“All roads lead to Mazher.”
Dear Sheffield City Council,
In reference to Mark Smiths FOI Castlegate Conservation Area Consultation Cancellation [1]
And the following article in the press :
"“All roads lead to Mazher”: Have favouritism and political inaction held back the regeneration of former Castle Market site?" [2]
1. Mark Smith submitted their FOI about Castlegate Conservation Area on 14 October 2020, please identify recorded information regarding the date Whistleblower Complaint the council was submitted. Indicate from the recorded information if the complaint was prior to or after Mark Smith submitted the FOI.
---
The Council’s ‘Procedure for Dealing with Complaints regarding City,
Parish and Town Councillors and Co-Opted Members’. states
6.8.7 An investigation will be completed within 12 weeks of a referral by the
Monitoring Officer. The Consideration Sub-Committee will meet within two
months of the final report being submitted to the Monitoring Officer
Simon Odgen (the whistleblower) says that as recently as June he was told the Council investigation into the conduct of Cllr Iqbal was “paused”. Investigations are supposed to take 12 weeks, “and it has been more than 20 weeks”.
2.1. Please provide the referral date by the Monitoring Officer of the complaint
"6.8.3 The Investigating Officer will inform the complainant and Member of the
process and proposed timescale of the investigation. The investigation may
involve interviewing both parties and possibly other witnesses, together with
reviewing any relevant documentation or paperwork. "
2.2 Please provide "proposed timescale of the investigation."
----
"I can confirm that we have now received the relevant documents from the City Growth department but we need to review these before we can disclose them." [3]
“I assure searches for the information you have requested have been underway this week." [3]
3. META in relation to the statements above and the handling of Mark Smiths FOI please provide RECORDED INFORMATION (not a statement) such as copies the communications from the FOI team to the relevant departments in making the request for information in relation to how uphold your statutory duty (not policy) in replying toMark Smiths FOI, please provide a copy of the responses received back, including dates of the date they received documents back, and the searches undertaken this week referenced by Leon Kaplan. Please also include, communications with the ICO and discussion on how to respond to ICO.
[1] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
[2] https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/all...
[3] https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/...
Yours faithfully,
Marcus Combie
Dear Marcus Combie,
Thank you for your request for information relating to Castlegate
conservation FOI and whistleblower complaint which we received on
22/07/2021.
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request and will be dealt
with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The reference number for
your request can be found above.
Please be aware that Sheffield City Council’s response to the global
COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in resources across the Council,
meaning that we are currently dealing with a backlog of requests.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that we must respond to you
within 20 working days, by 19/08/2021, but we kindly ask for your patience
as we anticipate that there may be a delay in some cases. Please do not
hesitate to contact us at the email address below if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
_____________________________________________
From: Marcus Combie <[FOI #776350 email]>
Sent: 22 July 2021 07:24
To: FOI <[Sheffield City Council request email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - “All roads lead to Mazher.”
Dear Sheffield City Council,
In reference to Mark Smiths FOI Castlegate Conservation Area Consultation
Cancellation [1]
And the following article in the press :
"“All roads lead to Mazher”: Have favouritism and political inaction held
back the regeneration of former Castle Market site?" [2]
1. Mark Smith submitted their FOI about Castlegate Conservation Area on
14 October 2020, please identify recorded information regarding the date
Whistleblower Complaint the council was submitted. Indicate from the
recorded information if the complaint was prior to or after Mark Smith
submitted the FOI.
---
The Council’s ‘Procedure for Dealing with Complaints regarding City,
Parish and Town Councillors and Co-Opted Members’. states
6.8.7 An investigation will be completed within 12 weeks of a referral by
the
Monitoring Officer. The Consideration Sub-Committee will meet within two
months of the final report being submitted to the Monitoring Officer
Simon Odgen (the whistleblower) says that as recently as June he was told
the Council investigation into the conduct of Cllr Iqbal was “paused”.
Investigations are supposed to take 12 weeks, “and it has been more than
20 weeks”.
