ICT Contracts and suppliers / procurement: 21802914
Dear Newham Borough Council,
In relation to FOI 21802914 can details be provided as to the scope of the work that was undertaken and / or expected outcome.
Agilisys - Onesource IT Operating Model Review
Agilisys - Projects Function Review
Kora Consulting - Architectural Services
ANS - StorSimple Migration
T.E.W Software Solutions LTD - Corporate BI Review
Triple Value Impact - Separation of oneSource IT to host boroughs approach
Are any of the above suppliers looking to be used for either any specific Newham or wider Newham / Havering activities and if so what are they and the expected value and date of award of contract expected to be.
Can informaiton also be provided as to how the organisations above were selected as for one, a direct award was made.
Can it also be confirmed if there were any personal or previous professional relationships with members of the selection panel/project approvers/contract awarders/contract sin-off for each project/3rd party which may have swayed the decision.
Yours faithfully
Dear Newham Borough Council,
As with the previous information requests, please find my full name at the foot of this email.
Yours faithfully,
Irvine Looms
FOI/EIR Information request
Our reference: 27816677
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear requester,
Freedom of Information Act 2000
In line with the FOI Act, we require your full name before we can proceed
with your request.
I will not be able to take this matter further without this extra
information from you. Please let me know by 29/11/2023.
If I do not hear from you within the timeframe provided, I shall take it
that you do not wish to pursue this request and will consider the request
closed.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Team
London Borough of Newham - People at the Heart of Everything We Do
[1][Newham Council request email]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
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 the
London Borough of Newham
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. The London Borough
of Newham cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Newham Council request email]
FOI/EIR Information request
Our reference: 27816677
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Irvine Looms
Thank you for your request for information received on 15 November 2023.
Please find attached our response to your request.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Team
[1][Newham Council request email]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
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 the
London Borough of Newham
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. The London Borough
of Newham cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Newham Council request email]
Dear London Borough of Newham,
Thank you for the information. The information is generic and we would require that there are more specifics provided as follows:
1. KORA COnsulting - The response is that this organisation provided advisory architectural and cyber security services. Could these be detailed? What specific architecture was advised upon, and which cyber security services were provided. We refer you to a non key decision from a Newham member of staff that detailed the exact activities that were required and therefore an exemption is not applicable in this case.
https://democracy.havering.gov.uk/docume...
Whilst this is a Havering document, the member of staff is from Newham and to reiterate an exemption is not applicable in this instance
2. As KORA consulting are a single person organisation, would the terms of engagement not fall under IR35 legislation?
3. Who selected KORA for invite, who interviewed them?
4. In relation to the question to previous or current professional / personal relationships, we specifically require who in the organisation worked with this organisation previously?
5. Is there any overlap between the work that was undertaken by Agilisys and TVI as there are similarities between their output due to the previous consultants leaving Agilisys and forming TVI?
6. The responses state that there are no personal endorsements for organisaitons, however TVI have endorsements from only Havering members of staff. Could you clarify why the original response and why this was incorrectly advised? Would this also then imply that the procurement approach was NOT open as suggested?
Please reconsider the initial responses and amend them as required and then returned to us.
For all other responses, we require any specific relationships between the organisation and the person(s) that recommended and selected the organisation and the search terms as some of these organisations are dormant or have no digital presence.
Can you also ensure that the name and / or role of those responsible to responding to this FOI be stated.
Yours sincerely,
Irvine Looms
FOI/EIR Information request
Our reference: 29740045
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Irvine Looms
Thank you for your request for information received on 21 January 2024.
Please find attached our response to your request.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Team
[1][Newham Council request email]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
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 the
London Borough of Newham
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. The London Borough
of Newham cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Newham Council request email]
Dear London Borough of Newham,
Thank you for the information provided, albeit that it contradicts previous FOI requests.
