Child minder: waste disposal notices FOI.

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Wandsworth Borough Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Wandsworth Borough Council,

A notice from Wandsworth Borough Council was sent to child-minders asking to show waste contract for babies' nappies under penalty of fine for not having one.

Cllr Sarah McDermott stated on twitter that she and cabinet member Cllr Steffi Sutters had 'stepped in to get the best decision for our much valued child minders'

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to Cllr Sarah McDermott and Cllr Steffi Sutters stepping in to get the best decision for child minders.

To aid you in your request in locating the information, information held will be from August 2018, and will also include relevant officers from Environment & Community Services.

Cllr Peter Graham stated 'the council... apologised for the error', also on Twitter. Along with the Wandsworth Council twitter account.

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to when the council became aware of the error with specific consideration to the notices sent out, how the error was identified, and subsequently mitigation and remedial actions and discussions.

For purposes of these requests, the term “record” and "records" shall mean: 



(1) any written,
printed, or typed material of any kind, including without limitation all correspondence, memoranda, notes, messages, letters, cards, facsimiles, papers, forms, messages, diaries, schedules, calendars, chronological data, minutes, books, reports, charts, lists, ledgers, printed
matter, prospectuses, statements, statistics, surveys, agreements, transcripts, magazine or newspaper articles, or press releases; 



(2) any electronically, magnetically, or mechanically stored material of any kind, including without limitation all electronic mail or e-mail;



(3) any graphic materials and data
compilations from which information can be obtained; and



(4) any materials using other
means of preserving thought or expression.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus Combie

Freedom Of Information,

Request for Information - 2018/17523 - Child minders

Thank you for your request for information received on 22/08/2018.

This will be processed in accordance with the appropriate access to
information regime.

Regards

FOI and DPA Officer
[1][Wandsworth Borough Council request email]

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Wandsworth Borough Council request email]

Freedom Of Information,

Request for Information - 2018/17523 - Child minders

 

I refer to your request for information received on 22/08/2018. Please see
the information below in response to your request: -

 

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held
Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to when the council became
aware of the error with specific consideration to the notices sent out,
how the error was identified, and subsequently mitigation and remedial
actions and discussions.

 

For purposes of these requests, the term “record” and "records" shall
mean: ??

 

(1) any written,

printed, or typed material of any kind, including without limitation all
correspondence, memoranda, notes, messages, letters, cards, facsimiles,
papers, forms, messages, diaries, schedules, calendars, chronological
data, minutes, books, reports, charts, lists, ledgers, printed

matter, prospectuses, statements, statistics, surveys, agreements,
transcripts, magazine or newspaper articles, or press releases; ??

 

(2) any electronically, magnetically, or mechanically stored material of
any kind, including without limitation all electronic mail or e-mail;

 

??(3) any graphic materials and data

compilations from which information can be obtained; and

 

??(4) any materials using other

means of preserving thought or expression.

 

We are treating this request under the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 (EIRs) (rather than a Freedom of Information request as
submitted) as it is requesting information which under paragraph 2 (c) of
the EIR is information on

Measures (including administrative measures), such as policies,
legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements and activities
affecting, or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in 2
(a) and (b) (see below) as well as measures or activities designed to
protection those elements

2(a) information on …. The state of the elements of the environment, such
as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites
including wetland, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its
components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction
amongst these elements.

2(b) factors such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste,
including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into
the environment affecting or likely to affect the elements likely to
affect the elements of the environment referred to in 2 (a)

As such according to the exception at paragraph 12 (4)(e) (see below) of
the EIR we are refusing your request;

12 (4)(e) ... a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the
extent that the requests involves the disclosure of internal
communications.

This exception is subject to the public interest test. A public interest
test provides that even where an exception is engaged, information can
only be withheld if the public interest in maintaining the exception
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

 

We consider the information requested to be internal communications. It
consists of an email trail between officers and councillors. The sole
purpose of the email correspondence was to inform relevant staff members
and councillor about matters and to enable them to make further decisions.

Public interest in favour of disclosure

Disclosure leads to increased transparency and accountability of the
Council’s actions, which in turn generate increased trust and confidence
between the Council and its residents and businesses.

Public interest in favour of non-disclosure (maintaining the exception)

There were never any plans to require childminders to engage in a waste
contract with the Council for the collection of waste. The initial contact
made with childminders in this regard is unsupported by current or
intended Council policy and was made independently by waste officers. This
was a clear error in judgement. To release the information sought would
generate unnecessary debate and discussion. We are mindful that there is
an increased pressure on Council resources at a time when we are trying to
make significant efficiencies, with reduced government funding.  To
further publicise this error would distract staff from their core
functions and further add to the pressure on these services.

 

I hope this information meets your needs. If you do not understand the
information provided or wish to discuss anything further, please feel free
to contact me and I, or another member of the team will be able to assist
you.