2.1. Please provide the referral date by the Monitoring Officer of the
complaint
"6.8.3 The Investigating Officer will inform the complainant and Member of
the
process and proposed timescale of the investigation. The investigation may
involve interviewing both parties and possibly other witnesses, together
with
reviewing any relevant documentation or paperwork. "
2.2 Please provide "proposed timescale of the investigation."
----
"I can confirm that we have now received the relevant documents from the
City Growth department but we need to review these before we can disclose
them." [3]
“I assure searches for the information you have requested have been
underway this week." [3]
3. META in relation to the statements above and the handling of Mark
Smiths FOI please provide RECORDED INFORMATION (not a statement) such as
copies the communications from the FOI team to the relevant departments in
making the request for information in relation to how uphold your
statutory duty (not policy) in replying toMark Smiths FOI, please provide
a copy of the responses received back, including dates of the date they
received documents back, and the searches undertaken this week referenced
by Leon Kaplan. Please also include, communications with the ICO and
discussion on how to respond to ICO.
[1]
[2]https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[2]
[3]https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[3]
[4]https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Yours faithfully,
Marcus Combie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #776350 email]
Is [6][Sheffield City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Sheffield City Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[7]https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlo...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[9]https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Mr Combie,
RE: FOI ID 2021-22-0498
Thank you for your request for information about the Castlegate
Conservation Area FOI, which we received on 22 July 2021.
Under Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act, we are required to
respond to FOI requests within 20 working days from receipt. This means
that the latest response date for your request is today, 19 August 2021
However, Section 10(3) of the Act states that we are permitted to extend
this deadline where we require more time to determine the Public Interest
in disclosing or withholding the information. In this case, we do require
more time to consider the public interest and would like to extend your
response deadline by 20 working days to 17 September 2021
We apologise for any inconvenience.
If you are unhappy with this, you can contact the Information
Commissioners Office. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 0303 123 1113, or for further
details see their website [1]www.ico.org.uk.
Kind regards,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [2][Sheffield City Council request email]
This Email, and any attachments, may contain non-public information and is
intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled
accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it
or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take
reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments
to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus
software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own
anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Sheffield City Council
will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. mailto:[Sheffield City Council request email]
Dear FOI,
As you are citing section 10(3) and it only permits extensions for further consideration of the public interest.
The requests for in information came from a document the council identified in it's handling of the complaint.
In the document it makes no reference to how an investigation can be "paused" , and the request for information of how the complaints procedure shall happen.
There is a large public interest in this matter, questions at council and press reporting.
#1 Cabinet member robustly denies allegations of holding ‘Sheffield back’ and breaking code of conduct rules ( https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/people/ca... )
#2 Whistleblower slams Sheffield Council's 'continued inaction' over Mazher Iqbal investigation ( https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/... )
#3 “All roads lead to Mazher”: Have favouritism and political inaction held back the regeneration of former Castle Market site? ( https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/all... )
#4 Former head of regeneration at Sheffield City Council accuses Labour councillor of meeting developers alone and wasting public money as investigation is launched ( https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pol...)
#5 Sheffield cabinet member under investigation 'stepped aside' from duties ( https://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/new... )
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
People are reaching out and asking me about the status of the investigation and when it was due.
https://twitter.com/AnnEtte82016400/stat...
More added public interest.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear Mr Combie,
Freedom of Information Request – FOI ID 2021-22-0498
Thank you for your request for information about the response to the
Castlegate Conservation Area FOI (FOI ID 2020-21-2698), which we received
on 27 July 2021.
You asked:
Mark Smith submitted their FOI about Castlegate Conservation Area on 14
October 2020, please identify recorded information regarding the date
Whistleblower Complaint the council was submitted. Indicate from the
recorded information if the complaint was prior to or after Mark Smith
submitted the FOI.
We can confirm that Sheffield City Council holds the information that you
have requested. However, it is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the grounds that it is personal
data and disclosure would contravene the data protection principle under
Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation that processing
of personal data must be fair, lawful and transparent. It would not be
fair to disclose this information as part of our response.
Please provide the referral date by the Monitoring Officer of the
complaint
We can confirm that Sheffield City Council holds the information that you
have requested. However, it is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the grounds that it is personal
data and disclosure would contravene the data protection principle under
Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation that processing
of personal data must be fair, lawful and transparent. Again, it would not
be fair to disclose this information as part of our response.
