EXPENSES CLAIMED BY LGO JERRY WHITE

mark price made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

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

Dear Sir or Madam,

Would you please be kind enough to supply itemised details of expenses claimed by LGO Jerry White since his appointment as LGO.

Yours faithfully,

M Price

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Dear Mr Price

Our ref: CS/09/107

This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information, which we received on 15 October. We will respond within the 20 working day target (which would be by 12 November 2009) or, if unable to do so, we will write to you again explaining why.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | Local Government Ombudsman's office | DL: 020 7217 4734 | www.lgo.org.uk |

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Price

I attach a letter in response to the request below.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
10th Floor | Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Anne Hide anodiad ()

Note how his expense claims dropped like a brick during and after the John Bourn scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bourn

Dear Foi Officer,

Thank you for your response. It raises a number of questions.

In the nine years up to and including 02/03 Mr White claimed £1293 for hotels and subsistence. This averages at £144 per year. Yet in just one year (06/07) he claimed £6,508 for hotels and subsistence! That is forty five years worth in one year! What is the explanation for that, please?

In the nine years up to 02/03 Mr White claimed £14,578 for "other travel". Yet, subsequently, in just one year (06/07) he claimed £16,799. What is the explanation for that, please? What did Mr White's "other travel" consist of, and what was its purpose?

Assuming that the LGO works 219 days a year, in 06/07 he claimed expenditure of £1.54 per day on mileage but nearly £77 PER DAY on "other" travel and nearly £30 PER DAY on hotels/subsistence! Please explain how he managed to achieve this, having noted that in 95/96 Mr White managed to carry out his duties while spending less than £1 PER WEEK on hotels/subsistence/other travel combined!

By 06/07 Mr White's claim for other travel was 381 times what it was in 95/96, and his combined hotels/subsistence/other travel claim was 529 times more than it was in 95/96. Please explain the mind-boggling escalation in these figures.

In 06/07 how much was claimed for subsistence?

Did Mr White provide receipts accounting for every penny of the £23,646 he claimed from the taxpayer in 06/07

Yours sincerely,

mark price

Dear Sir or Madam,

When may I expect a response to my previous e-mail re Expenses Claimed by LGO Jerry White, please?

Yours faithfully,

mark price

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Dear Mr Price

Our ref: CS/09/108

We are looking into it and I will respond as soon as I can.

Your sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
|

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS anodiad ()

The issues are discussed here:

http://www.amv3.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Dear Mr Price

Our ref: CS/09/119

On reflection, we've decided to treat this as a new request. So this is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information, which we received on 29 October. We will respond within the 20 working day target (which would be by 26 November 2009) or, if unable to do so, we will write to you again explaining why.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Price

Our ref: CS/09/119

I attach a letter in response to your request below.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
|

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Foi Officer,

These revised figures may well be as unreliable as the first set, of course.

Has Mr White ever claimed for foreign travel?

Has the Commission ever paid directly for foreign travel for Mr White?

Please list precisely what types of "travel" have ever been claimed for by Mr White as "other travel".

Please list precisely what types of "travel" have ever been paid for directly by the Commission for Mr White and classified as "other travel", other than train tickets.

Yours sincerely,

mark price

Dear Foi Officer,

Please note that the law requires a prompt response. The twenty working days that you took to respond last time is a maximum that is allowed if a prompt response is impossible, which was not the case.

Yours sincerely,

mark price

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Dear Mr Price

Our ref: CS/09/138

This is to acknowledge receipt of your request below (including the previous email). We will respond within the 20 working day target (which would be by 11 January 2010) or, if unable to do so, we will write to you again explaining why.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
|

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Pook,

Thank you.

Regarding your response to my request of 29 October 09.

1. You say that your first answer included expenditure that was not relevant to an expenses enquiry.

Jerry White's Hotel/Subsistence expenditure 06/07 has gone down by £4,228 in the revised figures. If the Commission didn't pay this amount directly, and Mr White didn't claim it as expenses, who paid this portion of his bills and why?