 

Please note, all material provided by Wandsworth Council in response to
your request for information is for your personal, non-commercial use.
Wandsworth Council reserves all rights in the copyright of the information
provided. Any unauthorised copying or adaptation of the information
without express written confirmation from Wandsworth Council may
constitute an infringement of copyright. Any intention to re-use this
information commercially may require consent. Please forward any requests
for re-use of information to the FOI officer.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to your
request you may make representations to the Chief
Executive. Correspondence should be addressed to: 

 

Room 149, Wandsworth Town Hall, Wandsworth High Street, London, SW18 2PU

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: 

 

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF

 

 

Regards

 

 

Liam Cooper
FOI & DPA Officer
Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Council

020 8871 8800
+ [1][email address]

[2]www.richmond.gov.uk / [3]www.wandsworth.gov.uk

 

From: Marcus Combie <[FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 22 August 2018 23:29
To: Freedom Of Information <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Child minder: waste disposal
notices FOI.

 

Dear Wandsworth Borough Council,

A notice from Wandsworth Borough Council was sent to child-minders asking
to show waste contract for babies' nappies under penalty of fine for not
having one.

Cllr Sarah McDermott stated on twitter that she and cabinet member Cllr
Steffi Sutters had 'stepped in to get the best decision for our much
valued child minders'

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held
Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to Cllr Sarah McDermott and
Cllr Steffi Sutters stepping in to get the best decision for child
minders.

To aid you in your request in locating the information, information held
will be from August 2018, and will also include relevant officers from
Environment & Community Services.

Cllr Peter Graham stated 'the council... apologised for the error', also
on Twitter. Along with the Wandsworth Council twitter account.

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held
Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to when the council became
aware of the error with specific consideration to the notices sent out,
how the error was identified, and subsequently mitigation and remedial
actions and discussions.

For purposes of these requests, the term “record” and "records" shall
mean: 



(1) any written,
printed, or typed material of any kind, including without limitation all
correspondence, memoranda, notes, messages, letters, cards, facsimiles,
papers, forms, messages, diaries, schedules, calendars, chronological
data, minutes, books, reports, charts, lists, ledgers, printed
matter, prospectuses, statements, statistics, surveys, agreements,
transcripts, magazine or newspaper articles, or press releases; 



(2) any electronically, magnetically, or mechanically stored material of
any kind, including without limitation all electronic mail or e-mail;



(3) any graphic materials and data
compilations from which information can be obtained; and



(4) any materials using other
means of preserving thought or expression.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus Combie

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #512560 email]

Is [5][Wandsworth Borough Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Wandsworth Borough Council? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.richmond.gov.uk/
3. http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/
4. mailto:[FOI #512560 email]
5. mailto:[Wandsworth Borough Council request email]
6. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
7. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Dear Wandsworth Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Wandsworth Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Child minder: waste disposal notices FOI.'.

The requests was composed of multiple elements and each distinct. One of element of my request was as follows:

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to when the council became aware of the error with specific consideration to the notices sent out, how the error was identified, and subsequently mitigation and remedial actions and discussions.

This request had the first request for recorded chronological information; 'when the council became aware of the error...'

The request was made under the FOI as there is a duty to confirm or deny is clearly set out in s1(1)(a). By treating this request under EIR WBC have sidestepped confirming if recorded information is held as to when the error was identified, and grouped this under exemption 12(4)(e). Recorded chronological information is not internal communication.

Under FOI WBC would also have failed to provide assistance under FOI Section 16, However, Regulation 9 of the EIR also places a duty on public authorities to provide advice and assistance to applicants regarding requests for environmental information. WBC failed to adhere to Regulation 9 of the EIR in relation to this portion of my request and recorded chronological data.

Turning to my request as a whole and the application of 12(4)(e)

In applying exemption WBC state in favor of non-disclosure (maintaining the exception)

"There were never any plans to require childminders to engage in a waste
contract with the Council for the collection of waste."

This does not appear to be a valid public interest test in response to recorded information, it seems more akin to a PR release by the council.

"The initial contact
made with childminders in this regard is unsupported by current or
intended Council policy and was made independently by waste officers."

This also does not appear to be an application of the public interest.

"This was a clear error in judgement."

This also does not appear to be an application of public interest. In-fact there public interest would be in favor of how an error in judgement of one council officer bypassed any check and balances to warning letters sent out to businesses resulting in the council apologising 'unreservedly for any upset caused'.

"To release the information sought would
generate unnecessary debate and discussion."

This FOI request was submitted because of the debate and discussion, by both Cabinet members and Councilors from opposition parties on social media.

https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status... (Cllr Simon Hogg Aug 16 2018)
https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status... (Cllr Simon Hogg Aug 16 2018)
https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status... (Cllr Simon Hogg Aug 16 2018)

Those three tweets on the issue gained at time of writing 46 likes and 43 retweets. By comparison WCC twitter account picking latest 3 tweets only have 10 likes, 7 retweets.

https://twitter.com/wandbc/status/103008... (Wandsworth Council Aug 16 2018)

22 Retweets 8 Likes

https://twitter.com/steffisutters/status... (Cabinet member for community services & open spaces Steffi Sutters Aug 16 2018)
https://twitter.com/steffisutters/status... (Steffi Sutters Aug 16 2018)

https://twitter.com/NightingaleSMcD/stat... ( Cabinet Member for Education and Children's Services Sarah McDermott Aug 16 2018 )

https://twitter.com/peter_graham/status/... (Cllr Peter Graham Aug 17 2018)
https://twitter.com/peter_graham/status/... (Cllr Peter Graham Aug 17 2018)
NB: Cllr Graham accuses Simon Hogg of intending misleading the public

This request was submitted 22 August 2018 as a result of the debate and discussion between 2 cabinet members, opposition councilors and members on the public online on August 16th and 17th.

