Dear Hillingdon Borough Council,

Under the terms and conditions of rendering LIP funding to councils TFL requires that invoices and complete records are kept in order that an audit may be carried out without notice and at their discretion which can take place at any time after the submission of pro forma C in any given FY.

According to a statement by TFL in the period 2015/16 Hillingdon claimed £54,000 against 10 parking schemes of which HY5 was a part. However,as HY5 scheme was not implemented in that financial year but in the following financial year of 2016/17 this raises an anomaly. It is also know that from the pro formas A and C for the period of 2016/17 that 11 schemes were implemented and that up to £100,000 was sort

With this in mind, please supply the following information for the periods 2015/16 and 2016/17

1. The invoices and documents that would be available to TFL for them to conduct the audit

2. The list of the schemes that were cited as being implemented in Pro forma C for the period 2015/16 and Pro forma C the 11 schemes for the period 2016/17

3. Please supply the exact amounts claimed in relation to the 10 parking schemes implemented in 2015/16 and the 11 schemes implemented in 2016/17 under the LIP funding

If you require any further clarification or have any difficulty supplying the information, please revert.

Yours faithfully,

M Doyle

Residents Services FOI, Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear Mr Doyle,

I am writing in response to your request for information under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000, received 01/07/2019    

 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we have 20 working days to
respond to your request.  Therefore the deadline for our response
is 29/07/2019

 

If we require further information or clarification from you in order to
assist us in responding to your request, or if we require a fee to be paid
before we can respond we will contact you shortly.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Michelle Barber

Members Liaison Officer /FOI Officer

Resident Services

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI ., Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear Mark Doyle

 

I am writing in response to your request for information below.

 

Please see the council's response below

 

We consider your request to be vexatious pursuant to section 14 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 because your request is an attempt to
reopen a matter that has already been comprehensively considered  by the
Council and which has not been subject to any legal challenge.

 

If you wish to request an internal review of our response you should
write, within 2 months, to:

Office Managing Partner, Legal Services, Civic Centre, High St, Uxbridge,
UB8 1UW (or via email to [1][Hillingdon Borough Council request email] marked for the attention
of the Office Managing Partner).

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

 

Regards

 

Data Protection &
Freedom of Information Officer
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
T: 01895  556351

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Hillingdon Borough Council,

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

Without Prejudice or Malice

I am writing to request an internal review of Hillingdon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'LIP Funding: Invoices for Implemented Parking Schemes'.

You have refused to render the information under S14 citing a vexatious request as it relates to a matter that is closed.

Please elaborate on how S14 applies to this specific request and how this specific request has been previously and comprehensively addressed in the closed matter which you refer?

Furthermore, how would the information in this request constitute a reopening of a closed and undisclosed matter which you refer?

This specific information has not been requested before and it is conducive with the requirements and conditions in which the funding is sort, granted and provided from an external authority, in this case TfL. This information was not requested previously as the existence and specificity was not disclosed by a until recently and by another authority and therefore this is should not be confused with any previous request made to the London Borough of Hillingdon.

As part of the internal review you will need to confirm that the information exists or not.

As a part of the internal review you will need to carry out a public interest test

It has to be noted that I have personally raised 11 request on my own behalf to London Borough of Hillingdon in the past 28 month relating to various areas, that constitutes 1 every 11 weeks on average. This is hardly a process which indicates a campaign, burden overlapping, although it has to be stated that in the same period I raised another 74 requests with other authorities there has been little scope or in fact necessity to question any refusal and or the veracity of information provided or have had to complain about the conduct of any other authority to the ICO regarding requests.

It is also important to point out that I have noted another individual who has raised 16 requests in relation to the same area of parking management in the past 6 months. In comparison to my own request their actions would far exceed the threshold being deployed on myself for being vexatious, burdensome and or overlapping on more than one occasion and I note S14 was only employed once and used as due to being repeated

I should remind you once again that FOI requests are to be treated blind of the person making the request and as such the action of employing S14 has to be balanced taking into account that if the question would be raised by any other person would this request would an S14 be applicable in any shape or form and above all is it an unreasonable request which could cause upset and or burden. Furthermore would the request be considered as being a campaign by various individuals to disrupt the ongoing business of the council.
The simple fact is that S14 does not apply here.

