Messages sent to KPMG pursuent to FOI LDL report request

Julian Todd made this Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Liverpool City Council.

Dear Liverpool City Council,

I refer to the 8 December 2015 response to my long overdue FOI request made on 23 October 2015.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

"In regards to your request please accept my apologies for the delay.

"We are currently liaising with the relevant third party organisations in order to establish what information can be disclosed. This process has taken longer than anticipated and is, unfortunately, still ongoing."

I don't really see how such liaising could possibly take this long, so please send me the following information:

(1) The names of the relevant third party organisations referred to above

(2) Copies of the messages sent to them.

... between the dates 23 October 2015 and 8 December 2015.

Yours faithfully,

Julian Todd

Kevin Symm, Liverpool City Council

Information request
Our reference: 442429

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Katie M. anodiad ()

Great request. I did wonder how on earth they could justify protracted discussions with KPMG about this, when their contention that KPMG imposed some kind of special confidentiality had already been comprehensively debunked.
But perhaps that's not what they're doing. I think the "third parties" involved here are what they used to call "LDL/BT", meaning the former CEO and his senior management team (overwhelmingly Council secondees, many currently back at LCC, with one notable exception!), as they are the people who clearly did not do their jobs properly, as even the brief summary of the KPMG report makes clear.
My similar request was labelled "vexatious", on the grounds that it would upset people, who shouldn't have to interrupt the important work they do to satisfy the "curiosity of people like me .... and never mind the law.
I wonder if they will try the same thing here.

Kevin Symm, Liverpool City Council

1 Atodiad

Please find attached response

Regards,

Kevin Symm I Senior Information Officer
Liverpool City Council I Cunard Building I Liverpool I L3 1DS
T: 0151 233 0418 I E: [1][email address]

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Gadawodd Josie Mullen anodiad ()

LDL was a 'free-for-all' of self interest, gross waste of public money and flouted company law in the most outrageous way.

The more a city council has to hide, the more the word 'vexatious' will be used to hide the truth.+

Gadawodd Katie M. anodiad ()

Hi Julian,
This is identical to the response to a very similar KPMG-report -related request I received last November (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...) I.e. a chunk of ICO guidance, without any attempt to apply this to this request, plus a couple of bizarre paragraphs in which they state that they do not agree with the law, and hence have decided not to apply it.
It refers to "identified" officers who haven't actually been identified, categorically dismisses members of the public and their rights under the law, and doesn't even consider the rest of the guidance that it quotes from (the actual guidance bit). Indeed, whoever wrote the letter seems to have stopped reading after the bit that it quotes. Perhaps this is meant to be some kind of illustration of how busy they are.
My request was reviewed internally (late) and is now a formal complaint being investigated by the Information Commissioner.
It might be worth contacting the ICO's office to see if you can shortcut this rigmarole, and have your request considered with mine.