Triannual review

Dear Sir or Madam,

In response to an Freedom of Information request the chair of the
Commission for Local Administration in England identifies that the
Secretary of State and their Department identified to them that
they had no need to observe statute:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/20...

Please provide a copy of the written authorisation and/or the
associated file note authorising the LGO to not observe statute and
any associated documentation.

The Secretary of State and their department was aware that there
was considerable consumer concern at the performance of the LGO,
rejection of LGO reports and recommendations by Council's, and acts
of perversity by Council's (and their Chief Executives). The
secretary of state and their department will have further been
aware that the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments
would have identified that appointment of another former CEO of a
Council to a position of LGO was unwise.

The Secretary of State by not requiring these issues to be reported
in the triannnual review, and consulted on with consumers failed to
ensure that they were aware of the actual situation with the LGO's.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Vanita Patel,

I am very confused. I have just received a reply to another request
to DCLG on about the same question - and they identify that the
Ombudsmen and their Deputies are authorised. This follows
correspondence with the Ministry of Justice (successor to Dept of
Constitutional Affairs).

'In considering these issues I have reviewed correspondence between
internal CLG colleagues, Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and discussed a
history of events with colleagues involved in this case. Having
assessed this information it is clear that the bulk of the delay in
responding to your request was largely owing to a) establishing
clarity about whether an email from the then ODPM Minister
constituted a decision of authorisation b) agreeing the revised
policy with MOJ regarding the number of qualified persons and the
application of Section 36. Additional complexities included a
change in MOJ policy from 2004 and a business case from the Local
Government Ombudsman (LGO) to increase the number of qualified
persons i.e. all commissioners and their deputies.'

The information is here;

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

Could you identify which part of DCLG's understanding is correct?

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Vanita Patel,

I think I understand what has happened you replied to the wrong FOI
request. The request that this was concerned about was the failure
of the CLAE to produce a 2006 Triennial Review. It would appear
that they have also failed to produce a 2009 review as required by
s23(12) of the Local Government Act 1974.

This request actually relates to permission being granted by the
Minister to the CLAE to break statute and not produce a 2006 and
2009 Triennial Review.

There appear to have been a very large number of breaches of the
CLAE's governing documents by the Ombudsmen.. so I would anticipate
that these issues are covered in the 2009 triennial review.. this
includes a Crinkley Bottom in Lancaster.. it is all quite nicely
reported in the CLAE minutes.

Could you provide the information requested... and/or any
documentation that you hold related to the CLAE's decision to
breach statute and not produce a 2006 and 2009 triennial review.
Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

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 Department for
Communities and Local Government's handling of my FOI request
'Triannual review'.

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

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear CLG-FOIAdvice,

F0002798
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tr...

Sir / madam

The original request and FOO number is above. I received a letter
from DCLG dated 18 December 2008 identifying that there was no
documentation held granting permission to the CLAE to breach
statute and not produce a 2006 triennial review as required by the
Local Government Act 1974.

As the DCLG subsequently oversaw the presentation of the Public
Involvement in Health Act 2007, and this included substantial
changes to the Local Government Act 1974 the response is not
believed. The changes to the legislation governing the work of the
CLAE and LGO were introduced without consultation, and failed to
take account of failures with the service. This was extensively
identified through a MORI survey commissioned by the CLAE. There
has additionally been changes to documents made supplied to the
Audit Commission by the CLAE to downplay levels of wrong doing by
Councils, and there appear to have been substantial failures by
s151 Officers of Council's to disclose to District Auditors as
required by the CIPFA Code of Conduct failures of Council's to take
any notice of Ombudsman recommendations. Needless to say the Chief
Executive of the CLAE is also a Council Member of CIPFA.

The only way in which CLG should have been able to make any
proposals for the changes introduced introduced in the Public
Involvement in Health Act was through reference to the 2006
triennial review the CLAE is required to produce under statute.

There are issues with the FOO numbers as the CLG have been
responding to different ones

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS