Follow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Costs of Equestrian Events Greenwich Park
To Olympic Delivery Authority by John Bettelley 7 February 2009
Shooting sports legacy
To Olympic Delivery Authority by Neil Burrows 25 August 2008
construction waste disposed of to Calvert landfill
To Olympic Delivery Authority by gamesmonitor.org 30 November 2008
Noise pollution monitor data from London Olympic site
To Olympic Delivery Authority by Sóna Abantu-Choudhury 14 July 2008
Sustainable Food Strategy
To Olympic Delivery Authority by Sam Urquhart 7 January 2009
London 2012 Olympic Community Liaison team doing its job?
To Olympic Delivery Authority by Sóna Abantu-Choudhury 9 November 2008
Olympic REAP Grants to Surrounding Communities
To Olympic Delivery Authority by Sóna Abantu-Choudhury 9 November 2008
Information on the Olympics
To Olympic Delivery Authority by Simon Wright 16 October 2008
Legal actions threatened by ODA legal team
To Olympic Delivery Authority by Heather Brooke 11 May 2009
KPMG Study
John Bettelley made this Freedom of Information request to Olympic Delivery Authority
The request was partially successful.
From: John Bettelley
7 October 2008
Dear Sir or Madam,
Could you please let me know what are the terms of reference for
the KPMG study on the Olympic venues, and when you expect the study
report to be in.
Yours faithfully,
John Bettelley
From: Information Officer
Olympic Delivery Authority
8 October 2008
Dear Mr Bettelley,
Thank you for your request for information. Your request has been logged
and has been allocated for a response to be prepared. We aim to respond
to all requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 within 20
business days from the date of receipt, however if we are unable to
respond within that period or if we require clarification we will make
contact with you.
For all future contact with us in respect of this enquiry, please quote
the following reference number EN00207.
Yours sincerely
Penelope Jarvis
Information Law Compliance Manager
Legal Department
Olympic Delivery Authority
Mailpoint: 5A,
23rd Floor,
One Churchill Place,
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5LN
Switchboard: +44 (0) 203 2012 000
Fax: +44 (0) 203 2012 001
[1]www.london2012.com
Find out what is going on at London 2012 HQ -
[2]http://blog.london2012.com
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.london2012.com/
http://www.london2012.com/
2. http://blog.london2012.com/
http://blog.london2012.com/
3. http://www.london2012.com/
From: Information Officer
Olympic Delivery Authority
4 November 2008
Dear Mr Bettelley
Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, please find attached our response to your request.
Should you have any difficulty in opening the attachment, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Penelope Jarvis
Information Law Compliance Manager
Legal Department
Olympic Delivery Authority
Mailpoint: 5A,
23rd Floor,
One Churchill Place,
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5LN
Switchboard: +44 (0) 203 2012 000
Fax: +44 (0) 203 2012 001
[1]www.london2012.com
Find out what is going on at London 2012 HQ -
[2]http://blog.london2012.com
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.london2012.com/
http://www.london2012.com/
2. http://blog.london2012.com/
http://blog.london2012.com/
3. http://www.london2012.com/
From: John Bettelley
16 November 2008
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Olympic Delivery
Authority's handling of my FOI request 'KPMG Study'.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/kp...
I understand from the “whatdotheyknow” website that if I am not
happy with the response to my FOI enquiry, I am entitled to request
an “internal review”. The following are the reasons for my request:
1. Given that “the ODA understands the importance of acting in an
open and transparent manner, etc etc”, it is most disappointing
that this quite straightforward enquiry under the Freedom of
Information Act took up until 17.45 on the 20th day following the
initial email – the last possible moment permitted under the rules.
I know that everyone is very busy, but there seems to be nothing in
this response which could not have been put together within, say, 5
days. It is hard to avoid the impression of cynicism by the ODA in
its treatment of these questions.
2. It is wholly unsatisfactory for you to tell me that “the full
terms of reference ….held by the ODA on explicit and/or implicit
terms that make it subject to a duty of confidence” without
disclosing at least:
• which third party or parties would be thus exposed?