To cite releasing this information would 'generate unnecessary debate and discussion.' is wholly a priori reasoning. The request was submitted to better inform the public of debate and discussion that is currently taking place and started on Aug 16 involving various members of WBC on a public platform including one councilor stating an opposition councilor was intending to mislead the public.

The last element presented in favor of maintaining the exemption was

"We are mindful that there is an increased pressure on Council resources at a time when we are trying to make significant efficiencies, with reduced government funding. To
further publicise this error would distract staff from their core
functions and further add to the pressure on these services."

Likewise this also does not appear to be a valid application of the public interest.

If fulfilling this request is about funding and cost then the EIR and FOI both respectively provide exemptions when the request is manifestly unreasonable for example Regulation 12(4). WBC did not apply this exemption.

Earlier in the response WBC state

"We consider the information requested to be internal communications It consists of an email trail between officers and councilors. The sole purpose of the email correspondence was to inform relevant staff members and councillor about matters and to enable them to make further decisions."

WBC is claiming there is only a singular email chain ("AN email trail between officers and councillors... [to] enable them to make further decisions"), while also attempting to claim the public interest favoring in marinating the exemption is due to "reduced government funding." and "further add to the pressure on these services."

IF WBC have identified relevant records to the request, and they consist of an email trail. Between a well defined time span and known individuals there should not be public interest in maintaining the exemption while the information can be released by WBC under it's duty to either EIR or FOI.

Under EIR guidance in applying Excemption 12(14)e (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...)

* Public interest arguments should be focused on protecting the public authority’s private thinking space. OTHER ARGUMENTS WILL NOT BE RELEVANT TO THIS EXCEPTION. [Emphasis mine]

In WBC’s response when applying the exception there was no focus on a safe space for discussion, the sole focus was 'efficiencies' and 'funding'.

If in it's internal review WBC decides to rely on the safe-space provisions afforded under EIR, then WBC will need to explain exactly why this safe space is still required, especially in light of the statement made by WBC that the recorded information was not a part of "any plans to require childminders to engage in a waste contract with the Council for the collection of waste".

Furthermore, once an issue is announce like has occurred via the Wandsworth Council twitter account there is also likely to be increasing public interest in scrutinising and debating the details of the decision.

Lastly under 12(14)e there is a defense under chilling effects for internal communications. WBC did not decide to rely on this exemption in it's response. If relying on for the intnernal review WBC will need to identify if the issue is still live.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus Combie

Latif, Ahmet,

Dear Mr Combie

 

I refer to your request for internal review under the Environmental Impact
Regulations 2004 / Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

I can confirm the Council holds some information which falls within the
scope of your request, but that this information may be exempt. As you’ll
be aware, the position that was notified to you following your initial
request for information, is that the information is exempt. I am therefore
currently reviewing the initial decision with particular regard to the
public interest test, the representations received, and the evidence for
the findings that were made.

 

Whilst we aim to undertake internal reviews within a further 20-day
timescale, I would like to advise you that I need additional time to
properly consider the issues relating to the public interest test.

 

I would hope to provide you with a response by 31^st October 2018. If it
is likely that I will not be able to respond by this date, I will write
again and explain when I will be able to respond in full to your request.
However, if you are dissatisfied with this and wish to seek advice at this
point, please contact the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office):

o ICO website: [1]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
o ICO phone helpline: 0303 123 1113

 

Kind regards

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[2][email address]

 

 

From: Marcus Combie <[3][FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 19 September 2018 21:10
To: Freedom Of Information <[4][email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Child minder:
waste disposal notices FOI.

 

Dear Wandsworth Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Wandsworth Borough Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Child minder: waste disposal notices FOI.'.

The requests was composed of multiple elements and each distinct. One of
element of my request was as follows:

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held
Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to when the council became
aware of the error with specific consideration to the notices sent out,
how the error was identified, and subsequently mitigation and remedial
actions and discussions.

This request had the first request for recorded chronological information;
'when the council became aware of the error...'

The request was made under the FOI as there is a duty to confirm or deny
is clearly set out in s1(1)(a). By treating this request under EIR WBC
have sidestepped confirming if recorded information is held as to when the
error was identified, and grouped this under exemption 12(4)(e). Recorded
chronological information is not internal communication.

Under FOI WBC would also have failed to provide assistance under FOI
Section 16, However, Regulation 9 of the EIR also places a duty on public
authorities to provide advice and assistance to applicants regarding
requests for environmental information. WBC failed to adhere to Regulation
9 of the EIR in relation to this portion of my request and recorded
chronological data.

Turning to my request as a whole and the application of 12(4)(e)

In applying exemption WBC state in favor of non-disclosure (maintaining
the exception)

"There were never any plans to require childminders to engage in a waste
contract with the Council for the collection of waste."

This does not appear to be a valid public interest test in response to
recorded information, it seems more akin to a PR release by the council.

"The initial contact
made with childminders in this regard is unsupported by current or
intended Council policy and was made independently by waste officers."

This also does not appear to be an application of the public interest.

"This was a clear error in judgement."