S14 is not a mechanism intended for use in the obstructing in the release of information and in the absence of genuine and reasonable grounds. As such the use of S14 could be construed as being abused for deliberate obstruction and a vexatious act in itself and in effect a potential breach of section 77.

In this case this perception of the use of S14 being a vexatious act is on the part the London Borough of Hillingdon and is derived from a lack of veracity, protracted delays in the supply of information previously provided, obstructive and prejudicial behaviour of the internal review process by that officer/practice manger/deputy borough solicitor towards myself, specifically in relation to varied and pertinent requests that are in the public interest and any request raised in which he has a direct connection and conflict of interest in the subject matter. In each event his actions appear to be biased with the intent to disrupt and obstruct disclosure of information requested as what has occurred in this instance.

Under the circumstance I believe it would be for the public interest, and that of the London Borough of Hillingdon, that this internal review request be past to the Director of Democratic Services to consider that an independent person be appointed to carry out the internal review as the balance of probabilities are that further prejudicial refusal will be and in turn be referred to the ICO for action and the current course will be detrimental to the best interest of the London Borough of Hillingdon. Under the circumstances this is a reasonable request.

The intent here is clarity and moreover transparency in the provision of information to the public and not necessarily the person making the request and in this case the right is being curtailed contrary to the core principles of the FOIA.

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

Yours faithfully,

M Doyle

Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear Mark Doyle

 

We are writing in response to your request for information.

 

We consider your request to be vexatious pursuant to section 14 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 because your request is an attempt to
reopen a matter that has already been comprehensively considered  by the
Council and which has not been subject to any legal challenge.

If you wish to request an internal review of our response you should
write, within 2 months, to:

Office Managing Partner, Legal Services, Civic Centre, High St, Uxbridge,
UB8 1UW (or via email to [1][Hillingdon Borough Council request email] marked for the attention
of the Office Managing Partner).

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

 

Kind regards

 

 

Rukhsana Hussain

Information Governance Lawyer | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal
Services 3E/04
Tel: 01895  556351 | Fax: 01895 250784
| E-mail: [2][email address]

 

From: [3][email address] [mailto:[4][email address]]
On Behalf Of Residents Services FOI
Sent: 12 July 2019 15:31
To: [5][FOI #585884 email]
Cc: foi
Subject: FOI 7567413 - From: Mark Doyle - Due: 29th July 2019

 

Dear Mr Doyle,

I am writing in response to your request for information under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000, received 01/07/2019    

 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we have 20 working days to
respond to your request.  Therefore the deadline for our response
is 29/07/2019

 

If we require further information or clarification from you in order to
assist us in responding to your request, or if we require a fee to be paid
before we can respond we will contact you shortly.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Michelle Barber

Members Liaison Officer /FOI Officer

Resident Services

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Hussain,

Without Prejudice

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Hillingdon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'LIP Funding: Invoices for Implemented Parking Schemes'.

My request for an internal review of the 26th July stands and note that the request is substantially different from any other previous requests made, and to be clear

On the assumption that you refer to the HY5 Scheme request of costs, PCNs issued, etc as the grounds to conflate against this request, I make the following points

1. the information relating to HY5 scheme constitutes 1/21 of the information in this request making it substantially different from any previous request to LBH and that the costs constitute a part of value of works done for a number of schemes, which also includes HY5

2. That there has not been a previous request to LBH for invoices or documentation relating to the LIP funding claim of £54k to TfL or to be more accurate £53,552 received for Parking Management Schemes in the FY 2015/2016

3. That there has not been a previous request for invoices or documentation relating to the LIP funding claim for FY 2016/2017, which I have just been advised that £129,994 was received from Tfl for Parking Management Schemes in that period

4. In context and approach the request is significantly and substantially different to any other previous request made to LBH

5. It his wholly reasonable request as it is information which should be available in order for LBH to make a valid and legitimate claim against value of works done in order LIP funding to be received from TfL. It is intrinsic financial information required for funding and for the avoidance of penalty and or claw back of funding already provided should the legitimate certified invoices and internal charges documentation information not in fact exist.

