Mark Kitts & Liverpool Chinatown NPG Ltd did he take any non-contract mobile phones from NPG Ltd

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai Liverpool City Council fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

Dear Liverpool City Council,
Please supply the details of all records between the following companies and Mark Kitts
Mark Kitts Assistant Director, Regeneration

1/ Besides the income from the Liverpool city council did Mark Kitts have alternative sources of income from 2014/15/16 from a number of developers and solicitors all involved with PHD1 and NPG (North Point Global ltd)

2/ While working on the project known as Liverpool Chinatown development did Mark Kitts ever take any payments from:
New Chinatown Development Company Ltd
Samuel Belin & Partners
It, s then appointed solicitors or agents?
Did Mark Kitts ever receive any non-contract mobile phone from any of the above?
Did Mark Kitts ever agree to supply any outside investigations into the Chinatown project in return for payments.

3/ Please could the LCC supply all the details, phone records, texts, and all emails to the companies above from and to Mark Kitts?
Please supply all records of the meeting with Mark Kitts and the following members all linked to the named companies above.
Samuel Beilin what was the reason for the meeting and or phone calls with regards to NPG Ltd and Chinatown?

4/ Please supply all communications to and from LJS accounting and James Lee Spence to Mark Kitts and anyone else at the LCC with regards to business dealing?

5/ 174 Law was involved in NPG Ltd can Mark Kitts recall meeting anyone from 174 law in person, or text or by phone?

Please supply all dealing to and from Mark Kitts with Kate Parry a solicitor and partner with Lee James Spence?
Please supply the reason why Mark Kitts was given a phone from these developers.

Yours faithfully,

Matt Williams

Liverpool City Council

With regard to the content of your submission, this comprises speculation,
innuendo, comment and expression of opinion in relation to individuals and
seeks comment from individuals as opposed to information held by a public
authority, for which purpose Freedom of Information legislation exists.
This submission is therefore not a valid request for information in its
entirety. In addition and in light of the content and extent of
speculation and targeting of individuals, this request is further assessed

On this occasion and taking into account the extent of speculation,
innuendo and comment targeted towards named individuals, the City Council
feels that the application of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 is appropriate in these circumstances.

We would refer you to Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council &
Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013) in which the Upper
Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word
vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a
request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding
that request.

In further exploring the role played by circumstances, the Tribunal placed
particular emphasis on the issue of whether the request has adequate or
proper justification. They also cited two previous section 14(1) decisions
where the lack of proportionality in the requester's previous dealings
with the authority was deemed to be a relevant consideration by the First
Tier Tribunal.

After taking these factors into account, the Tribunal concluded that
'vexatious' could be defined as the '…manifestly unjustified,
inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.' (paragraph 27).

Officers within the City Council, while always adhering to their
responsibilities and obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
should not be expected to be subject to such levels of defamatory comment,
implication, ill informed supposition and false statements. As such the
City Council considers this type of request to be bordering upon an abuse
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and there is no justification for
officers to, in practice, cease their everyday activities and generate
statistical data for an individual where there is no legitimate reason to
do so.

The City Council considers that this request is specifically designed to
intimidate and cause disruption to the relevant Officers and Service Areas
identified by generated additional administrative and bureaucratic work
and, consequently, it will not be providing the information asked for in
the above referenced requests.

While the Act can, indirectly, ensure officers are held to public account
the City Council already has such processes in place and there is no
requirement for members of the public to feel they need to assume this
role, either on behalf of the City Council or other members of the public.
It is on this basis that the City Council considers that the application
of Section 14 (1) is entirely appropriate to the requests concerned.

The City Council would further advise that given the nature and frequency
of the above requests that for any requests of a similar nature on this or
a similar subject matter will again be viewed in the context of a Section
14 (1) exemption and no further responses provided beyond this letter.

In relation to the comments and speculation you make relating to
individuals -

Warning - Submission of Information Requests with potentially Defamatory

It is our assessment that the content of your statements within your
request are in whole or part potentially defamatory in nature, that these
identify or refer to individuals and are being published by yourself
through the use of a public website forum to third parties.

We would further advise you that the defamatory statements made by
yourself either directly or through recognised aliases and contained
within the information requests referenced above fall within the meaning
of Article 14(1)(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). Under the
law of England and Wales, a defamatory statement is one which tends to
lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society
generally (Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237).

We would further advise that a defamatory statement is published at the
place where it is read, heard or seen, and is not where the material was
first placed on the internet. In internet cases, therefore, provided a
small number of people have access to the material on the internet in
England, the English courts will have jurisdiction to hear the claim
against a foreign defendant (Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987]
A.C. 460).

We would therefore advise that you take prompt action to remove or
disabled access to the Offending Webpages.

In the event that this confirmation is not received, the individuals named
directly or by implication within the above referenced information
requests and publicly displayed on the Offending Websites shall reserve
the right to issue proceedings against you seeking relief for defamation.

The remedies that may be available to the these individuals include an
injunction restraining further publication of the Offending Statement
[pending trial], damages, legal costs and interest.

This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Liverpool City Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Liverpool City
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.