This also does not appear to be an application of public interest. In-fact
there public interest would be in favor of how an error in judgement of
one council officer bypassed any check and balances to warning letters
sent out to businesses resulting in the council apologising 'unreservedly
for any upset caused'.

"To release the information sought would
generate unnecessary debate and discussion."

This FOI request was submitted because of the debate and discussion, by
both Cabinet members and Councilors from opposition parties on social
media.

[5]https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status... (Cllr
Simon Hogg Aug 16 2018)
[6]https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status... (Cllr
Simon Hogg Aug 16 2018)
[7]https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status... (Cllr
Simon Hogg Aug 16 2018)

Those three tweets on the issue gained at time of writing 46 likes and 43
retweets. By comparison WCC twitter account picking latest 3 tweets only
have 10 likes, 7 retweets.

[8]https://twitter.com/wandbc/status/103008... (Wandsworth
Council Aug 16 2018)

22 Retweets 8 Likes

[9]https://twitter.com/steffisutters/status... (Cabinet
member for community services & open spaces Steffi Sutters Aug 16 2018)
[10]https://twitter.com/steffisutters/status... (Steffi
Sutters Aug 16 2018)

[11]https://twitter.com/NightingaleSMcD/stat... (
Cabinet Member for Education and Children's Services Sarah McDermott Aug
16 2018 )

[12]https://twitter.com/peter_graham/status/... (Cllr
Peter Graham Aug 17 2018)
[13]https://twitter.com/peter_graham/status/... (Cllr
Peter Graham Aug 17 2018)
NB: Cllr Graham accuses Simon Hogg of intending misleading the public

This request was submitted 22 August 2018 as a result of the debate and
discussion between 2 cabinet members, opposition councilors and members on
the public online on August 16th and 17th.

To cite releasing this information would 'generate unnecessary debate and
discussion.' is wholly a priori reasoning. The request was submitted to
better inform the public of debate and discussion that is currently taking
place and started on Aug 16 involving various members of WBC on a public
platform including one councilor stating an opposition councilor was
intending to mislead the public.

The last element presented in favor of maintaining the exemption was

"We are mindful that there is an increased pressure on Council resources
at a time when we are trying to make significant efficiencies, with
reduced government funding. To
further publicise this error would distract staff from their core
functions and further add to the pressure on these services."

Likewise this also does not appear to be a valid application of the public
interest.

If fulfilling this request is about funding and cost then the EIR and FOI
both respectively provide exemptions when the request is manifestly
unreasonable for example Regulation 12(4). WBC did not apply this
exemption.

Earlier in the response WBC state

"We consider the information requested to be internal communications It
consists of an email trail between officers and councilors. The sole
purpose of the email correspondence was to inform relevant staff members
and councillor about matters and to enable them to make further
decisions."

WBC is claiming there is only a singular email chain ("AN email trail
between officers and councillors... [to] enable them to make further
decisions"), while also attempting to claim the public interest favoring
in marinating the exemption is due to "reduced government funding." and
"further add to the pressure on these services."

IF WBC have identified relevant records to the request, and they consist
of an email trail. Between a well defined time span and known individuals
there should not be public interest in maintaining the exemption while the
information can be released by WBC under it's duty to either EIR or FOI.

Under EIR guidance in applying Excemption 12(14)e
([14]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...)

* Public interest arguments should be focused on protecting the public
authority’s private thinking space. OTHER ARGUMENTS WILL NOT BE RELEVANT
TO THIS EXCEPTION. [Emphasis mine]

In WBC’s response when applying the exception there was no focus on a safe
space for discussion, the sole focus was 'efficiencies' and 'funding'.

If in it's internal review WBC decides to rely on the safe-space
provisions afforded under EIR, then WBC will need to explain exactly why
this safe space is still required, especially in light of the statement
made by WBC that the recorded information was not a part of "any plans to
require childminders to engage in a waste contract with the Council for
the collection of waste".

Furthermore, once an issue is announce like has occurred via the
Wandsworth Council twitter account there is also likely to be increasing
public interest in scrutinising and debating the details of the decision.

Lastly under 12(14)e there is a defense under chilling effects for
internal communications. WBC did not decide to rely on this exemption in
it's response. If relying on for the intnernal review WBC will need to
identify if the issue is still live.

Yours faithfully,

Marcus Combie

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[15][FOI #512560 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[16]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[17]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[FOI #512560 email]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status...
6. https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status...
7. https://twitter.com/CllrSimonHogg/status...
8. https://twitter.com/wandbc/status/103008...
9. https://twitter.com/steffisutters/status...
10. https://twitter.com/steffisutters/status...
11. https://twitter.com/NightingaleSMcD/stat...
12. https://twitter.com/peter_graham/status/...
13. https://twitter.com/peter_graham/status/...
14. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
15. mailto:[FOI #512560 email]
16. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
17. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

FAO Latif Ahmet,

Dear Latif Ahmet

Can you please confirm that a response will be provided today on 31st October 2018 as indicated in your email on the 17th of October?

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

Latif, Ahmet,

Official

Dear Mr Combie

 

Apologies, I was hoping to conclude it today but am currently waiting for
some information relating to the public interest test. Please bear with me
this week and I will let you have an update by Friday 2^nd November.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[1][email address]

 

 

 

From: Marcus Combie <[FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 31 October 2018 14:36
To: Latif, Ahmet <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Child
minder: waste disposal notices FOI.