6. You need to confirm if the information exists in part or the entirety

7. That under the circumstances the claim of the request being vexatious is wholly unfounded and prejudicial and not conducive with any interpretation of S14 that has or could be rendered. Under the circumstances a public interest test would by any other authority, prevail.

Therefore you will need to substantiate your grounds or render the information to avoid further legitimate and a completely warranted complaint with the ICO

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

Yours faithfully,

M Doyle

FOI ., Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear Mr Doyle

 

Thank you for your email

 

Your request for internal review will be carried out by the Office
Managing Partner, Mr Egan, who you revert back to you within due course

 

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.     

 

Kind regards

Data Protection &
Freedom of Information Officer
Legal Services (3E 04)
London Borough of Hillingdon
Civic Centre
High Street
Uxbridge
UB8 1UW
T: 01895  556351

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Doyle,

Please find attached correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Glen Egan
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]
Hillingdon Council routinely monitors the content of emails sent and
received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures. The contents of this message are for the
attention and use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient or addressee, or the person responsible for sending the
message you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any
part of it in any way. To do so may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake please advise the sender immediately. Where opinions are
expressed they are not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Service by email is not accepted unless by prior agreement.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Egan
Many thanks for your response and your change in direction is noted. However there are some issues in your answers which need to be addressed.

First off you have failed to address the original response by an anonymous member of your department on the 29th July which stated:
“We consider your request to be vexatious pursuant to section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because your request is an attempt to reopen a matter that has already been comprehensively considered by the Council and which has not been subject to any legal challenge. “
Having failed to address this issue and given the revised position of your internal review and failure to substantiate that frivolous claim, it remains unsubstantiated and therefore defamatory and unreasonable response.

The original request was to supply information known to exist namely:

“1. The invoices and documents that would be available to TFL for them to conduct the audit
2. The list of the schemes that were cited as being implemented in Proforma C for the period 2015/16 and Proforma C the 11 schemes for the period 2016/17.
3. Please supply the exact amount claimed in relation to the 10 parking schemes implemented in 2015/16 and 11 schemes implemented in 2016/17 under the LIP funding”

For the avoidance of doubt the word “schemes” means “implemented parking management schemes” which claims for LIP funding have been made and received.

This question was raised because in order to render a legitimate claim to TfL requires legitimate and tangible proof of expenditure otherwise such a claim could be false and the obtaining of funding under false pretences.

In order to arrive at the total annual claim amount the calculations and spending relating to the segment of expenditure would require genuine items of costs entered into the accounts which could be collated allowing the total to be entered into the Pro forma C, otherwise if the accountancy exercise was not carried out the claim would not be genuine and therefore a false claim.

Under the circumstances to arrive at the specific claims made for £53,552.00 for FYE 2016 and £129,994.00 for FYE 2017 indicates that the exacting exercise of collation of invoices and internal charges would have been made incrementally and or at the end of the FYE to reach these figures. Therefore it is not only probable but likely that the information requested exists as the collation exercise would have occurred to reach those precise and exact figures. The same applies for the other segments entered into the Pro forma Cs across all years in which LIP funding was sort and obtained in those and other FYs.

It is also important to note that on the 31st July 2019 (5 days after the refusal to render the information on vexatious grounds) the appointed auditor from Ernst Young replied to the following questions relating to LIP funding which indicates divisible accountancy practices in situ relating to that funding segment

LIP Funding
“Q - Does LBH manage an internal account relating to LIP funding in the same manner as the PRA? “
R - “The Council maintains standalone account codes for the management of TfL LIP funding in line with the reporting requirements of the Borough’s approved Local Implementation Plan.”
“Q - Does LBH have systems in place including the LBH specialist financial system or any other method which differentiates outgoings that should be attributed to the LIP funding account alone? If so please provide information on the practices employed and those accounts made ready that are conducive with the Pro Forma C which should be rendered to TfL within the next 10 days. “
R- “The coding structure for TfL LIP funding reflects reporting requirements (including the Pro Forma C return). The Council asserts that this fully meets the governance requirements of TfL under the terms and conditions of LIP funding. I do not have information on those practices.”

