Dear Guardian Ad Litem Agency (Northern Ireland),

In concern for abuse of public monies, particularly given that NIGALA and the Trust both requested to withdraw from the article 56 investigation on the day of and just before the final hearing was due to take place, the Trust conceding that it was they themselves who had been abusive, I have under the Freedom of Information Act asked NIGALA how much money it cost NIGALA to undertake and complete the inappropriately applied Article 56 investigation into my family and what this figure included.

NIGALA dealt with this as a Freedom of Information request. The response given stated:
"Nigala does not hold information on cost of specific cases."

I queried this again on 02/02/2010 and asked you to kindly clarify if your organisation was saying that NIGALA is unaware of how much staff time is applied to specific cases.

The response given stated:
"NIGALA does not hold this information as costs are not calculated on a per case basis."

I then drew your attention to the Northern Ireland Legal Requirement on NIGALA, enshrined also in NIGALA's own standards, specifically:
STATUTORY RULES OF NORTHERN IRELAND, 1996 No. 128 CHILDREN, The Guardians Ad Litem (Panel) Regulation (Northern Ireland) 1996, item 7, Administration of the panel, part 2: The Agency shall ensure that records are kept in relation to the operation of the panel which shall include—(a) the name of each child in respect of whom a guardian at litem is selected from the panel; (b) a description of the relevant proceedings in respect of which the selection is made; (c) the name and level of the court (whether High Court, county court or court of summary jurisdiction); (d) the name of any person selected from the panel and whether he has been appointed as a guardian at litem in specified proceedings or in proceedings under the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; (e) the date of each appointment, the date on which work started in respect of that appointment and the date on which it finished; (f) details of fees, expenses and allowances in each case in which there has been such an appointment;(g)the result of the proceedings in each case in which there has been such an appointment.

I particularly drew your attention to item (f) details of fees, expenses and allowances in each case in which there has been such an appointment

I requested, under the same Freedom of Information Act, given that NIGALA has already asserted that the agency does not hold this information as costs are not calculated on a per case basis, how many times has NIGALA breeched this legislation and failed to record the cost information on a per case basis? I asked that figures would be provided each of last 3 years.

On 23 February 2011 NIGALA responded by stating:

“I can confirm that the NIGALA does not record costs on a per case basis for its employed guardians ad litem.
NIGALA makes payments to self-employed guardians ad litem only on a per-case basis. Please note the self-employed costs relate only to a small number of completed cases as the majority of cases are carried by our employed staff. Individual costs per case are not collected for our employed guardian ad litem workforce.
NIGALA does not hold any information on how many times legislation is breeched.”

*** I note that NIGALA's response confirms that they do not abide by this legislation nor their own published standards of accountability. ***

In addition, I also requested NIGALA to provide information of how many article 56 investigations have been ordered in 2008 specifically from Craigavon Family Proceedings Court and from each of the other family proceedings courts?

I responded to the initial information response provided by NIGALA by highlighting that the figures provided were wrong in that NIGALA stated there were 18 applications for article 56 presented to court and yet the breakdown per court supplied did not total 18. NIGALA responded by explaining "this was a typographical error" on their part and provided revised figures.

However, the figures provided still did not tally up. NIGALA has published that of 18 Article 56 investigations ordered in 2008, 18 resulted in Public Orders being made (information request 2 in the same FOI request). I wrote to NIGALA to explain that I knew these figures were still not correct as there was absolutely no public order made in my family's case, instead NIGALA and the Trust requested to remove themselves from the proceedings at the 11th hour, before the final hearing, the Trust citing that they recognised that it was they themselves who had been abusive.

Therefore I kindly asked you to clarify why these figures are still wrong despite 2 requests to NIGALA to look again at the misleading statistics they have published.

The response received on 23 February 2011 states:

“NIGALA’s statistics are based on the number of orders granted within the specified time period.
Upon reviewing the case allocation details of your case, I can confirm that the order of appointment was received by NIGALA on 29/12/2008.
I can also confirm that the order discharging the guardian ad litem was received by NIGALA on 16/12/2010.
Accordingly, your case will be recorded in the statistics of the 2010/2011 Annual Report.
I confirm that the statistics previously released to you are correct.”

I write to you, again, to point out that my case ended and the Guardian was discharged, without a hearing, by her request, on 10 December 2009, - not 2010, and the Trust admitted that they had been abusive. I point out that therefore the statistics you have provided to this FOI request are clearly still wrong, my case which ended with no public order made ought to have been included in the figures you provided. Please do let me know why these figures are still wrong.