Please provide "proposed timescale of the investigation."
The investigation is currently ongoing.
META in relation to the statements above and the handling of Mark Smiths
FOI please provide RECORDED INFORMATION (not a statement) such as copies
the communications from the FOI team to the relevant departments in making
the request for information in relation to how uphold your statutory duty
(not policy) in replying to Mark Smiths FOI, please provide a copy of the
responses received back, including dates of the date they received
documents back, and the searches undertaken this week referenced by Leon
Kaplan. Please also include, communications with the ICO and discussion on
how to respond to ICO.
We can confirm that Sheffield City Council holds the information that you
have requested. However, it is exempt from disclosure under the provisions
of section 31(2)(b) – Law Enforcement – of the Freedom of Information Act
2000, by virtue of section 31(1)(g).
The relevant parts of section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act provide
that:
1. Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would
likely to prejudice –
g. the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2).
2. The purpose referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are –
b. The purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any
conduct which is improper.
The provisions of this exemption can be engaged when the release of the
information would, or would likely to, prejudice the ability of a public
authority to consider whether any person is responsible for any conduct
which is improper.
Under section 28 of the Localism Act 2011, Sheffield City Council has a
duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct for its elected and
co-opted members, and to have a procedure in place to investigate and
determine allegations that members have breached the Council’s Code of
Conduct.
The Council’s ‘Members’ Code of Conduct’ sets out the minimum standards of
conduct required from elected and co-opted members when performing their
functions. This is available online at:
[1]https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam...
Complaints about elected and co-opted members are handled in accordance
with the Council’s ‘Procedure for Dealing with Complaints regarding City,
Parish and Town Councillors and Co-Opted Members’. This is also available
online at:
[2]https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam...
As the Council has been entrusted with a function to investigate whether
elected or co-opted members are responsible for any conduct which is
improper, this satisfies the requirements of section 31(1)(g) and section
31(2)(b).
Evidence of Harm:
The Council has received a complaint about Councillor Mazher Iqbal,
Executive Member for City Futures: Development, Culture and Regeneration,
which alleges that he has broken the ‘Members’ Code of Conduct’.
The information you have requested falls within the scope of an ongoing
investigation into Councillor Iqbal’s conduct. We believe that the
disclosure of this information has the potential to affect and hinder the
investigation process. The Council needs to be able to investigate the
complaint in the strictest confidence to ensure natural justice.
Section 31 is a ‘qualified’ exemption, and we are obliged to carry out a
public interest test. The purpose of the public interest test is to decide
whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the
public interest in disclosure.
The factors favouring disclosure:
o There is a public interest in transparency and accountability to
promote public understanding and debate.
o There is a strong public interest in the Council conducting thorough
and robust investigations into complaints about the conduct of elected
and co-opted members, and for the findings of those investigations to
be reported accordingly.
The factors against disclosure:
o The disclosure of this information has the potential to affect and
hinder the ongoing investigation into Councillor Iqbal’s conduct, and
would likely prejudice the outcome. The Monitoring Officer and
Independent Persons need space to undertake private consideration of
the issues before them if they are to fully explore all aspects of the
case, without fear that information relevant to the investigation was
being placed in the public domain, leading to undue speculation
without all material facts and distracting from the formal process.
o The disclosure of this information would likely compromise the right
of the complainant to have their complaint investigated thoroughly.
o The disclosure of this information could also affect and hinder future
investigations into elected and co-opted member conduct.
Balance test:
The principle of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is to make public
bodies more open and accountable, and to help people understand how public
bodies carry out their duties and spend public money.
However, the Council is currently investigating a complaint into
Councillor Iqbal’s conduct. The Monitoring Officer and Independent Persons
need some space to be able to investigate thoroughly to achieve a fair and
correct outcome. The disclosure of this information has the potential to
affect and hinder the investigation process. For this reason, we believe
that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the
information.
If you have any queries about our response, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your
request, you are entitled to have this reviewed. You can ask for an
Internal Review by replying to this email. Internal Review requests should
be submitted within 40 working days from the date of this response.