 

FAO Latif Ahmet,

Dear Latif Ahmet

Can you please confirm that a response will be provided today on 31st
October 2018 as indicated in your email on the 17th of October?

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

show quoted sections

Latif, Ahmet,

Dear Mr Combie

 

Thank you for your continued patience in this matter.

 

I have now completed a detailed review of this case. I can confirm that
the Council holds the information requested.

 

Having regard to the arguments you put forward, and in particular having
undertaken detailed consideration of the public interest test, my view is
that the information can be released to you.

 

As I will not be in the office this afternoon, I am aiming to write up and
issue my review findings on Monday or Tuesday next week.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[1][email address]

 

 

 

 

From: Latif, Ahmet
Sent: 31 October 2018 15:38
To: 'Marcus Combie' <[FOI #512560 email]>
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Child
minder: waste disposal notices FOI.

 

Official

 

Dear Mr Combie

 

Apologies, I was hoping to conclude it today but am currently waiting for
some information relating to the public interest test. Please bear with me
this week and I will let you have an update by Friday 2^nd November.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[2][email address]

 

 

 

From: Marcus Combie <[3][FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 31 October 2018 14:36
To: Latif, Ahmet <[4][email address]>
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Child
minder: waste disposal notices FOI.

 

FAO Latif Ahmet,

Dear Latif Ahmet

Can you please confirm that a response will be provided today on 31st
October 2018 as indicated in your email on the 17th of October?

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

show quoted sections

Latif, Ahmet,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Combie

 

 

Internal Review - 2018/17523 - Childminders FOI / EIR

 

 

As I indicated to you on Friday 2^nd November 2018, I have completed my
internal review of your case. I have noted below the process I undertook
in undertaking the internal review.

 

 

1. Your original request under FOI/EIR (Freedom of Information [Act] /
Environmental Information Regulations)

 

Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held by
Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to Cllr Sarah McDermott and
Cllr Steffi Sutters stepping in to get the best decision for child
minders.

 

… would you please let me know what information we (the authority)
actually holds in respect of the above question (exactly as put) please;
information in scope is defined as any recorded information held by the
authority (including emails).

 

 

2. The Council’s initial decision

 

The Council decided that the information is held but that it is exempt
under section 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).
Here is Section 12(4)(a – e) from the EIR:

 

12(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse
to disclose information to the extent that—

(a)it does not hold that information when an applicant’s request is
received;

(b)the request for information is manifestly unreasonable;

(c)the request for information is formulated in too general a manner and
the public authority has complied with regulation 9;

(d)the request relates to material which is still in the course of
completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data; or

(e)the request involves the disclosure of internal communications.

 

The Council also explained that:

 

"The initial contact made with childminders in this regard is unsupported
by current or intended Council policy and was made independently by waste
officers."

 

3. The representations provided as part of the internal review

 

You reiterated your original request and asked for all recorded
information held by Wandsworth Borough Council in relation to when the
council became aware of the error with specific consideration to the
notices sent out, how the error was identified, and subsequently
mitigation and remedial actions and discussions.

You stated that: under FOI WBC would also have failed to provide
assistance under FOI Section 16, However, Regulation 9 of the EIR also
places a duty on public authorities to provide advice and assistance to
applicants regarding requests for environmental information. WBC failed to
adhere to Regulation 9 of the EIR in relation to this portion of my
request and recorded chronological data.

You addressed the importance of the public interest test by saying: This
does not appear to be a valid public interest test in response to recorded
information, it seems more akin to a PR release by the council.  "There
were never any plans to require childminders to engage in a waste contract
with the Council for the collection of waste."

4. My findings

 

Whilst Section 12(4)(e) of the EIR does cover internal communications, I
agree with your representations that the public interest test was not
sufficiently addressed and was not made out.

 

With regard to the application of 12(4)e, in its further guidance
[Internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) Environmental Information
Regulations] the Information Commissioner advises:

 

o The concept of ‘internal communications’ is broad and covers a wide
range of information. However, in practice the application of the
exception will be limited by the public interest test.

 

This is the key point in this case as picked up by yourself and noted in
your representations, and consequently in my reasoning at internal review.
I also agree with your assertion that: …once an issue is announce like has
occurred via the Wandsworth Council twitter account there is also likely
to be increasing public interest in scrutinising and debating the details
of the decision.

5. Outcome

 

Based on my findings above, Section 12(4)(e) (in particular the public
interest test) does not provide a sufficient basis for non-disclosure of
the information requested.

 

Therefore, I have put together the information that exists. However,
please note two important points:

 

 1. The recorded information that exists relates to 15th and 16^th August
2018. The trail of emails is attached and I have found no other
recorded information. However, I am sure you will appreciate that much
of the communication regarding this issue would have taken place
verbally, and is indicated as such, both during and following the
email exchanges.

 2. As you’ll be aware, the ICO advises that information provided under
FOI or EIR is provided to the world at large. In line with the data
protection legislation and the GDPR (General Data Protection
Regulations) all personal information has been redacted. I appreciate
this may make the information a bit harder to follow but rather than
withhold the emails because of the personal information, I consider it
is preferable that you have sight of what had been issued and, in
particular, the interventions made by elected members of the
authority.  