It should be noted that your response in the internal review stated in relation to item 1
“1. I do not believe that the Council can answer this question accurately because if TFL were to conduct an audit they would specify the information that they require. FOI does not cover hypothetical situations and therefore the Council does not hold the information that you have requested.”

Item 1 of the request was for invoices and documentation based on standard practices described by the council's accounts department to the auditor and evidence to hand and not a speculative. Accuracy in the accountancy practices used is relevant to the amount claimed, which if the claim was legitimate the information requested should be conducive with the totals claimed. Moreover, there would be a discrepancy in the accounts if the information was inaccurate. Although the FOI does not provide a mechanism for accuracy, standard accountancy and auditing practices require it to be so.

Under the circumstances and if the information is not forthcoming a reasonable person could arrive at the following conclusions in relation to the claimed LIP Funding sample amounts of £53,522.00 for 2016 and £129,994.00. and your initial response

A. That given the amount is a precise granular figure which was claimed on the understanding it could be substantiated and therefore legitimate, your response to Q.1 could be construed as significantly misleading

B. That your response indicates that the figures may not accurate and therefore not a legitimate claim for LIP funding and in turn London Borough of Hillingdon may have submitted a false claim to TfL and has received the funds under false pretences in which the amounts claimed cannot be substantiated .

C. That the information not only exists, under the circumstances it is being unreasonably withheld.

Therefore it should be understood that your initial response to item 1 requires significant adjustment and the request accommodated.

In relation to item 1 please ensure that the relevant note is made against the accountancy item eg. Signs, posts, road markings, gazette notices, staff costs, etc. It is understood that some of these items are consolidated costs and therefore a complete and precise allocation against each individual scheme, although helpful and in the interest of transparency, is not absolutely necessary.

The information (invoices and documentation) should match the previously mentioned total amounts claimed for the FYEs requested of 2016 and 2017

In relation to item 2 You stated:

“2. I note that TFL have already provided you with the two proformas, although they do not list each parking scheme. I confirm that the Council is able to provide you with this information but, for convenience, now that you have received the two proformas please can you confirm whether you require any additional information relating to those proformas so that everything can be provided to you in one go.”

For clarification and reiteration in relation to item 2, please provide a list of the schemes by designation and location for FYE 2016 relating to the £53,522.00 (10 cited) and FYE 2017 relating to the £129,994.00 (11 cited). Please stipulate the year which the scheme in which funds were claimed for each scheme. It is important to note that the number of schemes is based on the entries made on the pro forma Cs. If there is any error in the number of schemes it would be ideal that it be clarified at this stage. The information requested in item 2 is reliant on all information being provided against item 1 which under the circumstances should be provided without any further hindrance.

It should be noted that LBH should not expect clairvoyance from any person making a request which seems to be the case here. I cannot determine nor anticipate the completeness of the information to be provided by any authority, I can only make a determination of completeness once the information has been received and the balance of probabilities of further information existing should further enquires ensue as a result. Each request I make is based on part on known information and or discrepancies that arise in information provided against requests and or available in the public domain.

In relation to item 3 you stated:

“3. I can confirm that the Council claims funding from TFL around 4 times a year. The claims do not list individual schemes but are a bulk application for reimbursement of expenses to date such as the entire costs of road signs or statutory adverts. It would therefore be necessary for the Council to interrogate each entry on the claim and then attempt to cross refer this to each item of expenditure on each individual scheme.”

Item 3 has now been rendered moot by information provided by TfL. The exact amounts I was looking for was the totals for the year in this case £53,522.00 for FYE 2016 and £129,994.00 for FYE 2017. Given that it would be unlikely that complete granular costs for each scheme would be rendered without discrepancy, I was searching for the totals for each year.

