Award of supply of legal services

Dear University of Salford,

The manner (i.e. date and organ of publication (whether print
media, internet, or another medium)) in which the University
advertised any requirement for legal services in respect of which
Heatons LLP were ultimately instructed by the University in the
current financial year and the previous two financial years.

Yours faithfully,

Eric Longley

Dear Sirs

Further to your communication dated 12 January 2011,
I formally request an internal review of your handling of my FOI
request.

The grounds for this request for an internal review are:

1) Your response of January 12 does not constitute a
valid refusal notice; and

2) Your apparent decision to classify my request as vexatious.

In support of this request for an internal review, I make
the following observations (taking each of the above grounds
seriatim):

1)Lack of Valid Refusal Notice

You are (or should be) aware that section 17 of the FOIA contains
certain requirements as to the form of any refusal notice, these
requirements are further supplemented by ICO guidance.

Your communication of January 12, 2011 does not constitute a valid
refusal notice for the following main reasons:

a) it does not specify that it is a refusal notice;

b) it does not specify with sufficient precision the disclosure
exemption that is being relied upon;

c) it does not state with sufficient detail or clarity why the
relevant disclosure exemption is believed to apply;

d) it does not provide either details of your complaint handling
procedure or state that you do not have such a procedure; and

e) it does not make reference to my rights under section 50 of the
FOIA.

2) Classification of Request as Vexatious

As mentioned above, there is a lack of any detail in support
of your classification of my request as vexatious.

a) I am not required to divulge my reasons for making my request
but information obtained through other sources suggests that
there are questions to be answered regarding the conduct by the
University in relation to the award of contracts of services. I am
unable to trace any public notice regarding the appointment of
Heatons nor of the tender from which it might have secured a
contract for services to be supplied to the University. I merely
seek to know how this appointment for the use of public money for
services to the University has been made. I would have thought that
this is exactly the sort of question the University Audit Committee
themselves would seek to have answered? There should be no problem
in the University disclosing how the appointment was made. That the
fact that you do not like the idea
of the requested information being made public does not by itself
permit you to classify the request as vexatious - embarrassment
does not equate to vexation.

b) Given the lack of any rationale for classifying my request as
vexatious, it seems appropriate to also examine and rebut any other
possible grounds you could have for that classification. I refer
here to the ICO's guidance on this matter (which, in respect of the
grounds examined below, says: "To judge a request vexatious, you
should usually be able to make relatively strong arguments under
more than one of these headings").

i) Context and History of Request
This request has no history beyond the request
itself and any associated correspondence between us. I have dealt
with
aspects of the context above, and would challenge you to identify
any aspects of the context of this request that truly have a
bearing on whether or not it is vexatious. I would also quote the
ICO guidance under this heading which reads: "You should not use
section 14 to avoid awkward questions that have not yet been
resolved satisfactorily" - my request must be considered in its own
light.

ii) Can the Request Fairly be Seen as Obsessive?
The ICO guidance states: "it is unlikely that a
one-off request could ever be obsessive". This is not a one-off
request but I have only entered I think five or 6 requests for
information to the University far below the volume of
communications that has previously been held to be evidence of
obsession.

iii) Is the Request Harassing the Authority or Causing Distress to
Staff?
All of my communications have been polite.

iv) Would Complying with the Request Impose a Significant Burden?
You have not given any indication whatsoever that this is the case,
and I would find any attempt to run this argument laughable. The
information requested should be kept by the University in any case
as a matter of good governance.

v) Is the Request Designed to Cause Disruption or Annoyance?
The burden of proof lies with you on this point (as, indeed, it
does for all of the other possible grounds), but I have in any case
set out above the reasons for my request. It is not my intention to
cause disruption or annoyance but to establish the facts regarding
governance at the University.

vi) Does the Request Lack ANY Serious Purpose or Value?
I have dealt with this point in more detail above. I wish only to
add that the emphasis in the heading above is deliberate - you
would have to show that my request has NO serious purpose or value
whatsoever.