Would you provide the following information to complete our request:
3. Who selected KORA for invite, who interviewed them?
We can confirm we hold this information but is exempt under Section 40
-- As you are unable to provide the name of the invidual, please provide the role of the individual(s), which is not exempt who selected and interviewed KORA (including members of staff who have left the organisation either Newham or Havering)
-- How was this organisation selected as they have no digital footprint, website, phone number and by whom (role as names are exempt)? (including members of staff who have left the organisation either Newham or Havering)
-- Which roles were part of the interview panel?(including members of staff who have left the organisation either Newham or Havering)
Yours sincerely,
Irvine Looms
Dear London Borough of Newham,
Please accept our apologies as our email was only half complete. We are specificaly interested in the following:
The pre-contract award phase generally involves the core stages of pre-tendering – defining the requirement, developing the specification, producing a business case and tendering – market engagement, bidder selection and bidder evaluation. This phase ends in the award of a contract.
The above details are those that we require and also which other organisations were invited to tender. We are also well aware of the procurement processes within Local Authorities and as such are aware that a procurement waiver would have to have a specification as to why the waiver is being raised as opposed go progressing through the normal procurement routes.
Finally, could you provide the details of all the roles that were involved in the creation of the procurement waiver (current / past).
Yours sincerely,
Irvine Looms
FOI/EIR Information request
Our reference: 29769641
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Irvine Looms
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 17
February 2024.
We are dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and we aim to send a response by 19 March 2024.
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 you have
requested we will advise you accordingly in our response. We will also
provide you with details of how you may appeal (if appropriate).
Should you require anything further please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Team
[1][Newham Council request email]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
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 the
London Borough of Newham
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. The London Borough
of Newham cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Newham Council request email]
FOI/EIR Information request
Our reference: 29769641
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Irvine Looms
Thank you for your request for information received on 20 February 2024.
Please find attached our response to your request.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Team
[1][Newham Council request email]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
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 the
London Borough of Newham
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. The London Borough
of Newham cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Newham Council request email]
Dear Newham Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Newham Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'ICT Contracts and suppliers / procurement: 21802914'.
Whereas previously the roles of the person(s) undertaking activities has been made available, it is becoming increasingly frustrating that this information is not being provided. Please provide the information requested and also please be aware that we have contacted the corporate leadership team, including the Chief Executive in relation to the vague and lack of responses.
Also it is of note that the organisation was selected due to a previous track record. Once more, as this organisation does not have any digital presence, how was this determined and we also note that the information in relation to whom selected this organisation has not been provided.
Based upon the previous response, this organisation was selected due to the need of a Technical Architect to provide speciality security advice, fill out a document for the PSN, build a remediation plan and review the cyber budget. The latest response uses the narrative that there was an urgent issue that required resolving, which seems peculiar as your contracts register shows that you have a dedicated cyber security organisation (Strip OLT) that provides these services. Whilst this is a rhetorical question, why would certain individuals have taken the following actions:
- Not used the existing provider who would surely know more of your environment?
- Used an organisation that has NO track record anywhere digitally that demonstrates the capabilities required
- Found this organisation in the first instance
- Take great lengths to prevent this information being provided?
We have noted this in our request so that it is in the public domain for other reasons outside of just requiring the information from yourself.
This shall be the last request we make via the Freedom of Information request route, with the next being the Information Commissioners Office and the Newham Investigative teams.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...
Yours faithfully,
Irvine Looms
FOI/EIR Information request
Our reference: 29769641
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear Irvine Looms
Thank you for your request for a review received on 19 March 2024. We are
sorry that you are dissatisfied with our attempts to handle your request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
We can confirm that we are considering your concerns and we will aim to
provide you with a response by 18 April 2024. There may be circumstances
where more time is required. If this is the case, we will contact you to
explain and provide a reasonable timescale.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Team
[1][Newham Council request email]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
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 the
London Borough of Newham
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. The London Borough
of Newham cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Newham Council request email]
Dear London Borough of Newham,
Direct Follow on from FOI Ref 27816677 / 29740045
LBN Response
3. Who selected KORA for invite, who interviewed them?
We can confirm we hold this information but is exempt under Section 40
1. As you are unable to provide the name of the individual, please provide the role of the individual(s), which is not exempt who selected and interviewed KORA (including members of staff who have left the organisation either Newham or Havering)
Given that the roles requested are likely to be associated with individual employees, we consider that from the disclosure of the job roles requested it would also effectively identify individuals and therefore this would also be exempt under Section 40(2).
As previously advised, the names of individual employees is their own personal data; and disclosure would contravene upholding the data protection principles staff expect from their employer and is exempt under section 40(2) and section 40(3A).