It is important to point out that as there are 10 cited schemes for 2016 and 11 cited for 2017 a reasonable deduction of costs against each scheme can be made which based on individual and spread costs and the scope of each individual scheme that normally would be available in the public domain. Any gaps in such information would constitute a new request under the FOI if it were to be sort from LBH

Under the circumstances there has been a misunderstanding in relation to the interpretation of item 3 and as such S12 no longer applies.

As you see this request like all my request are far from vexatious and in the main are derived from the identification of discrepancies and or data anomalies accompanied with significant background research, enquires beforehand and subsequent to each request made in order to minimise the burden on any authority when making a request.

I trust that this clarifies the request and that the information will be rendered without any further unnecessary delays

Yours Sincerely

M Doyle

Dear Mr Egan,

The statutory time period in which to deal with the request and internal review has expired. For the avoidance of further complaint would you please give revert with a timescale in which I should expect the information requested.

Yours sincerely,

M Doyle

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

Dear Mr Doyle,
Thankyou for your email.
I do not accept that the Council us breaching any time limit and we will
respond in detail as soon as we are able in accordance with our
obligations under the Code of Practice. In the meantime I will not be
entering into any further correspondence with you.
Yours sincerely,
Glen Egan
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Egan,

Once again you are being unreasonable and moreover yet again obstructive and acting in contrary to the best interest of your employers, the London Borough of Hillingdon.

First I should begin by drawing your attention to the ICO's Section 45 - Code of Practice – request handling guidance, which states the following.

83. If an internal review results in the disclosure of information which was previously withheld, the public authority should inform the applicant of the outcome as soon as possible and tell them when they are likely to receive the information.

84. In any event an internal review should take no longer than 20 working days in most cases, or 40 in exceptional circumstances.

The record shows that the request was raised on the 1st of July. The period to respond was 20 days from that date, this gave a date of the 29th of July. However, your colleague responded on the 26th of July with the refusal citing unsubstantiated vexatious grounds and it was repeated on the 29th.

I raised a request for an internal review on the 26th July in relation to the preliminary response. That gives a date of the 26th which taking into account that this would fall on a bank holiday, an extra 24hrs is allowed and a further 24hr grace period in requesting the Internal review. This gives a date of the 28th August. Even if I I agree to the date of the 29th of July, the period to deal with the internal review of notify of any delay would fall on the 30th August, 1 week ago.

Under the circumstances my polite reminder was more than reasonable. However, your response was not and is wholly unacceptable under the circumstances as you have.

1. Failed to complete the internal review within the statutory period of 20 days

2. Failed to offer up any reasonable, let alone exceptional circumstances in order to gain an extension up to 40 days to this internal review, something which we could have been easily been agreed upon prior to your latest flippant, unprofessional and dismissive response.

3. Failed to inform me on when I should expect the information.

4. Failed to advise me if the information exists or not.

5. Failed substantiated the basis for refusing the request under vexatious grounds

6. Cannot refuse correspondence on a request and internal review that is overdue and when you are clearly in error and moreover have a duty under the act and council's code of conduct of office especially should such action can bring the council into disrepute, which in this case could be the result.

7. Under the circumstances and taking into account all aspects, it could be reasonably be stated that your actions are proving to be deliberately and systematically obstructive and uncooperative in breach of the FOIA.

I trust this clarifies the matter and seriousness of the situation

Yours sincerely,

M Doyle

CC Lloyd White

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr Doyle
Please find attached correspondence. 
Yours sincerely
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]
Hillingdon Council routinely monitors the content of emails sent and
received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures. The contents of this message are for the
attention and use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient or addressee, or the person responsible for sending the
message you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any
part of it in any way. To do so may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake please advise the sender immediately. Where opinions are
expressed they are not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Service by email is not accepted unless by prior agreement.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Egan,

Many thanks for your reply although delayed and although useful in other respects the information is not that what was requested.

Firstly you still not have provided the reasons for citing S14 refusal on vexatious grounds and are required to do so.