In short, I cannot see how any rational person could apply the
ICO's guidance to my request and conclude that it is vexatious. If
you think I am wrong, you are REQUIRED BY LAW to explain why.

Turning to more general matters, I would remind you of your
obligations in respect of the conduct of internal reviews. In
particular, I will expect your substantive response to this request
to provide:
- details of the steps taken to ensure impartiality;
- details of the person(s) undertaking the review and that they are
either
more senior than the person who considered my original request or
otherwise a different individual with appropriate training and
knowledge;
- details of the involvement of all staff involved in the review
process (even if only by way of keeping them informed)
- your response to each of the grounds for my request for an
internal review; and
- a full rationale for the outcome of your review in respect of
each of those grounds.

I have taken the time and trouble to provide you with
full information in support of this request, and I believe I have
the right to expect that you will do me the courtesy of devoting a
proportionate amount of time and trouble to a fully considered
response.

Yours sincerely,

Eric Longley

Dear Foi,
Dear Sirs,

I wish to complain that the University of Salford (UoS) have
unreasonably and illegally refused my request for information and
my request to conduct an internal review under the Freedom of
Information Act.

The UoS were asked to review their original decision and they
declined to do so upholding their original decision. The grounds
for their decision and my response is as follows using the same
numbering as the UoS;

3) The UoS rely on a blanket 'vexatious' defence in order not to
provide the information and as a reason for not detailing the
reasons for their refusal. I contend that even where a request is
vexatious, and mine are not, the UoS is under an obligation to say
why the request is vexatious. It is simply not good enough for the
UoS to brand any request it dislikes as vexatious without saying
why that request is vexatious. I should add that where a request is
part of a campaign that by itself does not constitute
vexatiousness.

4) The UoS introduce at this juncture the notion that my request is
a part of a campaign and that as part of a campaign no individual
review will be carried out. This is in contravention to the
requirements of the Act which do not provide for an exemption where
a campaign of any sort is being mounted.

Secondly the idea that a campaign negates a FOIA request is not
founded in statute or case law. If there were a campaign to expose
the fraudulent activities of an organisation (I do not suggest that
this is the case here at all) would that negate a request for
information under the FOIA? Whether there is a campaign is entirely
irrelevant to the vexatiousness of a request. What matters is
whether the request is vexatious not whether it forms part of a
wider campaign or not. There is ample evidence of FOIA requests
forming part of a campaign and these requests have not been denied
by either the institution concerned or the ICO on the basis of
being part of a campaign. The logical corollary of the UoS position
is that any request can be denied on the basis of it being part of
a campaign.

Let me be clear I believe that campaigners have the right to
request and receive information under the FOIA and that the request
being part of a campaign does not undermine the legitimacy of the
request. For the sake of clarity my requests are all personally
made, have not been co-ordinated or linked to any other requests
and I am not part of any campaign with regard to other requests.

Other paragraphs.
You will note that the UoS treat my request as linked to
approximately 120 other requests. This is both untrue and
irrelevant. What matters is whether the request itself is
vexatious. I am not clear as to why the UoS should link my requests
to Dr Gary Duke? I have acted as a representative for Dr Duke in
legal proceedings but this does not preclude my entering FOIA
requests on my own volition. Where a lawyer or representative acts
for someone does that preclude them for making requests under the
FOIA? Of course not, there is no prohibition that states
association with someone else bars an individual from making a
requests. The requests I have made are all linked to a meeting I
had with UoS officers who bullied and then lied about the bullying
in a written statement (the University's lawyers do not dissent
from this - difficult for them to do so when the recorded evidence
has been made available to the UoS). My requests have all centred
around information held by the UoS in respect of bullying by
management. There have been several reports, The Gus John Report,
The Gem Report and recently the TCM report all commissioned by the
UoS that refer to the perceived culture of bullying by management
at the UoS. I have requested certain factual information relating
to reported incidents - something the UoS will have kept as part of
its management reporting system.

