Use of Halliwells LLP

The request was successful.

Dear University of Salford,

I wish to request (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act) details of the following:

1) the amount of money paid to Halliwells LLP by the University in legal fees in the current financial year (to date) and the previous two financial years;

2) if recorded separately to the above, the amount of money paid to Halliwells LLP by the University in disbursements in the current financial year (to date) and the previous two financial years; and

3) 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 Halliwells LLP were ultimately instructed by the University in the current financial year and the previous two financial years.

Thank you in advance for your response.

Yours faithfully,

Al Goodwin

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

Doesn't look like you're going to even get an acknowledgement!

Dear University of Salford,

I would respectfully remind you that your response to my request of 15 September 2010 in respect of the University's use of Halliwells LLP is, by law, due by no later than today.

If you will not be able to meet this statutory deadline, please would you inform me of this (together with the legal basis on which you are relying for a deadline extension) and let me know when I can expect a substantive response?

I look forward to hearing from you accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

Al Goodwin

Dear University of Salford,

I refer to my original FOI request dated 15 September 2010 and a reminder that I sent on 13 October 2010.

You will doubtless be aware that you are, by law, required to respond to FOI requests promptly and, in this case, in any event by no later than 13 October 2010. To date you have not even acknowledged my request.

As I would rather receive the requested information than require you to conduct an internal review, please respond by return to this communication, informing me when I can expect to receive a substantive response to my original request. I do appreciate that responding to FOI requests can take time, but your continued absolute silence does you no credit, and is trying my patience.

Yours faithfully,

Al Goodwin

Foi, University of Salford

Dear Mr Goodwin,

Apologies, your request was accidentally overlooked, I will endeavour to provide you with the information requested as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely
Matthew Stephenson

Matthew Stephenson
Head of Information Governance

Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
University of Salford
Salford, M5 4WT.

T: 0161 295 6856
F: 0161 295 3442

[email address]
www.infogov.salford.ac.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Thank you for your response and apology. I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Al Goodwin

Dear Mr Stephenson,

I refer to our exchange of messages on 18 October 2010, in which you acknowledged my original FOI request dated 15 September 2010, apologised for the oversight that had led to the statutory timescale for a response being exceeded, and promised to endeavour to provide the requested information as soon as possible.

As a week has now passed since that exchange (and since we are, as previously noted, now past the date by which a substantive response should, by law, have been provided), could I please ask for an update as to your progress, together with a firm date by which I should expect a substantive request?

Many thanks,

Al Goodwin

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Apologies - by "substantive request" in the last line of my previous message, I obviously meant "substantive response".

Yours faithfully,

Al Goodwin

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

It might be instructive for you to also submit a request about the use of Heatons LLP, since Halliwells' former Managing Partner has migrated over there after the latter's collapse earlier this year and has taken at least one very high profile case with him (which he is now handling himself).

This is of particular interest because, if the University have actually instructed Austin to pursue this case, then even under the new University Statutes (i.e. constitution) this would have to have been approved by University Council in order to be lawful.

The court papers I set sight on yesterday were stamped for 24th August, so unless University Council actually approved Austin being instructed at their previous meeting (unlikely in my opinion), there is possibly foul play at work here.

Foi, University of Salford

Dear Mr Goodwin,

I apologise for the delay.

The information requested and the context in which your request has been made, i.e. via a website which has over the past year intensively bombarded the University with requests, leads us to believe that your request is vexatious. Consequently your request will not be dealt with until such time as the Information Commissioner has issued a decision notice relating to similar requests which have been made over the past year.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Stephenson
Head of Information Governance

Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
University of Salford
Salford, M5 4WT.

T: 0161 295 6856
F: 0161 295 3442

[email address]
www.infogov.salford.ac.uk

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

Shocker!

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Further to your communication dated 26 October 2010, I regret that I must now request an internal review of your handling of my FOI request.

The grounds for this request for an internal review are as follows:

1) your failure to respond within stautory timescales;

2) the fact that your response of 26 October does not constitute a valid refusal notice; and

3) your apparent decision to classify my request as vexatious.

