Dear Wirral Borough Council,

Following the minutes of the Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 31st January 2011, in the report of the Interim Director of Adult Social Services, it states in point 1.3:

Members may be aware that the Care Quality Commission has changed its remit and will not now return to Wirral in March 2011 to assess progress against the Improvement Plan. Instead, the North West Joint Improvement Partnership will provide a monitoring function to determine how well the Council has responded to the findings of the Care Quality
Commission Inspection Report of May 2010. At the time of writing, the Joint Improvement Partnership has not advised how it will conduct its assessment.

Please could you disclose:

1. Will the NWJIP be providing a monitoring function
2. How will NWJIP provide a monitoring function?
3. How will the assessment of progress be made?
4. How will the assessment be communicated?
5. If no arrangements are in place, at what point will WBC actually make arrangements around monitoring from NWJIP?

Could you also provide all emails and correspondence between WBC and NWJIP since September 2010.

Could you please provide me with a receipt for this FOI request.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

Dear Wirral 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 Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'CQC Implementation Plan Monitoring'.

This has failed to be answered promptly by the 12th April 2011.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

Dear InfoMgr, FinDMT,

This was passed to the ICO.

The ICO has written to you to inform you that you must answer my request.

You have failed to answer the request and ignored the ICO.

I will be complaining again to the ICO.

The level of mistrust between Wirral Borough Council and those it is meant to serve can only increase when you fail to adhere to legislation and fail to offer transparency - even under duress.

Yours sincerely,

Pete Sheffield

Dear Corrin, Jane,

This was first requested on the 14th March 2011. It is now the 27th of November 2011. I would like a full and frank explanation why this has taken over 7 months to answer and has only been answered when the CQC improvement plan has been recently signed off.

It has taken the request, an internal review and a complaint to the ICO to get this answer which is still incomplete.

The ICO has contacted you twice, of which you ignored both letters and only when you are threatened with contempt of court have you answered this request for information.

May I refer you to my original request 'Could you also provide all emails and correspondence between WBC and NWJIP since September 2010.'

It may be prudent to examine this point within the request due to the notice served on you by the enforcement team of the ICO, and as per your duty answer it. I will of course be complaining to the ICO.

These are simply not the actions of a responsible local authority.

Yours sincerely,

Pete Sheffield

Dear Corrin, Jane,

Thank you for the clarification.

If you examine the presented information from the minutes it states:

'Instead, the North West Joint Improvement Partnership will provide a monitoring function to determine how well the Council has responded to the findings of the
Care Quality Commission Inspection Report of May 2010. At the time of writing,the Joint Improvement Partnership has not advised how it will conduct its assessment.'

If you note the sentence 'Instead, the North West Joint Improvement Partnership will provide a monitoring function to determine how well the Council has responded to the findings of the
Care Quality Commission Inspection Report of May 2010' presented to elected members implies that contact has been made as a positive confirmation. Surprising as per your information no contact has been made by WBC to the NWJIP.

If you also note the sentence 'At the time of writing,the Joint Improvement Partnership has not advised how it will conduct its assessment.' presented to elected members implies that contact has been made and WBC is awaiting further contact. How can WBC be waiting to be advised if WBC have not contacted the NWJIP?

You state in your reply on the 29th November 2011:

'The Council has not had any e-mail or correspondence with NWJIP about their undertaking any governance arrangements in respect of the Department's Improvement Plan.'

In summary, either this FOI disclosure is not accurate or in the face of a damning CQC report and crisis in DASS, senior officers were misleading elected members as to action taken to oversee their improvement.

Yours sincerely,

Pete Sheffield