Contract between Trustmark and Dept of Business and upholding of consumer laws

william kidd made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

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

The request was partially successful.

Dear Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,

On 26th April the Institute of Specialist Surveyors and Engineers - ISSE - ( a full member of the Construction Industry Council and member of ICOMOS) wrote to BIS regarding products being used by contractors within the Trust Mark damp proofing scheme regarding potential none compliance with consumer law.

In particular concerning anti competitive practices. Only Property Care Association Members are accepted by mortgage lenders and RICS surveyors for such works - often only found to be potentially required when a house is put up for sale.

This practice unfairly and illegally discriminates against ISSE members - despite ISSE members being competent and compliant with awarding body backed Diplomas. This contrasts with the 3 day trade body self certified award operated by PCA.

Furthermore that in the light of a statement currently on the British Board of Agrement web site stating that tests in use for testing efficacy of damp proofing creams are not reliable and are incapable of confirming product viability, implying that some products used by damp proofing contractors may be ineffective.

BBA had made a statement in October 2013 that some damp proofing creams were or could be ineffective as tested.

As the TM scheme had not suspended the operation of these contractors ISSE remain concerned that consumers are being mis-sold ineffective services and treatments which is potentially an offence of strict liability under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

That TM especially (as the Government supported alleged flagship consumer protection organisation) should not be supporting such a scheme at least until the matter is properly verified by clear test results and reliable data.

On May 13th Barry Blackwell of BIS wrote to ISSE.org.uk that he had asked Liz Male Chair of Trustmark to review the evidence that Trustmark damp proofing contractors are upholding consumer law.

ISSE therefore have written many times to Liz Male since May 13th and are yet to receive any response except for a note that she was busy moving office. In the meantime many hundreds of consumers every week commission potentially ineffective work with TM's sanction and support and are then provided with insurance backed guarantees that in the event of a claim may be invalidated if the insurer learns that the consumer laws were not upheld in their use.

A letter written to BBA by the CEO of Property Care association in October 2013 when he received a statement from BBA stating that low strength damp proofing creams did not work. Instead of advising his members and TM to suspend the use of those products he wrote back to BBA suggesting to BBA that this information should be kept from his contractor members and the public in case it affected his manufacturing members.

That CEO of PCA is now a director of TM is of even greater concern in the protection of consumers especially when Liz Male, Chair of TM, has failed to respond to all E mails in the matter from an important and only Institute stakeholder in the industry, placing the moving of her private office ahead of consumer interests, that she was asked by BIS in May to review.

When ISSE telephoned BIS on 22nd. July Mr Blackwell suggested that he could see no wrongdoing and that in his opinion the contract with TM and his Department was in full compliance. When asked by ISSE during that conversation whether the obfuscation and potential breaking of consumer regulations and laws was part of that contract he said it wasn't.

Mr Blackwell said he accepted BBA's opinion that the products do work. ISSE commented that BBA as a national testing agency offering in its own words 'gold standard fit for purpose' accreditation upon which all stakeholders relied, should not be supporting the efficacy of products used in consumer services as being effective based on an 'opinion' when the published statement of BBA so clearly contradicted that opinion.

Will BIS please -

1. Supply a copy of the contract BIS have with Trust Mark.

2. Please supply written justification of its failure to ensure TM review the matter fully.

3. Supply copies of letters and summaries of conversations held between BIS TM and BBA and including PCA concerning these matters.

4. Supply a copy of the complaints procedure that BIS have and appeal mechanisms to European organisations that can clarify the implementation of consumer regulations.

5. Answer whether it intends to cause TM to act in the interests of the public by withdrawing the ineffective damp proofing creams until proven effective beyond doubt and not based on opinions and demonstrate to the public that contractors are competent.

6. Will BIS explain why and how insurance backed guarantees can be included in the TM - BIS scheme when it is commonly known that no insurance contract can support illegal or potentially illegal acts or products.

I look forward to receiving this information.

Yours faithfully,

William Kidd

Chair ISSE.org.uk

correspondence@ecase-bis.fcos.gsi.gov.uk on behalf of FOI Requests,

BIS ref: FOI2014/16825

Dear Mr kidd

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 28th
July. Your request has been passed on to the appropriate official at the
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to deal with.

Your request is being considered under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and we will reply at the latest by 26th August.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the Information
Rights Unit at BIS. Please remember to quote the reference number above in
any future communications.