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your Internal Review, you
can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Please see
[3]https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/offi...
for further details.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [4][Sheffield City Council request email]
This Email, and any attachments, may contain non-public information and is
intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled
accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it
or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take
reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments
to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus
software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own
anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Sheffield City Council
will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail
References
Visible links
1. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam...
2. https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam...
3. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/offi...
4. mailto:[Sheffield City Council request email]
Dear FOI,
Please consider this a request for an internal review.
In response to 1. The council's position is that:
Q: Mark Smith submitted their FOI about Castlegate Conservation Area on 14
October 2020, please identify recorded information regarding the date
Whistleblower Complaint the council was submitted. Indicate from the
recorded information if the complaint was prior to or after Mark Smith
submitted the FOI.
R: "We can confirm that Sheffield City Council holds the information that you
have requested. However, it is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the grounds that it is personal
data and disclosure would contravene the data protection principle under
Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation that processing
of personal data must be fair, lawful and transparent. It would not be
fair to disclose this information as part of our response."
The council has not identified who's personal data is referred to here: Is it that of Mark Smith and his FOI - that was submitted publicly [ https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c... ] and all the information is in the public domain.
Simon Ogden has also made multiple statements through the media regarding the timing of his whistleblower complaint.
From the YORKSHIRE POST REPORTING with Simon Ogden:
"A formal complaint was submitted to the council about the behaviour of Councillor Mazher Iqbal in October 2020,"
[ https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pol... ]
The council is not revealing personal information by confirming the sequence of events in publicly reported events.
-------
Q: Please provide "proposed timescale of the investigation."
R: The investigation is currently ongoing.
The PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS REGARDING CITY, PARISH
AND TOWN COUNCILLORS AND CO-OPTED MEMBERS which the requestor had read and asked about in this complaint, and that the council linked states that:
"6.8.7 An investigation will be completed within 12 weeks of a referral by the
Monitoring Officer. "
If the complaint was submitted in October, the 12 weeks have elapsed, and the council isn't following the PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS REGARDING CITY, PARISH
AND TOWN COUNCILLORS AND CO-OPTED MEMBER.
Simon Ogden has also stated in the press that the investigation is paused.
"Mr Ogden claims that, in spite of the public calls for answers and the seriousness of the allegations, investigating officers at Sheffield City Council have still failed to provide a time scale for the conclusion of their investigation and have told him that the inquiry is ‘paused’."
Whistleblower slams Sheffield Council's 'continued inaction' over Mazher Iqbal investigation [ https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/... ]
On one hand the council is claiming the investigation is ongoing, despite been overdue, and on the other-hand the Whistleblower stating he has been informed from the council the investigation is paused.
What the council has provided is not recorded information. From the PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS REGARDING CITY, PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILLORS AND CO-OPTED MEMBER. the council WILL
6.8.3 The Investigating Officer will inform the complainant and Member of the
process and proposed timescale of the investigation.
What the council has provided doesn't satisfy the request for recorded information, nor does it encapsulate the mention of a pause referred to by Simon Ogden.
The investigation is overdue by the council's own procedures, there is a public interest in knowing when the investigation will complete if not adhering to the councils procedure on dealing with complaints in 12 weeks.
"6.8.7 An investigation WILL BE COMPLETED IN 12 weeks of a referral by the
Monitoring Officer. "
---------
Q: META in relation to the statements above and the handling of Mark Smiths
FOI please provide RECORDED INFORMATION (not a statement) such as copies
the communications from the FOI team to the relevant departments in making
the request for information in relation to how uphold your statutory duty
(not policy) in replying to Mark Smiths FOI, please provide a copy of the
responses received back, including dates of the date they received
documents back, and the searches undertaken this week referenced by Leon
Kaplan. Please also include, communications with the ICO and discussion on
how to respond to ICO.
R: We can confirm that Sheffield City Council holds the information that you
have requested. However, it is exempt from disclosure under the provisions
of section 31(2)(b) – Law Enforcement – of the Freedom of Information Act
2000, by virtue of section 31(1)(g).