In relation to your internal review: Just so we are clear when it comes to an information request there is a initial binary of existence under the FOIA, that being information exists or it does not. In each question you need to be very clear if the information exists and although you have introduced ambiguity and deflection, you are in effect stating the information does not exist. However, just to be 100% sure that you are standing by your statement a brief recap is required beginning with the questions with a simple yes or no response required.

Q1. The invoices and documents that would be available to TFL for them to conduct the audit

Does the information exist: Yes or no? If Yes provide the information requested

Q2. The list of the schemes that were cited as being implemented in Pro forma C for the period 2015/16 and Pro forma C the 11 schemes for the period 2016/17.

To be clear 10 Schemes were cited in the pro forma Cs for FYE 2016 and 11 for FYE 2017 and you have not provided a list of these schemes only proposal/intention documents . Does the information exist: Yes or no? If Yes provide the list of schemes as requested

Q3. Please supply the exact amounts claimed in relation to the 10 parking schemes implemented in 2015/16 and the 11 schemes implemented in 2016/17 under the LIP funding

In relation to Q3, it is agreed that the exact amounts have been provided by TfL and this question is no longer a point of contention as the information originated from LBH.

This leaves your delayed response to Q1 and Q2 which is not the information required and instead you provided proposed/intended expenditure that does not reconcile with either of the pro forma Cs in relation to expenditure for FYE 2016 or 2017. Therefore you have not provided the information requested but instead have provided details of prospective expenditure, not actual.

Now we come to the legalities: When requests are made they are based on the assumption that the information exists. In this case the weighting of the existence of the information was based upon the following. And this needs to be made very clear in relation to your response

A. Statements made in the form of Pro forma Cs rendering definitive numbers of schemes 10 for FYE 2016 and 11 for FYE 2017 and precise funds, £53,522.00 for FYE 2016 and FYE £129,994.00 for 2017 claimed in totality against those schemes.

B. LBH has undertaken obligations of accountability and to substantiate expenditure to TfL when it applies for and receives LIP funding. The principle being that funding drawn down under LIP prior to or after the project has completed will need to be accounted for*.

C. In response to questions on the annual accounts made to the EY Auditor, the Auditor stated that LBH had confirmed it has accountancy practices and systems in place that identifies and makes divisible LIP funding income and expenditure against that account.

D. Under the circumstances the information should exist to be legally compliant with obligations and the law.

E. To obtain funding which requires substantive evidence of expenditure while not having such evidence is in effect a false making claim and tantamount to breaches of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 in relation to an individual or individuals obtaining funds for an entity by false representation, failing to provide information and or abuse of position, in this case LBH being the entity.

*It is important to note that “Information that is in someone’s head” does not constitute adherence to rules of accountancy and or obligations to TfL and conditions for funding or indeed the law.

That being stated, your response indicates that the information requested in relation to Q1 and Q2 does not exists and in turn renders the Pro forma Cs as a fabrication with no supporting documentation or proof of expenditure against it. I need not point out any further the ramifications in this regard.

In relation to your citing TfL statements regarding finding no discrepancies in LBH checks; although this statement has no direct relevance to the existence of information under the FOI in this specific request, it should be noted that TfL examines a sample project or scheme every year in which advance notice is given, they do not examine the whole pro forma C or account unless the local authority is picked for a full audit. It should also be that LBH has not undergone a complete LIP funding audit yet!

Furthermore, discrepancies require the examination of the site, documentation and proof of expenditure in order that a legitimate claim of no discrepancies can be made. Are you therefore changing your statement relating to the existence of the information as the TfL officer will not or should not draw information from the LBH officer’s head alone?

Moreover, should there be shortcomings in TfL procedures or auditing, it will be for TfL to review and I anticipate they will be carrying out this exercise sooner rather than later. With this in mind it should be noted that in your response you omitted to note that under that particular request to TfL, TfL also stated in relation to further question in this regard, that since LIP Funding began they have never found a single discrepancy in any check on any council ever, despite awarding upwards of £2b in funding in the last decade.