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

1) Failure to Respond Within Statutory Timescales

In your communication of 18 December (replying to a second chasing communication from me) you cited the fact that my original request had been "accidentally overlooked" as the cause for your delayed response. I do not consider this to be acceptable, and administrative incompetence is certainly not one of the "exceptional" grounds on which an extension to the 20 working days limit may be based. I therefore request a review of the systemic shortcomings that allow such an accidental oversight to happen, thus placing the University in breach of its statutory obligations.

Under this heading you should also consider the points made below in respect of the lack of any valid refusal notice, in that refusal notices are also subject to statutory response times, and as yet you have not provided one (i.e. your breach of the statutory timescales is continuing for as long as you fail to either respond substantively or issue a valid refusal notice).

2) 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 (and that these requirements are further supplemented by ICO guidance).

Your communication of 26 October 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 either provide 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.

In addition, you state that my request "will not be dealt with until such time as the Information Commissioner has issued a decision notice relating to similar requests that have been made over the past year". The law recognises no such option - you must, by law, either provide the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice (in both cases within the relevant statutory timescales, which you have also failed to do) - there is no option of "we will make up our minds later, when [x] happens". You are therefore unquestionably acting ultra vires when giving the response you have given, which may itself be grounds for legal action outside the constraints of the FOIA.

I would also mention that I refute your assertion that the Information Commissioner is considering requests that are "similar" to mine. Whilst there may, of course, be referrals to the Information Commissioner of which I am unaware, the requests that I know to be under consideration by the Information Commissioner are not "similar" in their subject matter to mine. Indeed, the only similarities between such other requests and my request seem to be that you are purporting to refuse to disclose the requested information on grounds of vexatiousness, and that they were submitted through the same medium (more on which below).

3) Classification of Request as Vexatious

As mentioned above, there is a troubling lack of detail in support of your classiciation of my request as vexatious. You do, however, mention that your decision is founded on:

a) the subject matter of my request; and

b) the fact that my request was submitted via the WhatDoTheyKnow website (which has been the medium used for a large number of other requests).

Taking each of these supposed reasons in turn:

a) I am not sure how an information request about the University's expenditure with a particular legal services provider, together with details of how the relevant opportunities to act for the University were advertised, could by its nature be considered "vexatious". Although you do not state this, I can only imagine that it could be that you are thinking of the test for vexatiousness relating to a request having NO serious purpose or value. I would first of all remind you that the ICO has said that this, by itself, is insufficient for a request to be considered vexatious. More importantly, I fail to see how you can rationally have come to this conclusion in respect of this request. I am not required to divulge my reasons for making my request, but it may be of relevance to your thinking that I am a qualified solicitor with a professional and personal interest in both information transparency and compliance with procurement legislation, and the information was requested with that in mind. I can also say that information I have obtained through other sources suggests that there are questions to be answered regarding the way in which Halliwells LLP has previously been instructed by the University. The well-publicised demise of Halliwells LLP makes any such questions more pertinent, and more valuable as a teaching tool in the training sessions I give as part of my job. This is perhaps a good time to remind you 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) The fact that my request was submitted via the WhatDoTheyKnow website is an irrelevance that should not have informed your decision in any way. The search term "freedom of information" entered into Google yields that website as the first hit, which is probably both symptom and cause of the fact that it is a very widely used means of submitting FOI requests to public bodies of all types. It is absurd to suggest that the fact that I chose to use this convenient way of making my request makes that request vexatious. The fact that others have made requests using the same website is of no relevance to me or my request - in any case, I have never met or corresponded with any of the people with whom the University is currently in dispute in respect of their requests, and there is nothing which permits you to lawfully consider my one-off, independently-made request in the context of those (or any) other requests. I would also like to take this opportunity to distance myself from what I feel to be the unhelpful and at times inflammatory annotations made by Damien Shannon in respect of my request on the WhatDoTheyKnow website - I have no control over his actions, cannot delete his comments, and should not be prejudiced by his exercise of his right to the freedom of speech.