Yours faithfully,

BB

Dear Ronan Durnin,

Your response gives links to 4 documents, and three of these links do not work. However, from the title of the links it would be fair to assume that you have given links to NIGALA's annual report.

Mr Durnin, you are fully aware that there was no public order nor private order made following what the Trust has admitted to being an abusive article 56 investigation into my family, which commenced 2008 and ended in 2009. However, the statistics NIGALA has published on its website in response to my Freedom of Information request Feb 2010 querying how many public orders were made following Article 56 investigations in 2008, very wrongly suggests that there was a public order made.

Your response to my Freedom of Information Request also fails to take account of the email exchanges we have had recently outside of the 'Whatdotheyknow' website, particularly that you wrongfully asserted that the statistics for the abusive article 56 investigation into my family would fall into the statistics of outcomes of Article 56 investigations presented in NIGALA's 2010/2011 annual report.

I pointed out to you that again you were wrong as the investigation into my family began in 2008 and ended in 2009, therefore any statistics related to that case would not be included in 2010/2011 annual report.

You have acknowledged your error in this matter in your email to me of Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:30:19 +0000, copied below.

You asked me to point out the table of information I was referring to, which I did in my email to you of Wed, 23 February 2011 16:37:10, in which made clear that I referred to the FOI request originally made on 02/02/2010, initially responded by NIGALA on 25/02/2010, and published by NIGALA on its website:

1 02/02/2010 25/02/2010 Article 56 appointment statistics/costs

And I gave you the link to this response on NIGALA's own website: http://www.nigala.n-i.nhs.uk/Class%201-W...

Therefore your response is clearly inadequate as the information you have provided as a response to a Freedom of Information request is clearly wrong - there was no public order nor private order made following the abusive Article 56 investigation into my family yet the statistics published on NIGALA's website in response to a Freedom of Information request falsely suggest that there was.

I have requested information on:

Information Request 1: How many article 56
investigations have been ordered in 2008
specifically from Craigavon Family
Proceedings Court and from each of the
other family proceedings courts, and:

Information Request 2: How many of these
investigations from each of these courts
resulted in public orders being made.

I have still not received accurate information and I have pointed out your errors in this matter on numerous occasions. You have conducted an internal review and I have spoken with the Information Commissioner who suggested I return the matters to you once more.

I feel the information you have provided is still inaccurate information as the information provided suggests that every article 56 investigation in 2008 resulted in a public or private order being made, yet I know for a fact that there was absolutely no public order nor any private order made in my own families case, which originated in Craigavon Family Proceedings Court in 2008.

I have asked you to explain why the information you have presented as factual is misleading and you have failed to give an adequate explanation, instead just giving broken links to your annual reports.

Copied below are the recent email exchanges that were outside of the 'Whatdotheyknow' website.

________________________________________

Subject: FOI Request 01 2011
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:40:42 +0000
From: [email address]
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ref: FO1 01/2011

23rd February 2011

Ms. XXXXXXX
XX XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXXXXXX,

[Freedom of Information Act 2000]

I am writing to confirm that the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency has now completed its search for the information held by it which you requested on 27th February 2011.

A copy of the information is enclosed in the table below and the attached document.

Response Table:

Item 1 from Ms XXXXXX
Given that NIGALA has already asserted that the agency does not hold this information as costs are not calculated on a per case basis, how many times has NIGALA breeched this legislation and failed to record the cost information on a per case basis? Please provide figures for each of last 3 years.

NIGALA Response:
I can confirm that the NIGALA does not record costs on a per case basis for its employed guardians ad litem.
NIGALA makes payments to self-employed guardians ad litem only on a per-case basis.
Please note the self-employed costs relate only to a small number of completed cases as the majority of cases are carried by our employed staff. Individual costs per case are not collected for our employed guardian ad litem workforce.
NIGALA does not hold any information on how many times legislation is breeched.
Please find attached a schedule of these costs for the last 3 financial years: 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and the 2010/2011 year to 18th February 2011.
In terms of costs per year, the table below lists total costs per year for completed cases. I have also enclosed a detailed breakdown of these costs for your information
NIGALA implemented a claims module within its case management system in the 2009/10 financial year which allows for the information provided for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 to be categorised into case groups.