--- It can be shown from the following Freedom of Information responses that this information has previously been provided including the name of the individual. Exemptions have not previously been made in response to requests for this information. Furthermore, from the exemption is station that the name of an individual can be inferred from providing the role of the person(s). Assumptions are not valid reasons for applying an exemption and as previously stated, Newham have provided this information previously therefore rendering the exemption invalid.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
2. How was this organisation selected as they have no digital footprint, website, phone number and by whom (role as names are exempt)? (Including members of staff who have left the organisation either Newham or Havering)
Track record of providing services to other Local Authorities, Government and statutory bodies.
This does not answer the question. The question asked was how this organisation was selected as they have no digital footprint and previous FOI responses have stated that no person within Newham Council have had either an existing or previous professional relationship with this organisation.
--- There is no evidence that indicates that this organisation has provided any of the services provided and we ask again; how was this company found, contacted and vetted to provide the said services considering that they have no previous history of doing so.
--- As it has been stated that this organisation has no previous or existing relationships, then how was this track record ascertained; can you provide links to the local authority, government and statutory bodies where this evidence exists and was used to select the organisation? As you have stated, this was for public authorities and therefore no exemption is valid due to commercial reasons or otherwise as you have also stated this is how you found and selected this organisation.
3. Which roles were part of the interview panel? (including members of staff who have left the organisation either Newham or Havering)
Given that the roles requested are likely to be associated with individual employees, we consider that from the disclosure of the job roles requested it would effectively identify individuals and therefore this would be exempt under Section 40(2).
Disclosure would contravene the upholding of data protection principles staff expect from their employer, in the protection of their personal data and is exempt under section 40(2) and section 40(3A).
--- Once more, this information has been provided previously (as per the 4 FOI to Newham previously) and therefore this exemption is invalid. Exemptions cannot be applied in some instances and not others and as Newham Council has previously released this information (including the names of individuals) your own responses render this exemption invalid.
4. The details below are those that we require and also which other organisations were invited to tender. We are also well aware of the procurement processes within Local Authorities and as such are aware that a procurement waiver would have to have a specification as to why the waiver is being raised as opposed to progressing through the normal procurement routes.
The pre-contract award phase generally involves the core stages of pre-tendering - defining the requirement, developing the specification, producing a business case and tendering - market engagement, bidder selection and bidder evaluation. This phase ends in the award of a contract.
A contract waiver award is required and a competition process was not possible due to an unforeseen emergency involving immediate risk to persons, property and of serious disruption to Council services. Due to the severity of the risks pertaining to both the Cyber Security stance and the lack of Technical Assurance on large scale procurements, urgent professional advice was sought from a subject matter expert.
The urgency and criticality of the situation meant that the decision was made to on board Kora consulting to mitigate these severe risks to the Council via the contract waiver process.
--- The response to this is confusing and contradictory as previous FOI responses did not indicate any urgency to the award of the contract. We will ask specific questions which are once more not exempt:
- Which skills did this organisation have that the existing security provider were not able to provide?
- What credentials and previous engagements do this organisation hold in the cyber security field and specifically in the respond and recover phases of a cyber-security incident?
- Why was this specific organisation selected and not the use of either the existing provider or a more established organisation?
Given the emergency nature of the issues, undertaking a lengthy procurement process to identify a partner would have represented a significant material risk to the customer facing operations of the council. The Council would have also been unable to adequately respond to the Cyber Security threats.
- Would the statement (The Council would have also been unable to adequately respond to the Cyber Security threats) indicate that the existing security provider and the services that they provide were not adequate to deal with the event?
- You have stated that undertaking a lenghy procurement process would have represented a risk to the Council; therefore how was this selection made of this organisation without identifying other providers? Where were they selected from, who introduced them, what were the gaps in the existing security services that led to this threat materialising?
5. Finally, could you provide the details of all the roles that were involved in the creation of the procurement waiver (current / past).
Given that the roles requested are likely to be associated with individual employees, we consider that from the disclosure of the job roles requested it would effectively identify individuals and therefore this would be exempt under Section 40(2).