• what kind of information is it which, if disclosed, (and given
the fairly straightforward context of this enquiry) would give rise
to legal action?
It is clear that we are not talking about a commercial contract
which, if the detailed terms were disclosed, would give valuable
information to a rival. What, in simple terms, are we talking
about?
It is not credible that the whole of the information processed by
the ODA in formulating instructions to KPMG was obtained from
outside the ODA, and therefore that any of that information would
“constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other
person”.
3. You say that KPMG was “instructed by the ODA with input from
DCMS to assist in the evaluation of the options analysis for” the 4
venues, and the review of the ODA value engineering study. These
instructions and the DCMS input clearly formed a substantial part
of the terms of reference given to KPMG, and fall well within my
request for disclosure, and I request that you spell out what they
are.
4. In your following paragraph, KPMG “conducted interviews with key
stakeholders”: it is important to know to which stakeholders they
were directed. Similarly, “ KPMG was also provided with additional
information in relation to” the 4 venues and the options analysis “
in order to assess the project status, potential alternatives and
reasons for discounting alternative possible venues”. What was this
information?
In summary:
• I cannot accept that all of the information requested is covered
by Section 41
• There is manifestly a public interest argument covering this
information, and it is difficult to see without further explanation
why disclosure would constitute a breach of confidence.
• I contend that the ODA has not fulfilled its obligations under
the Freedom of Information Act, and I request a prompt Internal
Review as allowed under the Act.
Yours sincerely
John R Bettelley
From: Information Officer
Olympic Delivery Authority
17 November 2008
Dear Mr Bettelley
We have received your request for an internal review of FOI request
EN00207 in respect of access to the KPMG Terms of Reference. Your request
has been logged and has been referred to an appropriate person in the ODA
for consideration. Although there are no statutory time periods for the
resolution of internal reviews, we aim to respond to all reviews within 20
business days, however if we are unable to respond within that period we
will make contact with you.
For all future contact with us in respect of this enquiry, please quote
the following reference number APP0013.
In addition, we note that your request for an internal review contains
what we consider to be a new request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). Specifically, your point 4 requests:
a) The names of the stakeholders KPMG were directed to in relation
to the interviews which KPMG carried out; and
b) What additional information which KPMG was provided in order to
carry out its obligations.
These two new requests for information have been logged and allocated for
a response to be prepared. As you know we aim to respond to all requests
for information within 20 business days from the date of receipt. However,
if we are unable to respond within that period, or require further
clarification we will contact you.
The new FOIA request has been allocated the following reference number -
EN00224. We would be grateful if you would refer to this reference number
in all correspondence regarding this request for new information.
Yours sincerely
Penelope Jarvis
Information Law Compliance Manager
Legal Department
www.london2012.com
Find out what is going on at London 2012 HQ - http://blog.london2012.com
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
show quoted sections
From: Information Officer
Olympic Delivery Authority
12 December 2008
Dear Mr Bettelley
Further to your request for an appeal in respect of your Freedom of
Information request EN00207, please find attached correspondence for your
attention.
If you have any difficulties in opening the attachment, please to not
hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Penelope Jarvis
Information Law Compliance Manager
Legal Department
Olympic Delivery Authority
Mailpoint: 5A,
23rd Floor,
One Churchill Place,
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5LN
Switchboard: +44 (0) 203 2012 000
Fax: +44 (0) 203 2012 001
[1]www.london2012.com
Find out what is going on at London 2012 HQ -
[2]http://blog.london2012.com
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.london2012.com/
http://www.london2012.com/
2. http://blog.london2012.com/
http://blog.london2012.com/
3. http://www.london2012.com/
From: Information Officer
Olympic Delivery Authority
12 December 2008
Dear Mr Bettelley
Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, please find attached our response to your request.