 

 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the decision and wish to make a complaint you
can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Contact details for the
ICO are:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 0303 123 1113 

Website: www.ico.org.uk

 

Kind regards

 

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[1][email address]

 

 

 

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Latif, Ahmet,

Thank you for your response. Can you please confirm that councillors and members of CEX have not had their names removed? While I understand the need to protect personal information of non public members of staff from WCC.

The removal of any names / partial email addresses in the disclosed material is very unusual, and strips the reader of any context of who is sending what email and who was informed of what, a key point of my request was when Cllr Nightingale and Cllr Sutters were involved. From the released information I cannot discern this.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

Latif, Ahmet,

1 Attachment

Official

 

Dear Mr Combie

 

Thank you for your email.

 

For legal purposes, the data protection legislation works in conjunction
with the Freedom of Information Act to prevent the disclosure of personal
information. Within that framework, there may be instances where some
essential personal information is disclosed but it depends entirely on the
context and the substantive nature of the information sought. In all cases
the expectation is that public authorities will seek to avoid disclosure
of personal information under FOI.  

 

The difficulty in this case is that the recorded information comprised a
chain of emails. I do understand your comments regarding the impact of the
redactions in these emails. Having considered your comments, I have
included the senders and recipients of the emails in the version attached.
I trust this will now suffice in providing the context sought and
establishing clarity regarding the interventions that were made by elected
members.

 

Regards

 

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[1][email address]

 

 

 

 

From: Marcus Combie <[FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 06 November 2018 12:56
To: Latif, Ahmet <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Internal Review: Childminders - 2018/17523

 

Dear Latif, Ahmet,

Thank you for your response. Can you please confirm that councillors and
members of CEX have not had their names removed? While I understand the
need to protect personal information of non public members of staff from
WCC.

The removal of any names / partial email addresses in the disclosed
material is very unusual, and strips the reader of any context of who is
sending what email and who was informed of what, a key point of my request
was when Cllr Nightingale and Cllr Sutters were involved. From the
released information I cannot discern this.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

show quoted sections

Dear Latif, Ahmet,
Thank you for you the provided information.

However, there is a concern about the released information observed by myself:

The follow disclosed email from Kevin Power to Wendy Philips makes reference to an email ("Regarding your email this morning about nappy waste ") That has not been included in the release.

This can be verified by observing there no email on Sent: 16 August 2018 in the morning before Kevin Power forwarding the email trail to Wendy Phillips at 12:05

I have included the relevant email in full for your reference below.

From: Power, Kevin
Sent: 16 August 2018 12:05
To: Phillips, Wendy
Cc: Cheung, Henry
Subject: FW: childminders - waste transfer notes
Official
Regarding your email this morning about nappy waste – please see below.
We have fined no one and are working with Children’s Services to ensure childminders comply with
the law.
(Highways Operations and Street Scene)
Tel: 020 - 8871 6704
Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

This matter is troubling to the requester for two reasons. By either accident on with purpose a key email in this chain has been omitted.

And I have also been contacted separately by an individual on twitter that provided a screenshot that indicated there are additional email discussions on this subject after 16 August 2018.

Before escalating this issue to the ICO I would be happy if you amended your response and provide this missing email identified and re affirm with those who information was sought this is totality of records on the subject

If the FOI team could also pass on a reminder to those officers and councillors who were contacted for recorded information that the act of deleting or concealing information with the intention of preventing its disclosure following receipt of a request is a criminal offence under section 77 of FOIA.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

Latif, Ahmet,

I will be out of the office until 10th December 2018. Please note that
your email will not be forwarded and any matters requiring prompt action
should be directed as follows:

For corporate complaints enquiries, contact the corporate complaints team;
the team manager is Sally Hillsdon:
[1][email address]

For statutory complaints enquiries, contact the statutory complaints team;
the team manager is Harminder Dhillon: 
[2][email address] PLEASE NOTE: Harminder
is on leave from 3rd to 7th December 2018 and in her absence enquiries can
be directed to: 

For Wandsworth, email: [email address]

For Richmond, email: [3][email address]

 

For FOI enquiries (Richmond): [4][email address]

For FOI enquiries (Wandsworth): [5][email address]

For Wandsworth FOI internal reviews, contact Nick Taylor:
[6][email address]

For any other urgent matters including ICO enquiries or investigations,
Richmond FOI internal reviews or recruitment matters, please contact the
Head of Resident Engagement, Katrina Waite:
[7][email address]

 

 

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. mailto:[email address]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. mailto:[email address]

Dear Wandsworth Borough Council,

Given Ahmet Latif out of office notification until 10 December. Please direct this response to the internal review to the relevant person for a response.

As Follows:

Dear Ahmet Latif,

Thank you for you the provided information.

However, there is a concern about the released information observed by myself:

The follow disclosed email from Kevin Power to Wendy Philips makes reference to an email ("Regarding your email this morning about nappy waste ") That has not been included in the release.

This can be verified by observing there no email on Sent: 16 August 2018 in the morning before Kevin Power forwarding the email trail to Wendy Phillips at 12:05

I have included the relevant email in full for your reference below.