The relevant parts of section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act provide
that:
1. Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would
likely to prejudice –
g. the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2).
g. the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2).
2. The purpose referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are –
b. The purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any
conduct which is improper.
The level of prejudice caused to any investigations will depend, at least in part, on the stage that the investigation has reached at the time of the request. According to the councils complaints procedure an investigation WILL take 12 weeks, the complaint was Submitted in OCTOBER. As such the investigation should be complete if the councils complaint procedure was been adhered to.
The requestor agrees, Investigators need private thinking space, or safe space, if they are going to fully explore all aspects of a case, however the request was about the councils statutory response to a FOI and how the council handled it. If the council's complaint procedure was been adhered to then the harm by releasing this information would be negligible as the investigation should be complete.
If however the council's position is that harm would be caused to an investigation, then there is a public interest in knowing the current timeline of the investigation which is months overdue completion and expected completion. Which the council refused previously to disclose any recorded information on this.
"6.8.7 An investigation WILL BE COMPLETED within 12 weeks of a referral by the
Monitoring Officer. "
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear Marcus Combie,
Thank you for your recent request for an internal review relating to
Castlegate conservation FOI and whistleblower complaint which we received
on 08/09/2021. We are sorry to hear that you are not happy with your
response.
This has now been logged and will be carried out by a member of the team.
Please be aware that Sheffield City Council’s response to the global
COVID-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in resources across the Council,
meaning that we are currently dealing with a backlog of requests.
The Freedom of Information Code of Practice states that we should aim to
your request for internal review within 20 working days, by 06/10/2021,
but we kindly ask for your patience as we anticipate that there may be a
delay in some cases. Please do not hesitate to contact us at the email
address below if you have any queries.
Please note that the Code of Practice does allow us to extend this
deadline by an additional 20 days in some situations. If we need more time
to complete the internal review, we will contact you to inform you of
this.
If you have any queries in the meantime, please contact us at the email
address below.
Yours sincerely,
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
Dear FOI,
Please find attached more evidenced support in favor of the public interest.
“Sheffield City Council defends payments of 'cabinet bonus' to councillor who was 'stepped aside' over misconduct investigation” - 23rd Sept
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/...
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
more public interest in favor of disclosure Cllr Ben Curran on Twitter writes about the standard complaints investigation and his contact with the audit and standards committee. Writing in response to a question about Mazher Iqbal he states:
“ I, and others, raised concerns about the delay for some disciplinary cases at the audit and standards committee. Its not fair on anyone for the process to take so long.”
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
The investigation is now complete as discuss at the sub committee for audit and standards.
Therefore your reliance on section 31(2)(b) can no longer be engaged.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
Hope all is well. Don’t worry, it’s not a request for an update!
I’d just like to draw your attention to and records covered under the scope of this FOI I would like you to include in disclosure, incase you were not aware of them- or had not been provided with them.
The Star reported, and stated they had seen emails that:
“ In emails seen by The Star, the councillor – who is now under investigation for alleged breaches of code of conduct including in relation to these cancellations, which he ‘robustly denies’ – also informed officers not to release any information to the public or press about his decision.”
The requestor would definately expect those emails where officers were informed not to release information to the public or press to be included in release.
The Star has reported on them, it is in the public interest to
know why they should not be informed about the cancellation.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/...
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
Some more Public Interest related to the materials requested.
https://twitter.com/SamMGreg/status/1507...
Sam Greg tweeting directly to the council:
“Speaking of protecting heritage, why did you cancel the Castlegate Conservation Area?”
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
Even more public interest which should
Outweigh anysafe space arguments.
https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/new...
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear Mr Combie
Please find attached our internal review.
Yours sincerely
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
This Email, and any attachments, may contain non-public information and is
intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may
contain sensitive or protectively marked material and should be handled
accordingly. If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author
immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose,
distribute, copy, print or rely on any of the information contained in it
or attached, and all copies must be deleted immediately. Whilst we take
reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any attachments
to this Email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti-virus
software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out your own
anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Sheffield City Council
will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Sheffield City Council request email]
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now