Corrin kenny ltd BIG Fund award

The request was partially successful.

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

You recently responded to a direction from the Information Commissioner to a request for the Names of limited companies who had received the BIG fund grant.

What was revealed led to many legitimate questions.

You have answered a query regarding New Gaming Concept ltd which BIG award had raised legitimate questions re the appropriateness of the BIG award. Likewise another company, Corrin Kenny ltd received an award of BIG funds and subsequently in short order went into liquidation.

The speed of its subsequent liquidation, the fact that in the public domain its director has been disqualified as a director, the association of its director accompanying Council officers and councillors on trade-seeking missions in the Isle of Man, and potentially in Reno USA,and ,finall,y the studied denial by chief officers at an Audit and Risk Special committee of 8th October 2014, that no other than three companies had gone bust, not including Corrin Kenny ltd not indeed New Concept Gaming ltd, all suggest a breach of the rules governing BIG awards, or worse a potential criminal activity.

In that context, and in the context that a dissolved company has no privacy rights, I ask for the Grant application, the award papers and the email communications held by the Council on the BIG award to Corrin Kenny limited.

Yours faithfully,

nigel hobro

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Corrin kenny ltd BIG Fund award'.

you have not responded within the time laid down. IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE REASONS FOR NOT REPLYING THEN AGAIN THIS WILL BE REferred
TO THE ICO.

THE costs to you and to the public purse generally are unnecessarily incurred.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

nigel hobro

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Hobro,

 

I refer to your email of 10 January, which contained the following request
for information:-

 

‘Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

 

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

 

You recently responded to a direction from the Information Commissioner to
a request for the Names of limited companies who had received the BIG fund
grant.

 

What was revealed led to many legitimate questions.

 

You have answered a query regarding New Gaming Concept ltd which BIG award
had raised legitimate questions re the appropriateness of the BIG award.
Likewise another company, Corrin Kenny ltd received an award of BIG funds
and subsequently in short order went into liquidation.

 

The speed of its subsequent liquidation, the fact that in the public
domain its director has been disqualified as a director,  the association
of its director accompanying Council officers and councillors on
trade-seeking missions in the Isle of Man, and potentially in Reno USA,
and ,finally the studied denial by chief officers at an Audit and Risk
Special committee of 8th October 2014, that no other than three companies
had gone bust, not including Corrin Kenny ltd not indeed New Concept
Gaming ltd, all suggest a breach of the rules governing BIG awards, or
worse a potential criminal activity.

 

In that context, and in the context that a dissolved company has no
privacy rights, I ask for the Grant application, the award papers and the
email communications held by the Council on the BIG award to Corrin Kenny
limited.

 

Yours faithfully,’

 

You requested an internal review on 8 February, as the Council had not
responded to your request for information.

 

I enclose copies of the grant application, the award  papers and email
communications held by the Council in respect of the application by Corrin
Kenny Ltd for a BIG fund grant. I consider that a limited amount of the
 information you have requested is personal data and exempt from
disclosure under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

‘Personal data’ is defined in Section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998,
as follows:-

o “personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can
be identified—

(a)from those data, or

(b)from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or
is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller.

 

Where the personal data relates to employees of the Council, I have
redacted the names of junior employees of the Council. I have also
redacted the mobile telephone number of one of the directors of Corrin
Kenny Limited. I consider that the  first condition set out in Section 40
(3) of FOIA is satisfied in that disclosure of part of the requested
information would contravene the first data protection principle, that
personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully, and shall not be
processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Data
Protection Act 1998 is met.  I consider that none of the conditions in
Schedule 2 would be met, the most significant condition being that
contained in Schedule 2, condition 6 (1) which is in the following terms:-

 

“The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests
pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom
the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any
particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the data subject”

 

I refer to the case of Goldsmith International Business School v The
Information Commissioner and The Home Office [2014[ UKUT 0563 (AAC) which
is a decision of the Upper Tribunal and binding on the lower courts. Judge
Wikely gave a detailed analysis of the test of “reasonable necessity” when
considering condition 6 (1)  and endorsed eight propositions concerning
this condition, derived from case law.

 

Paragraphs  35,36,37 and 38  of the decision provide the first four
propositions:-

 

“Proposition 1: Condition 6 (1) of Schedule 2 to the DPA  (Data Protection
Act) requires three questions to be asked:-

(i)            Is the data controller or the third party or parties to
whom the data are disclosed pursuing a legitimate interest or interests ?

(ii)          Is the processing involved necessary for the purposes of
those interests?

(iii)         Is the processing unwarranted in this case by reason of
prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data
subject.?”

 

“Proposition 2: The test of “necessity” under stage (ii) must be met
before the balancing test under stage (iii) is applied”

 

“Proposition 3 :”Necessity” carries its ordinary English meaning, being
more than desirable but less than indispensable or absolute necessity.”

 

“Proposition 4 : Accordingly the test is one of “reasonable necessity,
reflecting the European jurisprudence on proportionality, although this
may not add much to the ordinary English meaning of the term.”

 

I consider that you as a third party, (ie a member of the public) are
pursuing a legitimate interest. However I do not consider that the
processing of personal data ie the release of the names of junior
employees of the Council  and the mobile telephone number in respect of Mr
Kenny  reasonably necessary for the purposes of that  interest. I consider
that your legitimate interest as a member of the public has been met by
the release of the majority of the  information contained in the working
papers and file related to Corrin Kenny Limited. I refer to paragraph 58
of the decision where Judge Wikely states “ While it is proper to
recognise the public interest in the disclosure of official information as
being relevant under condition 6, we think it important not to lose sight
of the principal object of the DPA, which is to protect personal data and
allow it to be processed only in defined circumstances. The first part of
condition 6 can only be satisfied where the disclosure is ‘necessary’ for
the purposes identified.”

 

I do not consider that there is a pressing social need which requires the
names of these individuals to be identified when I consider that that your
legitimate interest as a member of the public can be satisfied by your
being given the information that has been supplied.

 

Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption and not subject to the public
interest test contained in qualified  exemptions under FOIA.

I am therefore refusing  part of your request for information which
consists of some of the personal data contained in the requested
invoices/fee notes  on the basis that the absolute exemption contained in
Section 40 (2) and (3) (a) of FOIA applies.

 

You have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner  in respect
of the refusal of part of your request for information under Section 17 of
FOIA. The address is the Information Commissioner’s Office,

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wilmslow,

Cheshire SK9 5AF

[1]https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Tel -0303 123 113

 

Yours sincerely

 

Sent on behalf of

Rosemary Lyon,

Solicitor,

Business Services,

Law and Governance

Town Hall,

Brighton Street

Wallasey

Wirral

CH44 8ED

 

 

[2]LGC Awards15_Winner_MIP

 

This information supplied to you is copyrighted and continues to be
protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.   You are free
to use it for your own purposes, including any non commercial research you
are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for
example commercial publication, would require our specific permission, may
involve licensing and the application of a charge

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org