Kind regards,

Information Rights Unit

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills | 1
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET | www.gov.uk/bis |
[email address] |

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

FOI Requests, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Kidd,

 

Please see the attached letter and document regarding your information
request our reference: FOI2014/16825.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Rights Unit

 

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills  |
Victoria 3, 5th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET|
[1]www.bis.gov.uk

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

 

 

---------
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes
----------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.bis.gov.uk/

Dear FOI Requests, Mr/Dr.Blackwell,

Thank you very much indeed for your response to my FOI request. I must apologise for the matter being fairly complex but I understand that you need further clarification and specific information to be able to answer my request. In order to help and apply more focus I quote your letter as follows -

‘3. Supply copies of letters and summaries of conversations held between BIS TM and BBA and including PCA concerning these matters.

4. Supply a copy of the complaints procedure that BIS have and appeal mechanisms to European organisations that can clarify the implementation of consumer regulations.

In relation to item 3 following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the Department does not hold any letters and summaries of conversations between TM, BBA and PCA. We have not considered other forms of communication.

From our preliminary assessment in relation to item 4, it is clear that we will not be able to answer this without further clarification. The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills requires further information in order to identify and
locate the information you have asked for as it is not clear what precisely is being sought. In particular, it would be useful to receive more specific details of the information being requested. Once you have clarified your request, I will be able to begin to process your request.’

I spoke to you on 22nd July and made a summary of that conversation and I confirm that you told me you had spent many hours reviewing my complaint to BIS regarding my allegations that TrustMark ( T M ) were not in my view upholding consumer laws and that the appointment of a Director to TM who is also the CEO of a TM scheme operator Property Care Association (PCA) is not a conflict of interest.

Therefore as your records of summaries of conversations are incomplete I provide information you sought as follows.

The director of TM and CEO of PCA stated in a letter to British Board of Agrement (BBA), in response to the BBA statement that low strength damp proofing creams may not work, except in certain rare situations, that this information must be kept from the public and PCA contractors who operate as TM scheme contractors.

In order to explain further that TM director, Mr Hodgson, feared the manufacturer members of PCA would suffer financially, should this information become known as consumers may not then use the services of contractors. Copy letter on file and provided to BIS. It is understood from members of my Institute (ISSE) who believe that secret meetings were then held between PCA, some manufacturer members of PCA and BBA. That if correct those meetings were minuted and allegedly the low strength cream manufacturers claimed they had no test data. If this is so then despite this their products are being marketed as fit for purposed endorsed by BBA and TM.

That those alleged secret meetings were supposedly attended by a TM director and BBA as associate of TM occurred could in my view be a cartel under s188 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Around the time of the meetings the re-issued BBA certificates removed any reference to testing and a statement was published on the BBA web site saying the tests they had or were using were inadequate.

You reviewed this letter and you told me you had discussed this with BBA who confirmed in their opinion the products work. I told you that an opinion that the products work cannot be acceptable. The law requires that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 these must be fit for purpose. Under regulation 305 of CPR ( construction product regulations ) which would apply to European interstate sales, products must have a Declaration of Performance (DOP) and be fit for purpose. Under UK laws products must be fit for purpose since the Sale of Goods Act 1894

This consumer law is now extended by the current consumer protection regulations.

You told me that an opinion from the BBA is acceptable to you and BIS in justifying compliance with UK law. You then told me that the TM agreement contains no reference to requirements of consumer law compliance. Upon my reading of the agreement you have provided, this compliance is actually clearly enshrined within the core criteria of that agreement.

The TrustMark agreement specifically states that consumer protection regulations and supply of goods and services act must be complied with by operators. To deny that TM themselves have no requirement to meet this target is not compliant with that agreement or the spirit of it. Therefore as the agreement is not compliant it is in my opinion the duty of BIS to ensure TM do comply.

An 'opinion' that goods are fit for purpose is in any reasonable expectation of performance unacceptable.

Therefore your response to my FOI that you can find no reference to records of any conversations with BBA PCA and TM implies that your conversation with me on July 22 was unsupported by any contact with BBA PCA and TM - which is not what you told me.

Please can you clarify this.

With regard to point 4 concerning complaints and appeal mechanisms, you requested further information here. As a consequence of the above scenario – the national product testing authority, BBA which appears on the TM web site as an associated supporting organisation providing fit for purpose product test certificates, seemed to have discovered that the fit for purpose certificates should not have been thus awarded.

Therefore it seems BBA decided to create two certificates – one for products that did work and one for products that did not work except in rare situations.

The current scheme operator PCA, and whose CEO is now a director of TM, was unsurprisingly unhappy with this, as it could potentially undermine the financial stability of his manufacturer members and cause consumers and contractors to question the services provided.

Some 10 months after that statement and the TM director’s suggestion to BBA that this information must be kept from those parties, possibly many thousands of consumers since that time have had potentially defective work costing millions of pounds installed with the blessing of TM that is supposed to protect consumers.