Should you have any difficulty in opening the attachment, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Penelope Jarvis
Information Law Compliance Manager
Legal Department
Olympic Delivery Authority
Mailpoint: 5A,
23rd Floor,
One Churchill Place,
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5LN
Switchboard: +44 (0) 203 2012 000
Fax: +44 (0) 203 2012 001
[1]www.london2012.com
Find out what is going on at London 2012 HQ -
[2]http://blog.london2012.com
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.london2012.com/
http://www.london2012.com/
2. http://blog.london2012.com/
http://blog.london2012.com/
3. http://www.london2012.com/
From: John Bettelley
8 January 2009
Dear Information Officer,
Re your response to me on 17th November, reference APP0013.
I calculate that the 20 days for answering the 2 additional
questions was up on the 12th December. Is there any reason for the
delay that you want to tell me about?
Yours sincerely,
John Bettelley
From: Information Officer
Olympic Delivery Authority
12 January 2009
Dear Mr Bettelley
The ODA responded to your review of FOIA request EN00207 on 12 December
2008(APP0013).
You will be aware that the ODA split your request for a review, as we
noted that within your request for a review you had subsequently
requested new information. As such we logged your new request as
EN00224. We responded to this new request on 12 December 2008, in
accordance with our obligations under the FOIA.
We have reviewed the content on the "What do they know" website, and
note that both the ODA's internal review response and the response to
the new FOIA request are both posted on the website.
As such the ODA has closed this matter. However, should you not be
satisfied with the ODA's response to the request EN00224, you may
request an internal review of the matter by writing to The Information
Officer, Olympic Delivery Authority, One Churchill Place, Canary Wharf,
London, E14 5LN, or by sending an e-mail to
[1][ODA request email]. Please state detailed grounds for
your complaint.
Yours sincerely
Penelope Jarvis
Information Law Compliance Manager
Legal Department
[2]www.london2012.com
Find out what is going on at London 2012 HQ -
[3]http://blog.london2012.com
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
show quoted sections
From: John Bettelley
22 January 2009
Dear Ms Jarvis,
Thank you very much for your reply to my request for a response to
my earlier request for information.
I owe you an apology, because you did indeed reply on December 12th
(once again, 20 days to the minute). I was travelling in the United
States through all of December into January, and had only spasmodic
and sometimes unreliable Email communications.
I’d like to just comment briefly on the response. To declare my
interest, I am part of a group of people in the Greenwich area who
are opposed to the use of Greenwich Park for the Olympic equestrian
events. We are very positive about the Olympic Games, just very
protective of a significant local, national and World Heritage
site. I was attempting to find out what studies were being done to
evaluate a) how realistic it is to put these events in the Park,
and the financial, environmental, and social implications of doing
so, and b) what, if any, alternatives were being looked at.
We approached LOCOG for information, with no success whatsoever.
And, for some reason, they are not subject to the FOI act. Then the
KPMG study was announced; although they pleaded confidentiality for
some months, we felt that it would be helpful to ask the ODA for
details of what they were asked to evaluate. That was my first
request to you; your response to that was so unhelpful that I asked
for an internal review, which resulted in your head of legal
deciding that you could not hide the KPMF terms of reference under
a label of ‘confidentiality’.
I was duly provided with the ‘Scope of Work' document. This merely
served to emphasise the paucity of input and background, and the
lack of specifics from ODA and LOCOG, that it was not in the
slightest way surprising that when the KPMG report was published –
to much damning press and public comment – with soviet-style
redactions, that it had so many caveats as to its unsuitability for
basing any decisions or informing actions etc. If not so serious,
it would be totally laughable.
As an exercise in openness in administration, my small effort here
has been a real eye-opener. I would commend you and your management
to read (again?) the Nolan Principles of public life, in particular
those dealing with objectivity, accountability, and openness.
And I found today a quote from Obama’s inaugural speech yesterday,
which gets close to it: “And those of us who manage the public’s
dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad
habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then
can we restore the vital trust between a people and their
government.”
I would, of course, hope that you could pass on my comments to
senior managers in the ODA.
Yours sincerely,
John Bettelley
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Make and explore Freedom of Information requests





