Here is a complaint which I have today forwarded to the Information Commissioner's Office with a copy to £128,000 per annum Neeraj Sharma at Sandwell Council.
Information Commissioner’s Office
casework@ico.org.uk 13th August, 2014
Dear Sirs,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS - SANDWELL COUNCIL
I am becoming increasingly concerned with regard to the cavalier way in which Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council are treating FoI requests. This should, perhaps, not be surprising given various tweets by SMBC’s Labour “leader” who once infamously tweeted that he would “congratulate” the Chief Executive if he blocked my requests for information!
May I deal firstly with some examples from others. All the examples are available via the website WhatDoTheyKnow.com and they can be located by searching for the title of each request as shown below.
Request of Brian Crockett - “The Public - commisioned [sic] reports”.
This request was mostly refused on the ground, inter alia, of commercial confidentiality, but then SMBC chose to leak some of the withheld information to the local newspaper.
Request of Brian Crockett - “Judgestock”.
SMBC fobbed off this request for details concerning their funding of a music event in August, 2013 with the unlikely statement that full details would be published in July, 2014 with the Council’s annual accounts. Needless to say the details have not been supplied and so I have made a new request - “Sandwell Music Event - August, 2013”.
Request of Darryl Magher - “ “Concordat” Between SMBC and Sandwell College”.
Your office is, in fact seized of this matter (plus the related request to Sandwell College) as Mr Magher has appealed SMBC’s (and the College’s) failure to answer most of his request. The point for present purposes is that this is another example of SMBC purporting to withhold information but then making selective leaks of same to the local newspaper.
Robert Fellows - “Responses to Tom Watson’s questionnaire from groups based at The Public”.
This is an interesting one since SMBC said formally in response to an initial request that a certain cache of documentation was never received whereas local MP and self-styled “truth-campaigner” Tom Watson says that it was definitely submitted to them. Mr Fellows has now had to go back to SMBC with regard to this “anomaly”.
Turning to my own requests:
Julian Saunders - “Terry Duffy House - Rates”.
I made my initial request as long ago as 6th March, 2014. I received an absolutely unequivocal reply. Information was then received that appeared to show that the unambiguous response may not have been correct and so on 24th June, 2014 I requested an internal review. SMBC claim e-mails were not received or somehow “lost” and appear to be treating my request as a whole new application stating that they have until 26th August to reply. This is wholly unsatisfactory in the circumstances of the case.
Julian Saunders - “Land at Florence Road, Smethwick”.
I am prepared to accept that there are some arguable issues concerning certain aspects of this request
but I firstly make the observation that SMBC have not exactly bent over backwards to be straight with me here. I am considering an appeal to you but, for present purposes, one of the main issues here centred on the correct identification of a plot of land. With no explanation whatsoever, I was initially given EIGHT separate Land Registry title numbers for the single plot. It seems that this may be correct but this was perplexing without proper explanation. I have just had the reply to a request for an internal review and I have now been given “incorrect” information as to the location of the plot. I have been told that the plot title was connected to “Lime Grove” whereas I believe that the plot is, in fact, connected to “Poplar Grove”. I do not know whether this apparent error was due to plain incompetence or something more sinister but it does, in my submission, once again demonstrate the slipshod way in which certain requests are dealt with.
Julian Saunders - “Sale of Three Public Conveniences”.
This request was absolutely straightforward. SMBC sold 3 former public conveniences to the same purchaser in 2012. It is obvious that they would hold details of the purchaser but, to date, they have refused to name him. Indeed, two officers of the Council have, in writing, given me false and misleading information for reasons that are yet to be established. Firstly I was told that the sale was to a company which had no legal status. Then I was told that SMBC had negotiated the sale with a company which had been struck off at Companies House nearly three years earlier. All the time the information was readily available to the two officers involved and, indeed, SMBC had entered into a separate legal agreement with the same gentleman in respect of at least two of the properties (seemingly to protect their interests in adjacent properties). Once again, it may be that the release of false and misleading information is down to reckless disregard for the FoI process by two individuals or it may be indicative of something altogether more worrying.
I should add here that, hitherto, SMBC have refused to disclose the sale prices. I have been able to establish these by alternative means in respect of two of the properties but not the third as yet. In the case of the two properties where I have the information both sales were at a very considerable discount to the value stated by an independent valuer. If SMBC will not now make full disclosure forthwith then, inevitably, this matter will also be winging its way to you!
I believe you have the power to investigate these matters with SMBC and take appropriate action. Please do so.
I am sending a copy of this letter to SMBC’s Director of Legal and Governance, Neeraj Sharma.
Yours faithfully,
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - A COMMUNITY BLOG
e thesandwellskidder@gmail.com t @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
Confidentail phone no: 07599 983737
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.