Database of LCC Assets 'SOLD' / 'LEASED'

Josie Mullen made this Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Council

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

The request was refused by Liverpool City Council.

Dear Liverpool City Council,
On the 20th May 2020 I received the following response from LCC in respect of a request for a comprehensive database of LCC [taxpayers] assets that had been sold or leased from 2010 to 2020

Freedom of Information Request 2782799 - LCC response
"With regard to the additional information requested (date, value, purchaser, status, solicitor
representation), as well as to information for the further five year period from 2010 to 2015,
this information is held on the individual records for each sale or disposal and is not held in
a centralised format as we have no operational or legislative reason to do so. Allowing 20 minutes per file and with a total of 1417 files for the period to which your requests relates would necessitate a total of 472.33 hours of Officer time to identify and extract all information of relevance. "

As can be seen from extracts of the Max Caller report below and investigations being carried out by the police, it is evident that LCC's handling of asset sales was completely dysfunctional, unethical and possibly [allegedly] unlawful. To say that LCC has NO comprehensive database of assets sold/leased is also extremely suspicious.
FOI request
[1] Please supply the name of the officer who stated that there was "no operational or legislative reason" to keep a comprehensive database of assets sold/leased
[2] As Max Caller has stated that there has been a loss to the council of circa £100 million please supply all the reasons why Mel Creighton is still in her job and has not been sacked[as the Director of Finance and having had Delegated Powers to sell off LCC assets]
[3] Please supply a comprehensive database of all LCC assets sold/leased since 2010, including - type of asset / location of asset / independent valuation / actual value of sale / lease /date / purchaser etc

Ma Caller report extracts:
'As the Inspection progressed more disposals came to light, in part because they had been linked to wider schemes involving land swaps with consideration involved and in part because of the lack of a coherent record keeping system noted earlier.
As the Inspection progressed, though, what became a depressingly familiar pattern emerged.
In case after case, the Inspection Team noted that there was no attempt to seek any form of market test. Alternative valuation scenarios were also prepared which discounted the likely highest valuation. These valuations were almost entirely prepared in house
6.8.More often than coincidence would allow, the person/company who was found at that point to have acquired the lease was drawn from a very restricted pool.
There was no evidence of the analysis and consultation with Members that the Rules provided for. This was neither set out in the Delegated Action Report (DAR) itself nor did the file contain any correspondence to evidence compliance. It was reported that the Director did not hold Cabinet Member briefings, as was the practice in other parts of LCC, so there appeared to be no formal mechanism to record any advice that might have been sought or proffered.

Yours faithfully,

Josie Mullen

Matt O'Donoghue left an annotation ()

Expect nothing - as will all the other FOI's that go to the root of the incompetence or maladministration to the core of Liverpool City Council.

The Citizen's Crown Jewels - the City's freehold to land that was owned by the people - has been gifted to the friends and family of elected officials and well paid public servants.

Joe, Ann and Nick, Mel, Becky and Jeanette, Darren and Tim and the rest - including Tony - willingly complicit or incapable cronies, all enablers in the largest local government scandal in history.

Your legacy will be your shame.

#WeShineTheLight

Liverpool City Council

 
Dear Josie Mullen
 
Please note:

We would at this time advise that Liverpool City Council in common with
other public authorities is presently dealing with, responding to and
affected by the current public health emergency arising from Coronavirus.

When we have sufficient personnel to be able to deal with, and respond to,
your request we will do so in due course.

We thank you for your patience at this time whilst staff are diverted to
maintaining essential services for the residents of Liverpool during this
current public health emergency.

