A financial investment firm

Nathen Brooke made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Westminster City Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Westminster City Council.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide the amount of outstanding debt owed to Westminster City Council from the now liquidated company formally trading as [a financial investment firm], [address redacted]?
I believe the outstanding debt is made up of outstanding business rates owed to Westminster City Council.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

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 Westminster City Council's handling of my FOI request '[a financial investment firm]'.

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

Yours sincerely,

Nathen Brooke

Gadawodd Mr Sawyer anodiad ()

[Material removed following concerns raised about potential defamation]

Gadawodd Blue anodiad ()

Westminster FOI team are now saying this FOI request does not exist

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

[Material removed following concerns raised about potential defamation]

Dear FOI team,

It has now been 50 days since I first submitted this FOI requests, and you have yet to even acknowledge me. I now see that in another more recent FOI request you claim this request does not even exists.

Please can you at least now acknowledge receipt of of this request, and explain in detail the problem with answering my question in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act ?

Yours sincerely,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please can you at least now acknowledge receipt of of this request,
and explain in detail the problem with answering my question in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act ?

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe this website is working normally, as you have answered much later FOI requests than this one. However you seem to have completely ignored this question and have no intention of replying to it, let alone sending an acknowledgement.

I will now have to pass this matter on to the information Commissioner.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

FOI, Westminster City Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Brooke

Thank you for your emails regarding your recent attempt to request
information from the Council. I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with
our apparent lack of response to your request and have therefore
investigated your complaint under Stage 1 of the Council's complaints
procedure.

Response
On the 13th May 2009, the council was contacted by a number of individuals
querying why we had not responded to some of the requests made via the
website [1]www.whatdotheyknow.com (WDKT).  A investigation was undertaken
by the Council's IT department and they informed the Knowledge and
Information Management Team that there was an issue regarding the
Council's mailsweeper program. 

The Council's firewall uses a mailsweeper program to automatically monitor
all incoming emails. This program identifies spam emails based on various
rules. Given the volumes of mail received by the Council, any email
identified by the system is automatically deleted.

During the investigation by the Council's IT department, it was discovered
that some emails from WDTK were among a number that were incorrectly
identified by the mailsweeper system as spam. Given that spam emails are
automatically deleted on a daily basis there was no way of retrieving or
identifying the content of these emails. This issue has now been rectified
and all emails to the address used by WDKT to submit requests are now
manually assessed by a member of the team to determine if they are
legitimate emails.

With regard to your specific request to the Council, it would appear that
this was one of a small number of emails from WDTK that were incorrectly
identified by the system as spam and deleted. The fact that you did not
receive an acknowledgement of your request is indicative that it was not
received by the Council. Therefore this aspect of your complaint is not
upheld.

It should be noted that the What Do They Know website is not developed by
Westminster City Council and therefore the Council cannot guarantee that
requests made via this method will be received.

Your original request for information was not received by the Council.
However, based on your subsequent emails I have contacted the relevant
department which would hold the information you requested. A copy of our
response is attached.

<<Response to FOI Request - Brooke - 20090728 (Refusal Notice).doc>>
I hope this answers your queries regarding the processing of your request.
However, should you be dissatisfied with our response you are entitled to
contact the Information Commissioner under Section 50 of the Act. For your
reference, his contact details are provided below:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

W: [2]www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Catherine Preston
Knowledge and Information Management Team
Information Services
Westminster City Council
101 Orchardson Street
London
NW8 8EA
Tel: 020 7641 3332
Fax: 020 7641 2872
Email: [email address]

 

***********************************************************************************
Westminster City Council switchboard: +44 20 7641 6000
www.westminster.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. file://www.whatdotheyknow.com
2. file://www.ico.gov.uk

Gadawodd Graham anodiad ()

this reply from Westminster is about not showing a companies account because it may affect their ability to trade etc, however, the request is for a company that is liquidated, hence it does not trade any longer, hence the details would not have any impact!

[Material removed following concerns raised about potential defamation]

Gadawodd Samantha Wade anodiad ()

If whatdotheyknow emails were put into corporate spam filters, why weren't all the other whatdotheyknow email requests isolated too?

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 Westminster City Council's handling of my FOI request '[a financial investment firm]'.

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

Your reasons for not answering this FOI request within the time period specified within the law is not acceptable.

You cannot say that on receipt of my email your mailsweeper program deleted the email, then in another paragraph claim not to have received my email, you cannot say both, you either did receive the email and then deleted it or you never received the email in the first place, which is it?

You email system does not delete suspected spam emails, it diverts them to a spam folder, so how was it that not one, but all my emails on this request were deleted as you claim?