Given the sparsity of your 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 is a one-off request, and has no history beyond the request itself and 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" - in short, your context is not my context, and my request must be considered in its own light.

ii) Can the Request Fairly be Seen as Obsessive?
In short, no - as the ICO guidance states: "it is unlikely that a one-off request could ever be obsessive". This is a one-off request. It is true that I have had to send several follow-up messages chasing for a response, but the need for this was caused by your own failure to respond within statutory timescales, and in any case was both proportionate and 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?
Please see my comments above in respect of volume and frequency of communication - the University has only itself to blame for the fact that I have had to send more than one communciation in respect of this request, and even then I waited a decent interval between reminders. All of my communications have been polite, and I would challenge you to show that I have ever exercised anything other than restraint in the face of the University's mis-handling of my request.

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 laughable any attempt to run this argument. The information requested should be kept by the University in any case as a matter of good governance. Furthermore, I have personal experience of public bodies with both far more complex activities and fewer resources than the University being quite able to respond to substantially identical requests.

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, which clearly do not have as their intent causing disruption or annoyance.

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 whether the person undertaking the review is either more senior than the person who considered my original request or otherwise a different individual with appropriate training and knowledge;
- your response to each of the 3 grounds for my request for an internal review; and
- a full rationale for the outcome of your review in respect of each of those 3 grounds.

In short, 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.

Finally, I might add that, as a qualified solicitor who has advised public bodies of various types and sizes on the application of the Freedom of Information Act, I have never encountered such a flagrant disregard for the law than that evidenced in the present case by the University of Salford. Indeed, I speak from personal experience when I say that even the Ministry of Defence, with its responsibility for the nation's security, has a more enlightened and better-informed attitude to its transparency obligations than your organisation. I trust that your organisation will reconsider its approach to this request accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Al Goodwin

Al Goodwin left an annotation ()

Mr Shannon, I appreciate that you are probably annotating my request in an attempt to be supportive, but I would appreciate it if you would please desist. Your agenda is not necessarily my agenda, and frankly I could do without my request being associated with your requests (since it apparently takes very little for the University to find an excuse to refuse disclosure, and I would prefer "guilt by association" not to enter the picture). Thank you, and good luck with your own crusade.

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

First of all, if you don't want comments then don't submit the request via a public website which invites annotations.

Second of all, if your objective is acquiring information about the University of Salford's use of Halliwells LLP, you would surely have realised that submitting your request through this website is seriously going to impede your chances. It is my opinion that you might well have deliberately submitted the request through this website under the estimation that it would likely be rejected, thus providing you with an interesting test case with which to deal.

Third of all, if you think 'association by guilt' has got anything to do with whether or not a request is approved by the University of Salford, then you are more optimistic about their attitude that I had anticipated.

Finally, I actually have some of the information in my possession that you are seeking from the University of Salford, and I will email it to you shortly.

Foi, University of Salford

Alison,

This is the proposed refusal notice and internal review outcome for the request about the costs of our work with Halliwells.

As per the complaints procedure, the VC will have to agree to this response as the DVC was involved in the first request.

Cheers
Matt

Dear Mr Goodwin,

Thank you for your email. An internal review has now taken place.

We are sorry that the information was not sent within the statutory 20 working day limit. We apologise for this. New procedures implemented since the receipt of your request should prevent this happening in the future.

We also acknowledge that the email sent did not constitute a formal refusal notice as required under s17 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please accept this email as a refusal notice for your request of 15 September. The information will not be provided to you as it is considered to be vexatious. S14 of the Act removes the obligation for public authorities to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

A review of the reasons for this refusal has been undertaken and the University is satisfied with its earlier decision and therefore please accept this email as a refusal notice for your internal review of 28 October. The information will not be provided to you as it is considered to be vexatious. S14 of the Act removes the obligation for public authorities to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

Should the Information Commissioner's Office decide that earlier requests which have been refused on the grounds of vexatiousness are not actually vexatious, your request will be reconsidered.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Stephenson
Head of Information Governance

Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
University of Salford
Salford, M5 4WT.