 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 15 July
2021 concerning:
 
 
Dear Liverpool City Council,
On the 20th May 2020 I received the following response from LCC in respect
of a request for a comprehensive database of LCC [taxpayers] assets that
had been sold or leased from 2010 to 2020

Freedom of Information Request 2782799 - LCC response
"With regard to the additional information requested (date, value,
purchaser, status, solicitor
representation), as well as to information for the further five year
period from 2010 to 2015,
this information is held on the individual records for each sale or
disposal and is not held in
a centralised format as we have no operational or legislative reason to do
so. Allowing 20 minutes per file and with a total of 1417 files for the
period to which your requests relates would necessitate a total of 472.33
hours of Officer time to identify and extract all information of
relevance. "

As can be seen from extracts of the Max Caller report below and
investigations being carried out by the police, it is evident that LCC's
handling of asset sales was completely dysfunctional, unethical and
possibly [allegedly] unlawful. To say that LCC has NO comprehensive
database of assets sold/leased is also extremely suspicious.
FOI request
[1] Please supply the name of the officer who stated that there was "no
operational or legislative reason" to keep a comprehensive database of
assets sold/leased
[2] As Max Caller has stated that there has been a loss to the council of
circa £100 million please supply all the reasons why Mel Creighton is
still in her job and has not been sacked[as the Director of Finance and
having had Delegated Powers to sell off LCC assets]
[3] Please supply a comprehensive database of all LCC assets sold/leased
since 2010, including - type of asset / location of asset / independent
valuation / actual value of sale / lease /date / purchaser etc

Ma Caller report extracts:
'As the Inspection progressed more disposals came to light, in part
because they had been linked to wider schemes involving land swaps with
consideration involved and in part because of the lack of a coherent
record keeping system noted earlier.
As the Inspection progressed, though, what became a depressingly familiar
pattern emerged.
In case after case, the Inspection Team noted that there was no attempt to
seek any form of market test. Alternative valuation scenarios were also
prepared which discounted the likely highest valuation. These valuations
were almost entirely prepared in house
6.8.More often than coincidence would allow, the person/company who was
found at that point to have acquired the lease was drawn from a very
restricted pool.
There was no evidence of the analysis and consultation with Members that
the Rules provided for. This was neither set out in the Delegated Action
Report (DAR) itself nor did the file contain any correspondence to
evidence compliance. It was reported that the Director did not hold
Cabinet Member briefings, as was the practice in other parts of LCC, so
there appeared to be no formal mechanism to record any advice that might
have been sought or proffered.

Yours faithfully,

Josie Mullen...
 
We are dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and we aim to send a response by 13 August 2021.
 
In some case, a fee may be payable. If we decide a fee is payable, we will
send you a fee notice and we will require you to pay the fee before
proceeding with your request.
 
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 may restrict the release of some or
all of the information you have requested. We will carry out an assessment
and if any exemptions apply to some or all of the information then we
might not provide that information to you. We will inform you if this is
the case and advise you of your rights to request an internal review and
to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.
 
We will also advise you if we cannot provide you with the information
requested for any other reason together with the reason(s) why and details
of how you may appeal (if appropriate).
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Information Team
Liverpool City Council
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Liverpool City Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Liverpool City
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

3 Attachments

Dear Josie Mullen

 

Please see attached our response to your request. We apologise for the
delay in responding to your request.

 

Regards

 

Liverpool City Council

[1][email address]

[2][IMG]

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://liverpool.gov.uk/consultations

Dear Liverpool City Council,
The response to - Database of LCC Assets 'SOLD' / 'LEASED'' - was utter rubbish....please note
Max Caller Report

4.5…...In almost all the property cases viewed by the Inspection Team, until the last part of the Review Period, there was little original material. The files looked to have been constituted from individuals personal filing systems. When gaps were identified by the team more information was often forthcoming. In particular, it was extremely difficult to trace agreed final versions of Delegated Action Reports (DAR’s), the means by which the rules on delegated powers were complied with. The Directorate appeared to have a great reluctance to share the final signed authority with the centre, on the spurious grounds of commercial confidentiality. In a number of instances, the Inspection Team noted DAR’s being created to retrospectively authorise deals that were now being finalised, sometimes with the valuation supporting the deal appearing on the file for the first time at this point.
4.6.As a consequence, it is not possible to state that the standards of record keeping required by a statutory authority were complied with.

Yours sincerely,

Josie Mullen