Enquiries to:
Information Team
Our Ref:
FOI 4043454
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr Bett
Freedom of Information Request 4043454
Thank you for your recent request. Your request was actioned under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 in which you requested the fol owing
information –
Liverpool's Cabinet Member of Business and Enterprise Councillor Gary Millar
& director of BID Liverpool.
Dear Cllr Gary Millar,
1. Could you please supply all the details as to your involvement with
acting as one of the judges at, Liverpool's 30 James Street Titanic Hotel,
which won an Independent Award from Awards founder and editor of the
Collective Magazine, Lee Hagan.
Ref: Liverpool's Signature Living group behind the 30 James Street Hotel
was awarded the Independent accolade at the Collective Honours
Awards.
By: Echo reporter Georgia Morgan 28TH November 2014.
2. Were you paid any fees from Signature Living, or Mr & Mrs Kenwright
for your input?
3. Were you involved in getting the Mayor of Liverpool (Joe Anderson) to
gift or donate a £10,000 payment to Collective Magazine, Lee Hagen?
4. Cllr Millar that night in question did you work with Daniel Hughes or
Hughes PR and Echo reporter 'Georgia Morgan who was a host for that
event?
5. Cllr Millar both the Collective Magazine and its founder are nowhere to
be found in Liverpool at all, and in fact he is now using a fake name on
line, do you still deal with him and how does one buy his magazine, if
there was ever one?
6. . Cllr Millar you are a member (director) of BID could you explain the
reasons as to while ordinary businesses struggle within the city centre,
yet Lawrence Kenwright enjoys paying not one penny in BID fees, why is
this Cllr Millar, BID is Constituted by UK law in 2004 and have you or BID
not taken any legal action over none payment?
7. BID has 1,500 BID Levy Payers in Liverpool; Cllr Millar you are a
director of BID so what role do you play in this company?
Response:
We would advise that Freedom of Information legislation relates to information
held by public authorities and does not extend to require the provision of
explanations or for matters which do not relate to City Council business. As
such and in respect to all elements of your request, Liverpool City Council do
not hold any such information.
In addition to the above point, we note that elements of your request comprise
comment, speculation, opinion and innuendo. We would therefore draw your
attention to the following responses.
Notice of Application of Section 14 (1) – Vexatious Request – applied to
this request and subsequent requests of the same or similar nature
With regard to the submission of speculative requests which comprise
innuendo, comment, opinion and potentially defamatory statements, Liverpool
City Council would advise that Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 allows a Local Authority to refuse what is deemed to be a vexatious
request with reference to the worthiness of the request as placed against the
impact it would have on the Local Authority.
Consequently the City Council feels that the application of Section 14 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 is appropriate in these circumstances and
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 public scrutiny of their performance
and 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 review all records
in a manner disruptive to the conduct of operational legislative duties solely to
satisfy a request such as this.
The City Council considers this is a request specifically designed to 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 this element of your request.
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 any requests of the same or
similar nature received will again be viewed in the context of a Section 14 (1)
exemption and no responses provided.
Warning – Submission of Information Requests with potentially
Defamatory Content
It is our assessment that elements of your request are in whole or part
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 concludes our response.
In accordance with the application of Sections 14 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 we have not provided all of the information requested. As
such this letter serves as a Section 17 Notice under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
The City Council will consider appeals, referrals or complaints in respect of
your Freedom of Information Act 2000 and you must submit these in writing
to
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx within 28 days of receiving your
response. The matter will be dealt with by an officer who was not previously
involved with the response and we will look to provide a response within 40
days.
If you remain dissatisfied you may also apply to the Information
Commissioner for a decision about whether the request for
information has been dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
The Information Commissioner’s website is
www.ico.gov.uk and the
postal address and telephone numbers are:- Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK95AF. Telephone 0303 123 1113. Email –
xxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx (they advise that their email is not secure)
We trust this information satisfies your enquiry.
Yours sincerely
A Lewis
Information Team