The UoS state that "the five request you submitted are vexatious
and should be seen in the context of the use of FOIA request as
part of a campaign designed to cause harassment and distress to
staff." First the allegation of vexatiousness is an assertion and
not argument backed by factual evidence. Secondly whether or not it
is part of a campaign is irrelevant, as it happens my requests all
focus on an issue that is personal to me and not related to any
other campaigns. I refute that my requests are part of a campaign,
if they were why are they only concerned with issues related
directly to my own experience at the UoS?

It is an odious canard to suggest that by implication I am alleging
that the staff are guilty of a range of unacceptable behaviours
whether corruption or bullying or ignoring legal responsibililtes.
My requests are for information not an attempt to try or judge any
behaviour in the UoS management. May I remind the ICO that the UoS
do not deny, through their lawyers, that a Dean of Faculty bullied
me then lied about it in a written statement. As a consequence,
based on the Deans statement, the Registrar made defamatory
comments about me . I do not seek any justice from the ICO merely
information regarding reported statistics. I should add that I have
taken up the matter of bullying with the UoS Council which is the
proper body to deal with the issue pending any further civil
litigation, I have therefore no need to involve the ICO in this
matter. I seek to involve the ICO only in my request for
information.

It is difficult to see how providing the information requested can
intimidate and harass staff? The reason the UoS make this
allegation is, in my opinion, that the information requested may
embarrass the UoS. It is not a defence to allege that providing the
information requested will embarrass staff. If this were a
reasonable defence there would be little or no information
available under the FOIA.

It is a vile form of McCarthyism for the UoS to suggest that I am
'in line with the pattern of requests in this campaign and various
other attacks on staff via an anonymous website.' There is no
evidence presented at all that I have attacked staff or that I have
contributed to an anonymous website. Here the UoS seek to smear me
without providing any factual basis for their allegations - apart
from any defamatory issues the use of McCarthyist smear tactics is
deplorable from an institute of higher learning. In any event it is
clear to a reasonable person that my requests do not fall withing
the somewhat extreme vituperative denunciations provided by the
UoS.

The UoS have made a series of allegations not least that "it will
not accept the use of FOIA to intimidate and harass staff." This is
a nonsense response. There is no intention to intimidate or harass
but merely to extract information on a matter of grave public
concern. Information about bullying is a serious matter. It cannot
be hidden from public scrutiny merely because the UoS says it will
intimidate and harass staff. What is the evidence for this
allegation? How will the disclosure of this information intimidate
and harass staff? A moments consideration discloses that the only
beneficiary of the non disclosure of this information will be the
continued perception of bullying at the UoS. Disclosure on the
other hand can serve to puncture that perception. It is difficult
to see why the UoS should refuse to provide information that
potentially has the capacity to help it dispel the perception
(noted in the Reports it has commissioned) of a culture of
management bullying.

In the case of this particular request I have sought information
regarding the awarding of a contract for services to a firm of
lawyers. The Chair of the UoS Audit committee works for the firm of
lawyers. I make no allegations of any sort of any impropriety but I
believe it is reasonable to ask how the legal firm were awarded the
contract for services. The award is for payment of public moneys
and as such the UoS is properly accountable not only for how the
money is spent but how any contract for the award of the work is
made.

I would respectfully ask the ICO to uphold my complaint. In the
event the ICO require further information I would be happy to
oblige. I expect the ICO to test all information received and not
to accept assertions and allegations as though they were fact.
Neither do I expect the ICO to correspond with or meet with the UoS
without notifying me of the correspondence and/or meeting so that I
may have opportunity to rebut any further misleading vituperation's
from the UoS. I expect the ICO to act responsibly, ethically and
openly as I am sure you will do.

I look forward to your early upholding of my complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Eric Longley

Yours sincerely,

Eric Longley