Did Mr Khan have anything to do with the handling of the case detailed below?

Sheila Oliver made this Freedom of Information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Dear Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council,

Did Mr Khan have anything to do with the case mentioned below? It seems to me Stockport Council won't deal with problems until they have become massive legal claims.

"Council pays out in race claim

December 12, 2007

A NORTH west council is believed to have paid out around £250,000 after settling two race discrimination claims by a former employee.

The cases involved Justin Idehen, who earlier this year took Stockport Council to an industrial tribunal for a second time. Mr Idehen, former head of engineering services, won damages of £160,000 after alleging racial harassment back in 2001.
In the latest claim, he alleged to an industrial tribunal in Manchester that in May 2006, he had applied for a new position with a council contractor only to be told: ‘You can’t work for Stockport Council in any capacity at all.’
It is understood that the second case has now been settled out of court for a figure believed to be above £80,000. The latest settlement suggests Mr Idehen’s cases have cost Stockport council tax payers around £240,000 in compensation, before legal fees.
An internal council source who asked not to be named, said: “The latest amount, which was offered was £80,000, but it is my understanding that this was rejected by him.
“However, by April all parties agreed on the final figure, which suggests it was much higher than that original offer.
“However, that settlement would take no account of paying barrister’s fees for the preparation work, the three-day hearing involving Mr Idehen’s London barrister and/or the local authority’s own legal bills. The cost to the authority must have been astronomical.”
The settlement came ahead of a three-day hearing in the spring at which the authority was warned a decision due in July could award “exemplary damages” against Stockport council.
Labour councillor Sheila Bailey claimed the case could have been avoided second time around if the people allegedly committing racist acts had been dealt with swiftly.
She said: “If the local authority settles out of court, it is accepting it has a problem, but apart from paying out a huge amount, it a duty to deal with the people at fault. At the very least there should have been an internal inquiry not only to look at this, but at its general policy to make sure it is being adhered to.”

The council has repeatedly refused to comment, claiming to do so would be an infringement of the Data Protection Act."

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your request for information which has been given reference 5274. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your request.

Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. If there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they amount to less than £10.

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Service

show quoted sections

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

 

I am writing in response to your request for information below (Ref 5274).

 

The Council cannot comment on any matters concerning private individuals;
however we can confirm that Barry Khan began employment with the Council
in late 2006.

 

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for
information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you
must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. Any
internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was
not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review,
contact [1][email address] in the first instance.

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are
entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

[2]www.ico.gov.uk

 

01625 545 745

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

 

show quoted sections

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I am at a loss to understand why the SBC are responding to you because you are supposed tone banned from this website?

Tim Turner left an annotation ()

The answer to your question, Mr Dransfield, is simple. While the applicant's dubious use of the site is apparently at an end, Stockport know how FOI works, and know they have to respond to FOI requests. Because the request was made from the site and thus the only contact details they have are the WDTK address (which it seems still works), they are complying with their FOI obligations by responding to her request.

And with this being on the internet, she can, presumably, look at it and see what they have said. The fact that she cannot take the request further is, in my opinion, nobody's fault but her's. Most users of the site use it as a place to ask for information rather than insult people and show off in front of an audience. There may be something to that.

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Turner, I have sympathy for Sheila Oliver FOI plight with the SBC and maybe her frustration shows sometimes in her requests.I too have similar frustration with my own PA the Devon County Council and hopefully I shall resolve such issues at my FOI Test Case(t.b.c.)

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Turner, a bit like you showing off on twitter today purporting to be an expert on FOIA matters and insisting a PA can still pursue a FOIA vexatious decision EVEN in the event they do not own the building/structure.
I don't think so Tim

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

In response to you statement of "THE ICO DO NOT HAVE A DUTY OF CARE TO THE APPLICANT".
Please see the following response from the ICO Mission Statement,hence ,it would appear you are wrong again?!
I don't think so Tim. Tool time Tim
=====================================================
2) Our statutory duties and beyond
Our goal, our mission and our vision are derived from the statutory duties
we are given in the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and the other information rights legislation that we oversee.
There is an overriding obligation on us to ensure that we meet these
statutory duties. These are, in summary:
- to promote the following of good information rights practice.
This is practice, whether in relation to openness or data
privacy, that appears to us to be desirable in the public interest
without necessarily being limited to compliance with the law;
- to provide information and advice not only to organisations but
also to the wider public on good information rights practice and
on the rights we set out to uphold;
- to consider and rule on complaints that information rights law
has been breached; and
- to ensure compliance with the requirements of information
rights law. This includes the use of formal enforcement
powers.