Taking into consideration there 31 councils implementing thousands of schemes and projects every year in that period, statistically speaking this statement by TfL is a discrepancy in itself as this perfect record indicates inadequacies of process rather than due diligence in checks and in turn gives no credibility to your claim or use in what is clearly a failure by TfL and not compliance to obligations by LBH.

Under the circumstances this needs to be cleared up as there are 2 possible outcomes which are not at all favourable to LBH. So for the avoidance of doubt I ask for the last time that you clearly stipulate if the information in relation to Q1 and Q2 exists or not because as it stands your response indicates a fabrication and in turn false information provided to TfL in relation to substantiating LIP funding expenditure.

As it stands I will lodge a complaint with the ICO. However, should the information requested be forthcoming I will consider the withdrawal of the complaint as long as the matter is dealt with expeditiously and in turn negating the ICO from having to take further action on my behalf.

Yours Sincerely

M Doyle.

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

I am out of the office  until Wednesday 25 September  2019. My emails will
not be read during this time. 
If urgent, please contact my colleague Nadine Lembke Soh on 01895 250861. 
Regards,

Glen

--
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]

Hillingdon Council routinely monitors the content of emails sent and
received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures. The contents of this message are for the
attention and use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient or addressee, or the person responsible for sending the
message you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any
part of it in any way. To do so may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake please advise the sender immediately. Where opinions are
expressed they are not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Service by email is not accepted unless by prior agreement.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Doyle
Please see attached.
Yours sincerely
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]
Hillingdon Council routinely monitors the content of emails sent and
received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures. The contents of this message are for the
attention and use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient or addressee, or the person responsible for sending the
message you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any
part of it in any way. To do so may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake please advise the sender immediately. Where opinions are
expressed they are not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Service by email is not accepted unless by prior agreement.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Egan,

Many thanks for the belated response and the contents have been noted. I have noted some anomalies in the scheme information you have provided under item 2 of the request and when fully checked against public records I will shared the findings with LBH.

In relation to item 1. the operative term has always been "would be available" that means accounts information invoices and documentation that exists relating to the 21 schemes cited against the near on £180k claimed. " Available" clearly means what you have, not what the Auditor would demand to see.

In turn any information provided against item 1 would not have to be entirely consistent with items 2 or 3, even though under the terms of funding and accountancy regulations, it should. As you have previously stated the act does not provide a mechanism for accuracy, but is a mechanism in which the Authority provides what information is "Available"

It is apparent that you endeavoured to create a prism argument and render a baseless refusal based on the nonsensical hypothetical of being someone's head. It is clear it is being done so to withhold information and that will not stand up to increasing scrutiny.

This is a matter of transparency and accountability not litigation.

I think it's time to reflect on the words of the current Director of Legal Services of Southwark Council Doreen Forrester-Brown who stated in a 2013 article

The monitoring officer has three main roles:

to report on matters he or she believes are, or are likely to be, illegal or amount to maladministration;
to be responsible for matters relating to the conduct of councillors and officers; and.
to be responsible for the operation of the council's constitution.

The role supersedes any other held by a designated Monitoring Officer including action which may be or is in direct conflict of that role in relation to protecting your client and or appointed or elected officers of LBH

I understand you are the Deputy Monitoring Officer

It cannot be stated that I gave LBH every chance to provide the information requested in a wide range of requests which have been subject to similar issues as this request

Yours sincerely,

Mr Doyle

Glen Egan, Hillingdon Borough Council

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Doyle,
Please see attached correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Glen Egan
Office Managing Partner | London Borough of Hillingdon | Legal Services
3E/04
Tel: 01895 277602 | Fax: 01895 250784 | E-mail:
[1][email address]
Hillingdon Council routinely monitors the content of emails sent and
received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures. The contents of this message are for the
attention and use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient or addressee, or the person responsible for sending the
message you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any
part of it in any way. To do so may be unlawful. If you receive this email
by mistake please advise the sender immediately. Where opinions are
expressed they are not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Hillingdon. Service by email is not accepted unless by prior agreement.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]