From: Power, Kevin
Sent: 16 August 2018 12:05
To: Phillips, Wendy
Cc: Cheung, Henry
Subject: FW: childminders - waste transfer notes
Official
Regarding your email this morning about nappy waste – please see below.
We have fined no one and are working with Children’s Services to ensure childminders comply with
the law.
(Highways Operations and Street Scene)
Tel: 020 - 8871 6704
Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

This matter is troubling to the requester for two reasons. By either accident on with purpose a key email in this chain has been omitted.

And I have also been contacted separately by an individual on twitter that provided a screenshot that indicated there are additional email discussions on this subject after 16 August 2018.

Before escalating this issue to the ICO I would be happy if you amended your response and provide this missing email identified and re affirm with those who information was sought this is totality of records on the subject

If the FOI team could also pass on a reminder to those officers and councillors who were contacted for recorded information that the act of deleting or concealing information with the intention of preventing its disclosure following receipt of a request is a criminal offence under section 77 of FOIA.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

Latif, Ahmet,

Official

 

Dear Mr Combie

 

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your further
enquiry.

 

In dealing with your internal review I had regard to the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act, in conjunction with the further guidance
issued by the Information Commissioner. I took your request for
information to be exactly as you had stated in your original
correspondence, specifically:  

 

FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held
Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to when the council became
aware of the error with specific consideration to the notices sent out,
how the error was identified, and subsequently mitigation and remedial
actions and discussions.

 

Once I obtained the information held within the Council it directly
addressed the question you had asked and there was no reason to doubt that
it provided a sufficient and accurate picture of the events you had asked
for information about. I do understand your comments regarding a further
email but would have to say that this does not add substantively to the
information you previously received nor does it conflict with or
contradict the previous information in any way.  However, I do intend to
issue further procedural guidance to the Council to make these key
provisions clear and avoid any possible ambiguity in future.  

 

To assure you of the propriety of the FOI process, I went on to undertake
a further review of the process. Consequently, I considered whether the
existence of a further relevant email might indicate that a request for
information had not been properly complied with. Here is the guidance from
the Information Commissioner’s website on the specific issue of how an
information request should be responded to, whether by information or
documentation (I myself highlighted the key provision below):  

 

What makes a request valid?

To be valid under the Act, the request must:

o be in writing. This could be a letter or email. Requests can also be
made via the web, or even on social networking sites such as Facebook
or Twitter if your public authority uses these;
o include the requester’s real name. The Act treats all requesters
alike, so you should not normally seek to verify the requester’s
identity. However, you may decide to check their identity if it is
clear they are using a pseudonym or if there are legitimate grounds
for refusing their request and you suspect they are trying to avoid
this happening, for example because their request is vexatious or
repeated. Remember that a request can be made in the name of an
organisation, or by one person on behalf of another, such as a
solicitor on behalf of a client;
o include an address for correspondence. This need not be the person’s
residential or work address – it can be any address at which you can
write to them, including a postal address or email address;
o describe the information requested. Any genuine attempt to describe
the information will be enough to trigger the Act, even if the
description is unclear, or you think it is too broad or unreasonable
in some way. The Act covers information not documents, so a requester
does not have to ask for a specific document (although they may do
so). They can, for example, ask about a specific topic and expect you
to gather the relevant information to answer their enquiry. Or they
might describe other features of the information (eg author, date or
type of document).

 

And here is a link to the ICO website so you can see the above in full
context:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...

 

However, if you are dissatisfied with the decision and wish to make a
complaint you can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at:

 

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 0303 123 1113 

Website: www.ico.org.uk

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[2][email address]

 

 

 

From: Marcus Combie <[FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 30 November 2018 05:51
To: Latif, Ahmet <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Internal Review: Childminders - 2018/17523

 

Dear Latif, Ahmet,
Thank you for you the provided information.

However, there is a concern about the released information observed by
myself:

The follow disclosed email from Kevin Power to Wendy Philips makes
reference to an email ("Regarding your email this morning about nappy
waste ") That has not been included in the release.

This can be verified by observing there no email on Sent: 16 August 2018
in the morning before Kevin Power forwarding the email trail to Wendy
Phillips at 12:05

I have included the relevant email in full for your reference below.

From: Power, Kevin
Sent: 16 August 2018 12:05
To: Phillips, Wendy
Cc: Cheung, Henry
Subject: FW: childminders - waste transfer notes
Official
Regarding your email this morning about nappy waste – please see below.
We have fined no one and are working with Children’s Services to ensure
childminders comply with
the law.
(Highways Operations and Street Scene)
Tel: 020 - 8871 6704
Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

This matter is troubling to the requester for two reasons. By either
accident on with purpose a key email in this chain has been omitted.

And I have also been contacted separately by an individual on twitter that
provided a screenshot that indicated there are additional email
discussions on this subject after 16 August 2018.

Before escalating this issue to the ICO I would be happy if you amended
your response and provide this missing email identified and re affirm with
those who information was sought this is totality of records on the
subject

If the FOI team could also pass on a reminder to those officers and
councillors who were contacted for recorded information that the act of
deleting or concealing information with the intention of preventing its
disclosure following receipt of a request is a criminal offence under
section 77 of FOIA.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Latif, Ahmet,

Is this a refusal to provide the missing email from Wendy Philips identified by myself?