Disclosure would contravene the upholding of data protection principles staff expect from their employer, in the protection of their personal data, and is exempt under section 40(2) and section 40(3A).
--- Once more this is an invalid exemption as demonstrated above and using your own evidence to support this conclusion.
--- We strongly urge you to reconsider not just the responses to the Freedom of Information request, but also to consider the ramifications of obfuscating the responses which are required to determine the spend of public money upon organisations. We further reiterate that this matter is also being viewed within a larger Newham Council audience and within other statutory and enforcement bodies.
Please provide the name or role of person(s) responding to this internal review and if the Data Protection Officer or the Director of Digital and Innovation either have any input, have been involved or have attempted to influence the response.
Yours sincerely,
Irvine Looms
Dear Irvine
Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Internal Review
Subject: ICT Contracts
I write following your request for an Internal Review of the Council’s
response to your enquiry for information held by the Council under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Initial Request made under current Case Reference: 29769641
Direct Follow on from FOI Ref 27816677 / 29740045
LBN Response
3. Who selected KORA for invite, who interviewed them?
We can confirm we hold this information but is exempt under
Section 40
1. As you are unable to provide the name of the individual, please
provide the role of the individual(s), which is not exempt who
selected and interviewed KORA (including members of staff who have
left the organisation either Newham or Havering)
Given that the roles requested are likely to be associated with individual
employees, we consider that from the disclosure of the job roles requested
it would also effectively identify individuals and therefore this
would also be exempt under Section 40(2).
As previously advised, the names of individual employees is their
own personal data; and disclosure would contravene upholding the data
protection principles staff expect from their employer and is exempt under
section 40(2) and section 40(3A).
2. How was this organisation selected as they have no digital footprint,
website, phone number and by whom (role as names are exempt)?
(including members of staff who have left the organisation either
Newham or Havering)
Track record of providing services to other Local Authorities,
Government and statutory bodies.
3. Which roles were part of the interview panel?(including
members of staff who have left the organisation either Newham or
Havering)
Given that the roles requested are likely to be associated with
individual employees, we consider that from the disclosure of the job
roles requested it would effectively identify individuals and therefore
this would be exempt under Section 40(2).
Disclosure would contravene the upholding of data protection
principles staff expect from their employer, in the protection of their
personal data and is exempt under section 40(2) and section 40(3A).
The pre-contract award phase generally involves the core stages of
pre-tendering - defining the requirement, developing the specification,
producing a business case and tendering - market engagement, bidder
selection and bidder evaluation. This phase ends in the award of
a contract.
4. The above details are those that we require and also which other
organisations were invited to tender. We are also well aware of the
procurement processes within Local Authorities and as such are aware that
a procurement waiver would have to have a specification as to why the
waiver is being raised as opposed go progressing through the
normal procurement routes.
A contract waiver award is required and a competition process was
not possible due to an unforeseen emergency involving immediate risk to
persons, property and of serious disruption to Council services. Due to
the severity of the risks pertaining to both the Cyber Security stance and
the lack of Technical Assurance on large scale procurements, urgent
professional advice was sought from a subject matter expert. The urgency
and criticality of the situation meant that the decision was made to on
board Kora consulting to mitigate these severe risks to the Council via
the contract waiver process.
Given the emergency nature of the issues, undertaking a lengthy
procurement process to identify a partner would have represented a
significant material risk to the customer facing operations of the
council. The Council would have also been unable to adequately
respond to the Cyber Security threats.
5. Finally, could you provide the details of all the roles that
were involved in the creation of the procurement waiver (current /
past).
Given that the roles requested are likely to be associated with
individual employees, we consider that from the disclosure of the job
roles requested it would effectively identify individuals and therefore
this would be exempt under Section 40(2).
Disclosure would contravene the upholding of data protection
principles staff expect from their employer, in the protection of their
personal data, and is exempt under section 40(2) and section 40(3A).
Your reason for requesting an Internal Review
I am writing to request an internal review of Newham Borough Council's
handling of my FOI request 'ICT Contracts and suppliers / procurement:
21802914'.
Whereas previously the roles of the person(s) undertaking activities has
been made available, it is becoming increasingly frustrating that this
information is not being provided. Please provide the information
requested and also please be aware that we have contacted the corporate
leadership team, including the Chief Executive in relation to the vague
and lack of responses.