Jerry White's Other Travel expenditure 06/07 has gone down by £9,751 in the revised figures. If the Commission didn't pay this amount directly, and Mr White didn't claim it as expenses, who paid this portion of his bills and why?

2. The following question was not addressed in your response to my request of 29 October 09. I have amended it slightly because of the revised figures that you supplied.

Assuming that the LGO works 219 days a year, in 08/09 he claimed nearly £40 PER DAY on "other" travel. In 95/96 Mr White managed to carry out his duties while spending less than £1 PER WEEK on hotels/subsistence/other travel combined! Why does Mr White now claim more than two hundred times as much from the public purse for travel as he did in 95/96 to carry out the same duties?

Yours sincerely,

mark price

Dear FOI Officer,

Would you please be kind enough to acknowledge receipt of my last e-mail (10 Dec). Please note that this is a follow on e-mail that is seeking answers that were asked originally on 29 Oct 09.

Yours faithfully,

mark price

Dear Foi Officer,

Would you please be kind enough to acknowledge receipt of my e-mail of 10 Dec and indicate when I may expect a response to questions that I have been asking since 29 October 09 without receiving answers.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Price

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Price

CS/09/138

I attach a letter in response to the question raised below. I have also dealt in the letter with the further points you raised in your email of 10 December.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
|

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Local Government Ombudsmen,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Local Government Ombudsmen's handling of my FOI request 'EXPENSES CLAIMED BY LGO JERRY WHITE'.

I made a request, about expenses claimed by Jerry White, to the LGO Service under the FOI Act. Ms Pook, Manager Communications and Records, responded by providing a set of figures for each of the years 94/95 to 08/09. Subsequently I forwarded some detailed questions about the figures that I had been given. However, rather than address these further questions, Ms Pook responded by giving me a starkly different set of figures. She wrote ""the report was run for periods that did not coincide with the annual figures presented" (which is meaningless, of course). She also wrote that the report included "expenditure" that was "not relevant to an expenses enquiry" and that the private car mileage was wrong.

The differences in the two sets of figures involved large sums of Public funds. Noteably, some figures, already publicly documented, were changed to become well over sixty per cent smaller.

Please note that the first set of figures was not "corrected" by Ms Pook until after I had queried them in some detail. Also that a portion of the first set of figures had been given publicly in response to an earlier FOI request, and was not "corrected".

The position is thus, as I see it. Neither set of figures is believable.

The first set, allegedly, were produced incompetently. There is no logical reason to assume that the second set weren't also produced incompetently. But the first set of figures have been issued on at least one previous occasion as correct. They thus may quite reasonably be presumed to be correct, and the assertion that they are not, incorrect. Furthermore, the second set of figures have self-admittedly been produced with some deliberate manipulation of the paramaters that were input to produce the second report, after the content of my further questions was evident.

But, above and beyond that, neither set of figures complied with the terms of the request. Ms Pook said herself that the first set of figures was wrong because it included "expenditure" that was "not relevant to an expenses enquiry". Nevertheless, having changed these figures, Ms Pook wrote, re "other travel" in the second set of figures, "I should also point out that these figures include all costs in relation to this type of expenditure – both expenses claimed by Mr White and costs paid direct by the Commission (for example, train tickets are usually bought direct by the Commission in advance)". In other words, the second set was wrong for exactly the same reason that she herself had given as a reason for the first set being wrong!

Although titled "expenses - corrected data" the figures given are not amounts of expenses claimed, as per the request, and it is the case that after two attempts Ms Pook has failed to give, or has avoided giving, one correct response.

The Act has not been complied with. There has been a failure of due diligence, care and attention.

Please note also that Ms Pook failed, self-admittedly, to give a correct answer to the earlier requester.

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

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

mark price

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Price

Our ref: CS/09/119

I attach Mr Karney's response to your review request.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's offfice | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
|

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd alan m dransfield (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

I think you have touched a nerve at the LGO and in particular the 06-07 travem expens.
How cab they get these figures SO Wrong