Financial Year Case Group Total Cost Per Case Group Total
2008/09 Information not held per case group for this period £72,983.91
2009/2010 Adoption £3,708.19 £63,472.07
Care £51,587.79
Secure Accommodation £5,934.47
Other case types £2,241.62
2010/2011 Adoption £7,879.64 £85,760.17
Care £73,627.22
Secure Accommodation £4,165.78
Other case types £87.53

Item 2 from Ms XXXXXX
However, the figures provided still do not tally up. NIGALA has published that of 18 Article 56 investigations ordered in 2008, 18 resulted in Public Orders being made (information request 2 in the same FOI request). I know this is not true as there was absolutely no public order made in my case, instead NIGALA and the Trust requested to remove themselves from the proceedings at the 11th hour, before the final hearing, the Trust citing that they recognised that they themselves had been abusive. NIGALA’s statistics are based on the number of orders granted within the specified time period.

NIGALA Response:
Upon reviewing the case allocation details of your case, I can confirm that the order of appointment was received by NIGALA on 29/12/2008.
I can also confirm that the order discharging the guardian ad litem was received by NIGALA on 16/12/2010.
Accordingly, your case will be recorded in the statistics of the 2010/2011 Annual Report.
I confirm that the statistics previously released to you are correct.

Under the terms of the legislation, if you are unhappy with this response you have the right to seek a review within the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency in the first instance. If you wish to do so, please write to myself at the following address: Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency, Centre House, 79 Chichester Street, Belfast, BT1 4JE.

If after such a review you are still unhappy with the response, you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner who will undertake an independent review. You can contact the Information Commissioner at the following address: Information Commissioner’s Office –Northern Ireland, 51 Adelaide Street, Belfast, BT2 8FE or via email at [email address] or telephone 02890 269380.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,

R.Durnin

=============
Ronan Durnin
Information Manager
NIGALA
79 Chichester Street
Belfast
BT1 4JE

02890 316557
[email address]

________________________________________

From: XXXXXXXXX [mailto:XXXXXXXXXXX]
Sent: 23 February 2011 14:19
To: Ronan Durnin
Subject: RE: FOI Request 01 2011 Email 3[Scanned]

Ronan, please, just get it right.

The Order discharging the guardian ad litem from my family, which was requested by the Guardian ad Litem and the Trust at the 11th hour, before the final hearing, with the Trust admitting that they had been abusive towards my family, was made in 2009, on XX XXX 2009, and likely arrived in NIGALA a few days after that. So the records ... should also most definitely have been included in the figures you have given as part of the FOI request. Therefore the figures I have now asked for 4 times are still not right.

I note your confirmation that NIGALA does not collect the costs per case, even though this is a legal requirement.

I have contacted the Information Commissioners Office but would be happy if you just provide the correct information please Ronan, or let me know why the wrong information is provided. I note that you have not placed the FOI response that you gave to me today on-line yet and this is now an opportunity to fix that mistake before it goes on-line and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

________________________________________

Subject: RE: FOI Request 01 2011 Email 3[Scanned]
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:30:19 +0000
From: [email address]
To: XXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXX
Ref: FO1 01/2011

23rd February 2011

Ms. XXXXXXX
XX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXXXX,

[Freedom of Information Act 2000]

Ms XXXXXXX,

I have re-checked the information below. You are correct in stating the date of XXth XXX 2009. That date of XXth XXX 2010 is a typographical error on my part for which I apologise unreservedly to you.

We have not yet published our Annual Report for the 2010/2011 year. As your case concluded in the 2009/2010 year, all statistics relating to the period 01/04/2009 – 31/03/2010 would be included in the 2009/2010 Annual Report.

If you could refer me to the table within the 2009/2010 Annual Report which you are querying, I will gladly make checks again on your behalf.

Yours sincerely,

R.Durnin

=============
Ronan Durnin
Information Manager
NIGALA
79 Chichester Street
Belfast
BT1 4JE

02890 316557
[email address]

________________________________________

Subject: RE: FOI Request 01 2011 Email 4
Date: Wed, 23 February 2011 16:37:10
From: XXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXX
To: [email address]

Mr R Durnin,

I refer to the FOI request originally made on 02/02/2010, initially responded by NIGALA on 25/02/2010, and published by NIGALA on its website:

1 02/02/2010 25/02/2010 Article 56 appointment statistics/costs

- here is the link: http://www.nigala.n-i.nhs.uk/Class%201-W...

XXXXXXXXX
________________________________________

Yours sincerely,

BB