Alan Slaney CEO of TM who signed the agreement with Dept of Business recently threatened me with a potential and implied defamation action in this matter when my Institute complained about this to TM - he stated that he was consulting with a barrister about my liability and that of my fellow ISSE directors concerning comments I had seemingly made about him. Liz Male Chair of TM who also signed that same agreement has written to my Institute (ISSE) that she sees no conflict of interest whatsoever and rejects my arguments.

It is well known that directors or employees signing documentation such as agreements or reports under the rule in Merrett and Babb have personal responsibility for the consequences of their acts or omissions.

The Consumer Minister Jenny Willott and the government’s Chief Construction Advisor Peter Hansford both appear on the TM web site as endorsing its’ consumer purpose and no doubt will enthuse consumers with trust and confidence in their names and status thus being so used.

Have the minister and Mr Hansford been informed by BIS that TM are potentially and now knowingly perpetrating and supporting possible serious breaches of consumer laws ?

Therefore in answer to your question for clarification my view is, as the legal expertise and knowledge of directors administering a consumer protection scheme, in my opinion virtually none existent, I wish to make a further complaint to and about BIS. I have already done this but the complaint has not been upheld. It is clear from your response that no legal advice has ever been sought in this matter by BIS.

Therefore in my original FOI I wish to know how to appeal your decision on my complaint to an authority that does have legal expertise and suspect there is a European authority to appeal to. A recent European cartel case confirms that victims including consumers of cartels have rights to claim compensation.

I now hope that this will be sufficient information for you to inform me of the complaint route beyond BIS ?

Please supply the information on this matter so that consumers can consider any future failures of damp proofing works through TM endorsed services which could be a possible contravention of Supply of Goods and Services Act and potential cartel support of the market using those products and who can thus if such matter is investigated and is successfully prosecuted then apply to claim compensation.

TM state that guarantees for services must be provided. The TM damp proofing scheme operator has an insurance backed scheme in operation for guarantees. However no contract that is known not to be compliant with the law will be valid in any contract of insurance. Thus the TM scheme should be investigated on this ground too.

I trust that the above information that you have requested is now sufficient for you to be able to answer my original FOI more fully.

Thank you very much indeed for that opportunity afforded.

Yours sincerely,

william kidd

FOI Requests, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Dear Mr Kidd

Thank you for your email of 23 August 2014.

To clarify our response to point 3 the department does not hold letters and summaries of conversations between TM, BBA and PCA. We do hold other forms of communication including emails however these were not considered as part of your original FOI request.

In relation to point 4, based on our understanding of your request, we are not aware of any complaint route to the EU.

Kind regards,
Information Rights Unit

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills | Victoria 3, 5th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET| www.bis.gov.uk

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the economy. BIS: working together for growth

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Requests,

You claimed that BIS held no electronic records. Your letter stated -

'In relation to item 3 following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the
Department does not hold any letters and summaries of conversations between TM, BBA and PCA. We
have not considered other forms of communication'

Please can you supply information as to what you refer to as other forms of communication ?

Re your response of 2.9.14 wherein you now claim you may hold E mail records of the information requested please can you supply that information contained within those E mails.

In your earlier response are E mails not included as electronic records ?

Assuming you can now comply with my request for information I look forward to receiving this asap.

Yours sincerely,

william kidd

correspondence@ecase-bis.fcos.gsi.gov.uk on behalf of FOI Requests,

BIS ref: FOI2014/20302

Dear Mr Kidd

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 8th
September. Your request has been passed on to the appropriate official at
the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to deal with.

Your request is being considered under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and we will reply at the latest by 6th October.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the Information
Rights Unit at BIS. Please remember to quote the reference number above in
any future communications.

Kind regards,

Information Rights Unit

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills | 1
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET | www.gov.uk/bis |
[email address] |

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

FOI Requests, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Kidd,

 

Please see the attached documents regarding your information request our
reference: FOI2014/20302.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Rights Unit

 

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills  |
Victoria 3, 5th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET|
[1]www.bis.gov.uk

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

 

 

---------
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes
----------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.bis.gov.uk/

Dear FOI Requests,

Please supply information on what procedures and requirements BIS has in place to ensure standards of training, education, skills, and products comply with the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Consumer Protection Regulations 2008-2014 and other compliance matters such as The Fraud Act 2006, as required in the contract signed by Alan Slaney and Liz Male of Trustmark and Department of Business.

Please supply information on how those requirements are monitored reviewed and enforced.