T: 0161 295 6856
F: 0161 295 3442

[email address]
www.infogov.salford.ac.uk

show quoted sections

Foi, University of Salford

FOI would like to recall the message, "Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Use of Halliwells LLP".

Dear Mr Stephenson,

I am assuming that your latest messages were posted to the WhatDoTheyKnow website in error.

Whilst they provide an interesting insight into your handling of internal reviews, I trust that, when you come to provide the actual response to my request, it will contain the reasons for your decision, as required by law.

Yours sincerely,

Al Goodwin

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

Too late Mr Stephenson - this one is already being widely disseminated.

Dear Mr Stephenson,

I note that more than 20 working days have now elapsed since you would have received my request for an internal review.

As you are presumably aware, 20 working days from receipt is the time limit within which the Information Commissioner considers it reasonable to require a substantive response to a request for an internal review.

As previously indicated, I am assuming that your emails released to the WhatDoTheyKnow website on 8 November were released in error (since you tried to recall your original message on that date), and in any case those emails did not contain a legally-compliant response to my internal review request.

Please therefore tell me as soon as possible when I can expect to receive a legally-compliant and substantive response to my request for an internal review.

Yours faithfully,

Al Goodwin

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Further to my recent correspondence, please let me know, by return:

- if I should construe your earlier draft response, posted to the WhatDoTheyKnow website in error, as your definitive response to my request for an internal review, notwithstanding the fact that you subsequently attempted to recall it and the fact that it does not meet the relevant legal requirements; and

- if not, the date by which I should expect such a definitive response, together with an explanation as to why it has taken you longer than the ICO's guidance that it should not take you longer than 20 working days to respond save in exceptional circumstances.

I find your continued failures to communicate adequately in respect of this request both frustrating and discourteous - certainly they do nothing to dispel the impression that your organisation is rife with incompetence when it comes to handling FOI requests.

Under the circumstances, if I do not receive a substantive response to this message within 3 working days, I see no option but to refer your mishandling of both my original request and my request for an internal review to the ICO. I would add that I would much rather just receive the information originally requested - I am not in the business of trying to prove a point or make an example of you, and I would rather not further tie up the ICO's resources on yet another University of Salford issue.

Regards,

Al Goodwin

Foi, University of Salford

Dear Mr Goodwin,

I apologise for the delay in responding.

Your appeal has been considered and the information is to be found below.

1 Halliwells LLP were paid £17,390 in 2009/10, £3,000 in 2008/09 and nothing in 2010/11
2 No disbursements are recorded separately
3 Halliwells were appointed as advisors to the University on the basis that they were an existing approved supplier of legal services to the University of Salford.

If you have any queries or concerns then please contact me at the address above, alternatively further information is also available from the Information Commissioner at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone: 01625 545 700 or online: www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk .
Yours sincerely

Matthew Stephenson
Head of Information Governance

Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
University of Salford
Salford, M5 4WT.

T: 0161 295 6856
F: 0161 295 3442

[email address]
www.infogov.salford.ac.uk

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Thank you for your message, and the information it contained - apology accepted.

In respect of item 3, unfortunately I do not consider that this adequately answers my original request.

If Halliwells LLP was instructed from a panel of advisers (which is what I infer from your statement that Halliwells was "an existing approved supplier"), a proper response to my request would require that you identify how that panel opportunity was advertised (since you would be saying that the firm was appointed on the basis of its presence on the panel).

If Halliwells LLP was not instructed from a panel, could you please clarify this, and proceed to answer my original question (relating to the means by which the opportunity to advise was advertised) - if no such advertisement took place, please state this.

Yours sincerely,

Al Goodwin

Foi, University of Salford

Dear Mr Goodwin

Halliwells LLP was listed on the University’s list of approved suppliers prior to their engagement by us in 2008/09 and it was therefore unnecessary for us to advertise prior to engaging their services.

Yours sincerely.

Matthew Stephenson
Head of Information Governance

Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
University of Salford
Salford, M5 4WT.

T: 0161 295 6856
F: 0161 295 3442

[email address]
www.infogov.salford.ac.uk

show quoted sections