As you indicate your mailsweeper uses a points scoring system to incorrectly identify emails as spam, please provide full details of how my original email and all the subsequent follow up emails were scored incorrectly? I would like details such as the scores based on header information, mail server IP and key words in the body and subject line?

Your law breaking was pointed out in another FOI request which you did acknowledge. That FOI request specifically mentioned this FOI request and gave the URL of this request. Therefore it would have made no difference even if as you claim, my emails had all been deleted, this makes your spam filter claim even more ludicrous. You were made aware of this FOI request yet still broke the law by not answering, please explain?

Your reasons for rejecting my FOI request may be acceptable if I were asking for details for a company that was still trading, but I doubt that. However this company is no longer trading, and the information I am asking for is less than is available from Companies House. To mention that there could be a chance that someone may claim back a credit is plainly daft, as when this company went in to liquidation there was in fact a debt owning on the unpaid business rates, there can be no credit.

By your argument company accounts would not be publicly available at Companies House as it may prejudice the commercial interests of any person, therefore your rejection is again ludicrous. But this is a more serious matter as we are dealing with a debt of public money, tax payers money. The council has no problems in revealing the details of individuals and embassies which owe public money through unpaid PCN's. The council has no problems revealing through publication on it's website, the private addresses of individuals who raise a petition against council policy. This is all done without the individuals consent and often without their knowledge. Therefore your rejection on sections 43 (2) and (3) of the Act has been misused in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

Dear Catherine

I would have thought you would have been keen to at least have the decency to acknowledge my last email and provide a progress report, but after over a month it seems not.

It suggests to me that you do not have any respect for the Freedom of Information Act and adhering to the law, or any respect for the public whom you serve. This is even despite the fact the IOC have contacted WCC many times to remind you of your obligations.

If I still receive nothing from you I shall pass this on as a complaint to the IOC.

Yours faithfully,

Nathen Brooke

FOI, Westminster City Council

1 Atodiad

  • Attachment

    Response to Request for Internal Review Brooke a financial investment firm 2.doc

    145K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Brooke

Please find attached the Council's response to your recent request for
an internal review.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Preston
Knowledge and Information Management Team
Information Services
Westminster City Council
101 Orchardson Street
London
NW8 8EA
Tel: 020 7641 3332
Fax: 020 7641 2872
Email: [email address]

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI,

Of course I will be complaining to the COI, and I am not at all intimidated by your threat of considering my questions vexatious.

All Councillors should be very concerned that legal documents sent to them maybe deleted from the council mail server without any possibility of being recovered or without adequate explanation. No one at the Council has enough knowledge of the mailsweeping software used, to be able to provide details of the points scoring methods, or it seems any desire to prevent such a disaster happening again. Quite an incredible way to run an IT department.

It is my opinion that you ignored both my original question, all of my reminders, and the subsequent reminders from a different FOI. Unless that is, I were to accept your explanation, that if someone alerts you to an unanswered FOI request you will do absolutely nothing to address a possible IT problem and breech of the law.

But yet the moment the COI is mentioned in a follow up you suddenly spring in to action and the mail sweeper stops blocking emails.

No wonder so many Councillors choose to use their own private email addresses to conduct Council business, and it keeps them off the FOI radar.

Yours sincerely,

Nathen Brooke

Gadawodd David Boothroyd anodiad ()

Just wanted to give a bit of useful information on why councillors use their personal email addresses on council business.

After the 2006 election the council decided that councillors' email would no longer be held on a Westminster server. All councillors were given a form had to nominate their personal email address, where email sent to the council email address would be forwarded. We were also told that if we wanted to send out email from a westminster.gov.uk email address, we could use 'spoofing', and guidance was offered on how to set it up.

Gadawodd Nathen Brooke anodiad ()

Suggesting Councillors use mail spoofing is quite an absurd way to run a local Government mail system.

Email address spoofing is when a person sends an email to someone pretending that it has come from another domain name, in this case westminster.gov.uk.

Something which Councillor Chalkley complained bitterly about when he claimed such a spoofed email was sent to the Councils contractors.

One wonders how the Councils IT department expect the Councillors to overcome the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and various other checks that mail servers make to check the authenticity of incoming email. Large ISP's such as AOL and BT active block their customers from mail spoofing as this is one of the spammers favourite tools.

What a way to run, what the Tory's claim is a model Council.

Gadawodd A. Ying anodiad ()

WhatDoTheyKnow.com team has redacted the name of the financial investment firm following correspondence with former members of such firm.

The team will consider requests for disclosure of the name of the firm on a case-by-case basis. All such requests should be sent to team@whatdotheyknow.com

Andrew, WDTK Volunteer Admin