10 January 2011

Dear Ms Oliver

I am writing to you in response to the various communications you have sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government concerning Stockport Borough Council and the information you say you have provided on these matters to either Eric Pickles or Andrew Stunell.

I am sorry that you have had to wait for a reply, but it was necessary to first establish what communications this Department had received and, consequently, what action had been taken as a result.

I can confirm that this Department has received from you the communications which you have posted on the “whatdotheyknow.com” website and which can be found at the following links:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/details_sent_to_junior_minister

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/action_taken_by_eric_pickles

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/waste_of_public_money

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_will_you_do_about_councils

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/armchair_auditors_who_are_they_s

I can also confirm that the Department received from you three letters dated 6 June, 7 June and 13 June 2010 which you addressed to the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles.

We have carried out searches of our records and, to the best of our knowledge, the Department has received no other communications from you on these matters.

The Department has taken the following action on those communications that it has received.

Your request of 14 August 2010 (at the last of the five web links above), on the subject of armchair auditors, was considered by the Department under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 and a response was issued on 14 September 2010. You commented back on that response to Mel Lea who dealt with your request, but you did not seek a review of the Department's handling of or response to your request which is now therefore closed.

The Department acknowledges that the other communications you have posted on the “whatdotheyknow.com” web-site include three separate occasions where you have asked for information from the Department as evidence of any action taken on the information you had sent to Eric Pickles and Andrew Stunell.

The Department has considered these as formal requests for information under the FOI Act. Having carried out checks to see what information this Department has received, we have been unable to confirm that the information you say you have provided to Eric Pickles and Andrew Stunell was received by this Department.

I should perhaps explain, the right of access under the FOI Act applies to information held by the Department and in connection with Departmental business. If you sent any information to Eric Pickles' or Andrew Stunell's parliamentary constituency offices, which was not considered by those offices to be relevant to their Ministerial responsibilities, then it would not have been forwarded on to this Department for attention.

As the Department does indeed not appear to have received the information you sent to Eric Pickles or Andrew Stunell, I'm afraid the only response we can give to your requests for information at this time is that no action has been taken and the information you requested is therefore not held.

As an organisation we aim to be as helpful as possible in the way we deal with requests for information under the FOI Act. If, however, you are not satisfied with the way in which your request has been handled or the outcome, you may request an internal review within two calendar months of the date of this letter. Information about the Department's review procedures and how to apply for an internal review of your case can be found on the Department's website at http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/foi/foicomplaints/. This also explains your right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision in the event that you remain dissatisfied following the Department's review.

Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the internal review procedure provided by this Department. The Information Commissioner`s address is in the leaflet referred to above.

Turning to your three communications of June 2010 addressed to the Secretary of State, I have been able to confirm that the Department did receive those communications. The one dated 7 June was at the time considered to be more a matter for the Department for Education and was passed to that Department to consider, although we have subsequently ascertained that a response was not issued. Your communications dated 6 and 13 June were to be referred to the Government Office for the North West (GONW), for which this Department has responsibility, to consider. Unfortunately, due to errors in communicating your letters to the GONW no subsequent action was taken.

It is of course unacceptable that you have received no reply from the Department to these three letters and I can only apologise for that. Those letters will now again be referred to the GONW for consideration and you can expect to receive a considered reply from that office shortly.

I realise that this letter will not provide you the kind of substantive reply that you will find useful and helpful in connection with the matters you have raised and which are of concern to you. I am also sorry that you have had to wait until now for a response from us. Whilst under the FOI Act we can do no more than provide a nil response to your three requests for information on action taken by this Department, I will now arrange for the GONW to consider the other points you have raised in your communications and to provide you with responses on those matters.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in the meantime.

Yours sincerely

Martin Harding