estimated cost would be £19,025. The council recognises the need to be able to quickly and accurately report on aspects of FOIA compliance such as those referred to in these parts of your request. We are in the process of procuring a replacement request-management system that will be able to automatically produce accurate data on FOIA compliance.

Got that. It would cost £19,025 for Barnet to tell Mr Dismore whether Barnet Council complies with the law. This when a simple system of logging requests on an excel spreadsheet would do the trick? Mr Dismore asked some other questions, which give some clue as to how out of hand the situation is. 

(Part 1k)
The longest delay before a reply was sent
During the two-year period of your request the longest such delay was 138 working days.

(Parts 2 and 3)
The number outstanding, beyond the statutory period for reply
The longest period an outstanding request has been awaiting reply

Over recent months the council has received an unprecedented volume of requests for information, and in 2010 the council received over twice the average for English local authorities. Whilst 79% of requests since April 2011 were responded to within the statutory period, there were 44 requests outstanding at the date of your request, the oldest one received on 18 February 2011. We are working on responding to all overdue requests and towards ensuring that, over the course of the current financial year, 90% or requests are responded to within the statutory periods.

The statutory period is 20 days. This clearly has regularly been missed.  Barnet seem to misunderstand the term "statuatory period". This doesn't mean some vague target date, it means a legally required deadline. 

Which brings us to Daniel Thomas claim that "one blogger has submitter 175 requests since April and cost £44,000". I suppose if it costs £19,025 to answer a question which should be available in a basic spreadsheet, then it is possible it cost Barnet Council this much. We have to ask whether it is just another reflection of the chaos in their systems and ways of working. Barnet Council has to legally work within the FoI framework. They should have systems tailored to this. Just suppose the ICO office (who are responsible for monitoring FoI requests asked Barnet the question Dismore) asked for details of compliance. Would it really cost Barnet nearly £20 K to tell them? Surely they have an electronic document repositry, where this information can quickly be accessed. It should be no more complex than a google search on this system, to identify the documents, using relevent key words.

 

What may be more worrying for Barnet CEO Nick Walkley, Leader Richard Cornelius and dunce of the year Dan Thomas is the fact that Tory minister Eric Pickles agrees with the bloggers of Barnet. Today he issued this communication for councils
 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/1996846

To quote Mr Pickles :-

Releasing this information to the public could provide a wealth of local knowledge and spark more improvements in the way services are delivered. Faster publication and easier access for the public and companies could open new possibilities for real-time analysis and response and opportunities for small businesses to enter new markets.
The best local authorities have already adopted the code of practice into their normal publishing routines. Councils like Northamptonshire County Council, Hammersmith and Fulham and Windsor and Maidenhead for example have long ago thrown their books wide open for public scrutiny and publish much of the data specified in the code already.

Sooner or later, the Tories of Barnet are going to have to face up to the fact that they are out of step with the national mood. If they just followed Pickles advice and had an openness and transparancy policy, they would have saved the taxpayer £40,000 answering FoI requests that would be, in the main, completely unnecessary. 

 

One thing Councillor Dan Thomas didn't mention is the money which the Barnet bloggers have saved, by our diligent trawling through council papers & our non stop action on behalf of the people of Barnet. Last year this blog lead a successful campaign to get the self awarded payrise for the Barnet Council Cabinet reversed. The united bloggers of Barnet exposed the fiasco with Metpro as a result Barnet found a far cheaper supplier of security services. We also got an overhaul of procurement into the bargain, potentially saving tens of millions of pounds (not that Barnet will admit it). We have campaigned for value for money in the Toxic One Barnet program and I've been reliably informed that this has already lead to some of the more bonkers excesses being abandoned. Perhaps the greatest compliment is that I've been informed that my old sparring buddy Brian Coleman (yup, praise where it's due) has on several occasions got his more deluded colleagues to drop bonkers schemes by pointing out "The bloggers will have a field day with this". Whilst Brian Coleman couldn't give a damn what bloggers say about us, he knows most of his chums in the party are scared to death by this threat. Whilst I don't agree with much the old duffer says, I do acknowledge that he has finely tuned political instincts and has scuppered a few bonkers schemes, which he knows would come back to haunt the Tories, merely by mentioning "blogger bogeymen".

But back to the issue of FoI responses. Perhaps the most interesting and telling this is this FoI response,  which I received today.

Ref: 90210110

Dear Mr Tichborne,

I am writing in respect of your recent request for information received on 21^st September 2011. Your request has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please see our response to your request below.

Please could you provide any information held by Barnet council relating to potential sites for permanent traveller sites. There is a legal requirement to provide these, so please provide all documentation which identifies where Barnet may have either a) planned to site them or b) reviewed and discarded as an option.

Please also provide any emails from councillors to council officials relating to these decisions.

Our approach to identifying new sites for Gypsies and Travellers is set out in the Core Strategy planning document, available on our website (link: http://www.barnet.gov.uk/core-strategy-proposed-submission-document-may-2011.pdf) and this is in line with existing Government guidance - Circular 01/2006 - Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites.

Circular 01/2006 requires the local planning authority to set out criteria in their Core Strategy for the location of gypsy and traveller sites in order to guide the allocation of sites and to meet unexpected demand. Barnet’s criteria are:

ÿ       Potential of the site for good management

ÿ       Impact on local environment, character and amenity

ÿ       Access to essential services including water and waste disposal

Within the Site Allocations document which identifies future sites for development we will seek to identify land to meet the long term needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Other than setting out our criteria based policy the Council has yet to identify or review sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The Site Allocations document is the correct planning document for such a process. The Site Allocations document will be subject to at least two rounds of public consultation and we would expect to commence engagement on it in 2012.

As the review for such sites has not started yet there has been no correspondence on the matter of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Your rights of review and appeal

We believe we have correctly applied the provisions of the FOIA in this response. However if you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email: foi@barnet.gov.uk).

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 30 6060 or 01625 54 5745; website: www.ico.gov.uk). There is no charge for making an appeal.

Kind regards,

K******** S***

FOI & EIR Link Officer

Environment, Planning and Regeneration

London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

Tel: 020 8359 24**

Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk

---

---

From: B*****, M****
Sent: 21 September 2011 14:33
To: S****, H****
Cc: S* C*******, T****; S****, K******
Subject: FW: FoI request - Traveller pitches

---

From: Roger Tichborne
Sent: 19 September 2011 21:01
To: Freedom of Information Act
Subject: FoI request - Traveller pitches

Dear Freedom of Information,

Please could you provide any information held by barnet council relating to potential sites for permanent traveller sites. There is a legal requirement to provide these, so please provide all documentation which identifies where Barnet may have either a) planned to site them or b) reviewed and discarded as an option.

Please also provide any emails from councillors to council officials relating to these decisions.

Regards

Roger Tichborne

----------------------------------------------------------------------------