2011 LDL accounts

Dear Liverpool City Council,

According to the accounts filed with Companies House by LDL for
2010/11 :

"The Company incurred management fees of £32,496,000 to BT group
plc during the year ended 31 March 2011."

"The Company recognised revenue of £75,487,000 from LCC"

"The Company also incurred expenses of £40,156,000 to LCC. The
expenditure related to the reimbursement of staff and other costs
incurred by LCC on behalf of the Company".

Q1 : As these accounts show LDL turnover as £75,487,000, this means
that LDL did NO PAID WORK other than that which it sold directly to
LCC. Yet there are persistent reports of LDL working on behalf of
other local authorities, including claims on the LDL website. How
much revenue was collected from authorities other than LCC during
2010/11?

Q2 : What costs were incurred by BT in relation to this contract? I
am attempting to calculate how much of the £32,496,000 paid to BT
was profit, and therefore how much money could have been saved by
the Council had it terminated this contract when it had the chance.

Q3 : LDL is listed by Companies House as a 'non trading company'.
This is clearly an error. Has the Council informed Companies House
of this error? If so, on which date? If not, why not - as a
shareholder in the company, the Council has a legal obligation to
ensure that public accounts are accurate in all particulars.

Yours faithfully,

Jenny Griffin

Dear Jawahier Sharif Ali,

Thanks for the acknowledgment. The response itself is now overdue -
when will you have a response?

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Griffin

Dear Jawahier Sharif Ali,

Sorry to be a bore, but this request is now overdue. As I'm sure
you're aware, the Council is under a legal obligation to respond
within 20 days, and you're now over that time limit.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Griffin

Dear Jawahier Sharif Ali,

As you know, the 20 day limit is not a hint, suggestion, plea,
request or good manners - it's a statutory legal requirement. I
have to say, I'm a tad disappointed that you expect to be 7 working
days late in this case.

If the response is complete, accurate and comprehensive I will,
however, be satisfied.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Griffin

Dear Liverpool City Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Liverpool City
Council's handling of my FOI request '2011 LDL accounts'.

Your response was as follows :

"I refer to your request of 10 October 2011 under the FOIA. You
requested the following:

1. How much revenue was collected from authorities other than LCC
during 2010/11?
2. What costs were incurred by BT in relation to this contract?
3. LDL is listed by Companies House as a 'non trading company'.
This is clearly an error. Has the Council informed Companies House
of this error? If so, on which date? If not, why not - as a
shareholder in the company, the Council has a legal obligation to
ensure that public accounts are accurate in all particulars.

I can confirm the Council does not hold the information you have
requested.

In response to points 1 & 2 the Council does not hold this
information, this information may be held by BT/LDL however as they
are not subject to FOIA there is no requirement for them to provide
this information.

In response to point 3 you have stated that an error has been made
in relation to the recording of LDL being listed as a non trading
company. I would advise that the Council is not obliged to respond
to comments or opinions presented by a requester under FOIA we are
only required to provide information that is held in an electronic,
digital or hard copy format. However in this instance I would
advise that I have passed your comment to LDL for their
consideration as they are responsible for any amendments that may
be required on their Company’s House records.
This concludes our response to your enquiry."

Your assertion that LCC does not hold the information required to
answer Q1 can not be correct. The Joint Venture Agreement with BT
(clause 7.3) clearly states that unaudited accounts will be made
available to all shareholders. LCC is a shareholder. Clauses 16.1
and 16.2 state that ALL third party business must be approved by
LCC, and that the 'economic benefit' must be known to LCC.

With regard to Q3, I can accept that you are not obliged to respond
to any opinions I might express. However, you are obliged to let me
know if you hold a piece of information, and to provide that
information unless excused by a specific exemption. There were 3
pieces of information which this question requested :

- Has the Council informed Companies House of this error?
- If so, on which date?
- If not, why not ?

I believe that the first 2 questions are valid under the terms of
the FOIA, ie they relate to specific information which LCC holds.
You must be able to determine whether the Council has informed
Companies House of this error (even if you prefer not to categorise
it as an error) - the Council must surely maintain a record of its
communications with Companies House.

I would accept that the third question - why not - whilst a
reasonable-enough question, might be one which you would feel
entitled to sidestep.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/20...

Yours faithfully,

Jenny Griffin

Dear Kevin Symm,

I copy your response below, to aid visitors :

"I can confirm that after examining our response I am unable to
conduct an internal review for the following reasons.

In response to questions 1 and 2, the City Council confirmed that
it did not hold the information you requested. In response to
question 3 the Council confirmed that it is not obliged to respond
to comments or opinions presented by a requestor, and that under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we are only required to provide
information that is held in an electronic, digital or hard copy
format.

However, the Council went on to confirm that it had passed your
comments on to Liverpool Direct Limited as it was their
responsibility to inform Companies House of any discrepancies
regarding their public record.

The City Council will carry out internal reviews of decisions made
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 where a decision or
exemption has been applied to the release of information which it
holds.

In this instance the City Council confirmed that it held none of
the information you requested and as a result is unable to carry
out a review of its response.

However, the Council can confirm that it has re-contacted Liverpool
Direct Limited regarding their records displayed by Companies
House, however as identified in our response dated 16 November it
is the responsibility of Liverpool Direct Limited to make any
amendments to the records held at companies House.

As the Council has now re-confirmed and clarified its involvement
in relation to revenue collected by Liverpool Direct Limited from
other Local Authorities in 2011/11, and costs incurred by British
Telecom in relation to this, we may consider any further requests
from you relating to this matter as vexatious as outlined in
Section 14 of Freedom of Information Act 2000

As I have now reviewed your original response, you have exhausted
the Council’s appeals process for the purposes of this request.
Accordingly, should you remain dissatisfied, please contact The
Information Commissioner’s Office"

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Griffin

Dear Mr Symm,

At the risk of being considered 'vexatious', I feel compelled to
point out that the Council clearly does hold some of the
information requested - the most obvious example being contained in
Q3 of my original question and highlighted for you in the request
for internal review - the Council must know whether or not it
comunicated with LDL on a particular topic.

Your assertion that LCC does not hold any information on LDL's
accounts is interesting, as LCC is a joint owner of the company and
therefore has a legal obligation with regard to this information.

Nevertheless, thank you for your time on this matter, and have a
nice Christmas.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Griffin