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

Latif, Ahmet,

1 Attachment

Official

 

Dear Mr Combie

 

I had sought to provide you with the information that is directly relevant
to your FOI request. As noted in my previous email, this is not
necessarily exactly the same as every document that may have some
background relevance to a matter. As noted, the FOI legislation and
guidance require authorities to primarily address the issue of information
rather than documentation.

 

However, to reassure you given your concerns about this matter, I have
attached all the emails I have obtained that may have some relevance to
the action taken by councillors on 16^th August 2018.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[1][email address]

 

 

 

From: Marcus Combie <[FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 01 January 2019 13:56
To: Latif, Ahmet <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Internal Review: Childminders - 2018/17523

 

Dear Latif, Ahmet,

Is this a refusal to provide the missing email from Wendy Philips
identified by myself?

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

show quoted sections

Dear Latif, Ahmet,

I appreciate what you have written. However, there is recorded infromation held by WBC that matches the scope of this request which has not been released. Please review the following closely.

In the document forwarded again it's mentioned.
------------------------------
From: Power, Kevin
Sent: 16 August 2018 12:05
To: Phillips, Wendy
Cc: Cheung, Henry
Subject: FW: childminders - waste transfer notes
Official
.****** Regarding your email this morning about nappy waste – please see below. ***** <--THIS WOULD BE ERROR IDENTIFIED, and DISCUSSION AROUND IT

We have fined no one and are working with Children’s Services to ensure childminders comply with
the law.
(Highways Operations and Street Scene)
Tel: 020 - 8871 6704
Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils
------------------------------

And has been observed there is no record provided from Phillips, Wendy on the morning of 16 August 2018 provided in this disclosure. Only her forwarding the response she received from Kevin Power.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

Latif, Ahmet,

3 Attachments

Official

Dear Mr Combie

 

I am writing with regard to your correspondence to the Council in respect
of your initial request for information, your request for further review,
and your further questions and enquiries regarding the issue of
childminders.

 

For the sake of clarity, this was the original request: 

Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held by
Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to Cllr Sarah McDermott and
Cllr Steffi Sutters stepping in to get the best decision for child
minders.

 

Following the internal review I previously undertook, I have again
reviewed all the documentation relating to this case, the Freedom of
Information Act and the guidance from the ICO. On that basis I can confirm
there is no further information relating to the request. The information
relating to this matter has previously been sent to you, but is attached
again for ease of reference.

 

Should you wish to raise any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO); the ICO
contact details are noted below. The Council considers it has dealt with
your requests for information in an entirely appropriate way and in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and guidance from the ICO.
The ICO’s own guidance states that public authorities are not expected to
spend a disproportionate amount of time on requests where the authority
considers that the information held has already been provided. I
appreciate that you believe there is further relevant information relating
to this request and I have sought to clarify that having specific regard
to the request, the information provided establishes the position beyond
reasonable doubt and there is no information which exists that contradicts
that position.

 

In the circumstances, can I please ask that any further concerns or
questions you wish to raise are directed to the ICO.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the decision and wish to refer to the matter
to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the contact details are:

 

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF

 

Telephone: 0303 123 1113 

Website: www.ico.org.uk

 

Kind regards

 

Ahmet Latif

Corporate and Statutory Complaints and FOI Manager

Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils

020 8831 6294

[1][email address]

 

 

 

From: Marcus Combie <[FOI #512560 email]>
Sent: 02 January 2019 21:02
To: Latif, Ahmet <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Internal Review: Childminders - 2018/17523

 

Dear Latif, Ahmet,

I appreciate what you have written. However, there is recorded infromation
held by WBC that matches the scope of this request which has not been
released. Please review the following closely.

In the document forwarded again it's mentioned.
------------------------------
From: Power, Kevin
Sent: 16 August 2018 12:05
To: Phillips, Wendy
Cc: Cheung, Henry
Subject: FW: childminders - waste transfer notes
Official
.****** Regarding your email this morning about nappy waste – please see
below. ***** <--THIS WOULD BE ERROR IDENTIFIED, and DISCUSSION AROUND IT

We have fined no one and are working with Children’s Services to ensure
childminders comply with
the law.
(Highways Operations and Street Scene)
Tel: 020 - 8871 6704
Serving Richmond and Wandsworth Councils
------------------------------

And has been observed there is no record provided from Phillips, Wendy on
the morning of 16 August 2018 provided in this disclosure. Only her
forwarding the response she received from Kevin Power.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Combie

show quoted sections

Dear Latif, Ahmet,

For the sake of clarity, this was the original request: there were two elements, for some reason you keep omitting the second one in your responses.

Again for you reference the two elements of my FOI

***
FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to Cllr Sarah McDermott and Cllr Steffi Sutters stepping in to get the best decision for child minders.
...
***
FOI Request: Please provide any and all recorded information held Wandsworth Borough Council hold in relation to when the council became aware of the error with specific consideration to the notices sent out, how the error was identified, and subsequently mitigation and remedial actions and discussions.
***

Please go back and refresh yourself with the requests as it was made. And not just the selected part you quoted.

I am aware I well within my rights to forward this to the ICO, however I have been more than generous in letting WBC amend their errors. And I will continue this position and await the documents requested, and those that have been pointed out to you that fall within the scope of my requests (the whole of it).

Kind Regards

Marcus Combie

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org