By way of assistance I note your release of what are carefully screened (with many withdrawn parts) of comments from E mails forming the only and truncated summary of the investigations conducted by Barry Blackwell of your Department, where he informed ISSE he had spent many hours reviewing the complaints about Trustmark (TM) and the matters complained of regarding the Property Care Association (PCA) and British Board of Agrement (BBA).

It seems Mr Blackwell has requested by E mail, and received by E mail, information from British Board of Agrement which simply states that which is already on its web site. But fails to also mention that the test for Damp Proofing Creams Moat 39 is not adequate and was invented long before the advent of creams - as noted on BBA web site. Yet Mr Blackwell accepts a contradictory statement that the products are fit for purpose when clearly the statement by BBA in October 2013 and April 2014 do not support that.

Therefore Mr.Blackwell has taken a contradictory response from BBA, then ignored the information about the lack of test being contrary to that information. Thus consumers continue to receive products and services endorsed by Trustmark that may not be compliant with the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

The E mails provided by BIS, although they are heavily censored, indicate that both Mr Blackwell and Trustmark believe a story told by Mr Hodgson, a director of Trustmark and CEO of Property Care Association, that I or my company applied for membership of PCA (at Mr Hodgson's invitation in 2008). That this data protected information has been allowed to permeate in such an irrelevant and defamatory way must now be corrected as follows :-

Mr.Hodgson invited me to apply for membership, and had done so since 2005, when he visited my home to encourage my franchisees at a meeting there to join PCA.

Knowing that my company had been franchised for a number of years and that therefore, as was explained to Mr Hodgson, my company would not be able to comply with several years of accounts for direct contracting as the franchised service had by that time been withdrawn in 07 Mr Hodgson claimed that would not matter.

Therefore my manager and employee who was re-activating the direct service at the time could not provide records, which later seemed contrary to Mr Hodgson's assurances, to then become a necessary requirement.

There were no records from the previous outlets which may have satisfied some aspects of what was required due to flood damage at the Whitby office, when the tide overflowed the harbour and flooded the basement, where records had been kept. That the PCA representative on the routine call to inspect records had then indicated several years were required to join PCA - despite Mr Hodgson thinking membership would qualify without that.

Upon me becoming aware of a rather different scenario as to that initially indicated by Mr Hodgson the application was withdrawn at my request - but - not because I or my company had failed to meet standards. Such comment being out of context and publicly on this information web site is potentially defamatory including repeating it in an FOI request response by BIS. That the CEO of trade body with a self awarded 3 day training course (as opposed to an Institute with a suite of awarding body backed Diploma awards) can claim that I as an 18 year standing Fellow and Chair of ISSE and graduate member of Chartered Institute of Building failed to meet standards required of a potentially anti consumer restrictive practice supporting trade body is totally refuted.

Furthermore this information published in the response to my FOI request , especially when it's not correct (as the context is missing), and for whatever the reason should be 'data protected' and not revealed to external sources.

Therefore can BIS provide information it has outlining the data protection requirements and what it understands by those and how breaches of data protection could be used as grounds for observance or none observance of contractual requirements BIS have with TM. (s.10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 requires data controllers where the subject has requested withdrawal for that to apply to such situations.
s13 of the Act defines situations where compensation may payable.)

Furthermore can BIS disclose what information it has to justify the action of Government employees such as Mr Blackwell and Directors of Trustmark to base their reasons for supporting or not supporting a matter of consumer interest in the context of an imagined and untrue 'long running grudge' as noted in one of the E mails.

This in my view was designed as a red herring by Mr Hodgson to deflect attention from the truth and facts stated and known by him. Please can BIS provide information as to what relevance this can possibly have to genuine and urgent matters of consumer compliance with the Governments' supposedly flagship consumer organisation, that is continuing to support self awarded supposed qualifications, offered by PCA for a subject that cannot possibly be understood in such a narrow and short training programme, lacking any external awarding body credibility and as exposed in Which Magazine's Unnecessary Treatments 2011 and potentially leading to consumers being very seriously compromised.

It was Mr Hodgson, not ISSE, who advised BBA not to reveal its' information to consumers that damp proofing creams may not work, in his letter to BBA. ( Mr. Slaney, MD of Trustmark, threatened ISSE in defamation - but here the repeated comment in this FOI are grounds for me and ISSE to consider such defamation action ourselves and also against BIS - as ISSE are currently doing).

Can BIS therefore provide copies of standards and procedures and information that supports dismissal of such serious potential consumer adversity by Trustmark in offering and supporting services run by a scheme member when its' products may not comply with the very consumer Acts and regulations that TM is contracted to observe but which in fact Mr Blackwell denied the existence of such requirements in a minuted telephone conversation I had with him on July 22nd.

Can BIS provide information as to when their employees must act in the public interest to intervene in such matters clearly in the view of ISSE requiring such intervention and review of the matters complained of and are under a contractual duty to ensure TM observe such core values.

Yours sincerely,

William Kidd

correspondence@ecase-bis.fcos.gsi.gov.uk on behalf of FOI Requests,

BIS ref: FOI2014/22939

Dear Mr Kidd

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 14th
October. Your request has been passed on to the appropriate official at
the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to deal with.

Your request is being considered under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and we will reply at the latest by 11th November.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the Information
Rights Unit at BIS. Please remember to quote the reference number above in
any future communications.

Kind regards,

Information Rights Unit

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills | 1
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET | www.gov.uk/bis |
[email address] |

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

Dear Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Business, Innovation and Skills's handling of my FOI request 'Contract between Trustmark (TM) and Dept of Business and upholding of consumer laws'.

My complaint is as follows.

I am very concerned that BIS employees and Directors of Trustmark are making defamatory remarks about me and my businesses. Even naming my business trade name in their defamatory E mails.

Furthermore that these remarks are based upon what appear to be illegal data protection breaches of out of context and incorrect comments made about an application for membership of a trade body - Property Care Association (PCA)

PCA is part of the TM scheme. Despite obvious conflicted interests the CEO of the PCA is also a director of TM. With TM's full knowledge PCA members are using potentially defective materials in consumer contracts. The TM director even seen writing to British Board of Agrement (BBA) that information the damp proofing products do not work must be kept from consumers.

The facts are that I asked my employee to inform the PCA agent that I wished to withdraw my application. Also incorrect prior assurances provided by Mr Hodgson were ignored by the PCA agent during his review. Mr Hodgson, CEO of PCA, stated he was not concerned about continuous accounts or other records usually considered for membership.

The PCA agent, against whom I had a serious complaint in 1995 over none action in supply of defective materials he sold to my business was sent to audit my office. This was conflicted and unacceptable.

I am concerned that due to my unpaid interest in helping consumers and expose potential fraud and anti consumer practices, that BIS employee Barry Blackwell,and Trustmark Chair Liz Male, TM Director and PCA CEO Steve Hodgson, and Alan Slaney, former temporary CEO of Trustmark, have used confidential data protected information as the basis to defame my character in a cynical and misguided attempt to discredit my complaints and draw attention from actually performing their duties in protecting consumers.

Emails presented in my FOI response indicate they believed my purpose was to undermine TM. That they then repeated leaked incorrect data protected information used by Mr Hodgson as a means of instilling this information is clearly seen in these E mails.

Meanwhile many thousands of consumers suffer because in my opinion Mr Hodgson and Liz Male are not upholding their contract with department of business with Mr Blackwell's support and even denial that the contract supports observance of consumer law.

Please be aware this matter is to be sent to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, if after the required period, it is not dealt with satisfactorily.

Please advise me that you will also report this matter to the Data Protection Controller to as whether a data protection offence has occurred.

Please accept this information as the basis for a complaint under Data Protection Act requirements and a formal complaint to your minister in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

william kidd

correspondence@ecase-bis.fcos.gsi.gov.uk on behalf of FOI Requests,

BIS ref: FOI2014/20302

Dear Mr Kidd

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received on
15th October. Your request has been passed on to the appropriate official
at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to deal with.

In line with the Information Commissioners guidance, internal reviews
should be responded to within 20 working days unless they are complex, in
which case a response should be sent within 40 working days. Please be
aware that this does not include weekends and bank holidays. The
Department aims to respond to requests for internal reviews as quickly as
possible. We hope to be in contact with you again shortly with a decision
on your request.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the Information
Rights Unit at BIS. Please remember to quote the reference number above in
any future communications.

Kind regards,
Information Rights Unit

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills | 1
Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET | www.gov.uk/bis |
[email address] |

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

FOI Requests, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Kidd,

 

Please find attached a response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Kind regards,

Information Rights Unit

 

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills |
Orchard 1, 6th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET | www.gov.uk/bis

 

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

 

 

 

---------
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes
----------

FOI Requests, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Kidd,

 

Please see the attached letter regarding your internal review request our
reference: FOI2014/20302.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Rights Unit

 

Information Rights Unit | Department for Business, Innovation & Skills  |
Victoria 3, 5th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H OET|
[1]www.bis.gov.uk

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is making a
difference by supporting sustained growth and higher skills across the
economy. BIS: working together for growth

 

 

---------
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes
----------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.bis.gov.uk/