Also it is of note that the organisation was selected due to a previous
track record. Once more, as this organisation does not have any digital
presence, how was this determined and we also note that the information in
relation to whom selected this organisation has not been provided.
Based upon the previous response, this organisation was selected due to
the need of a Technical Architect to provide speciality security advice,
fill out a document for the PSN, build a remediation plan and review the
cyber budget. The latest response uses the narrative that there was an
urgent issue that required resolving, which seems peculiar as your
contracts register shows that you have a dedicated cyber security
organisation (Strip OLT) that provides these services. Whilst this is a
rhetorical question, why would certain individuals have taken the
following actions:
- Not used the existing provider who would surely know more of your
environment?
- Used an organisation that has NO track record anywhere digitally that
demonstrates the capabilities required
- Found this organisation in the first instance
- Take great lengths to prevent this information being provided?
Further email received states: It can be shown from the following Freedom
of Information responses that this information has previously been
provided including the name of the individual. Exemptions have not
previously been made in response to requests for this information.
Furthermore, from the exemption is station that the name of an individual
can be inferred from providing the role of the person(s). Assumptions are
not valid reasons for applying an exemption and as previously stated,
Newham have provided this information previously therefore rendering the
exemption invalid.
Findings
I have reviewed the response sent to you and the reasons given by you as
to why you are dissatisfied with the response.
Following my review I am of the opinion that s40(2) and s40(3) exemption
have been correctly applied in this instance.
The data requested is personal data as defined in the Data Protections Act
2018 (DPA 2018) section 3:
3(2) “Personal data” means any information relating to an identified or
identifiable living individual.
3(3) “Identifiable living individual” means a living individual who can be
identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to –
(a) an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data
or an online identifier, or
(b) one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic,
mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.
In providing the role of the employee/s means that an identifiable living
individual can be identified indirectly in accordance with section 3(3) of
the DPA 2018.
Disclosure of employee data to a member of the public would also
contravene one of the data protection principles in accordance with
Article 5(1)(a) of the DPA 2018
“Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent
manner in relation to the data subject”.
As part of my review I am of the opinion that the disclosure of the
information is not necessary and does not hold any relevance to the FOI
request in its entirety.
The names of individual employees is their own personal data; and
disclosure would contravene upholding the data protection principles staff
expect from their employer and therefore s40(2) and s40(3)(a) has been
correctly engaged
In conclusion your appeal is not upheld.
Please see our response below to further questions raised within your
request for the internal review:
- Not used the existing provider who would surely know more of your
environment? – Information not held - this question does not fall under
the scope of the freedom of information Act.
- Used an organisation that has NO track record anywhere digitally that
demonstrates the capabilities required - Information not held - this
question does not fall under the scope of the freedom of information Act.
- Found this organisation in the first instance – This information has
already been provided
- Take great lengths to prevent this information being provided? -
Information not held - this question does not fall under the scope of the
freedom of information Act.
It can be shown from the following Freedom of Information responses that
this information has previously been provided including the name of the
individual. Exemptions have not previously been made in response to
requests for this information. Furthermore, from the exemption is station
that the name of an individual can be inferred from providing the role of
the person(s). Assumptions are not valid reasons for applying an exemption
and as previously stated, Newham have provided this information previously
therefore rendering the exemption invalid. – Each FOI is considered on a
case by case basis and no one set blanket policy applies to all. If
exemptions are applied in one situation they may not be appropriate in
another.
Should you remain dissatisfied with this response you have the right to
contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/
Please quote the reference number 29769641 in any future communications.
If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact
us [2][email address]
Kind regards
Angie
Angela Harding | Senior Information Governance Officer
Information Assurance
one source - working on behalf of Havering and Newham councils
[3]covid-logo
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This communication is sent by oneSource on behalf of the London Borough of
Havering or the London Borough of Newham. The views expressed in it are
not necessarily the views of any of the councils.
This email and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may
be confidential. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
use the reply function to inform us and then permanently delete the email.
The email has been scanned for viruses before it was sent and on leaving
the councils was found to be virus free. Incoming and outgoing emails are
routinely monitored for compliance with the councils’ policies on the use
of electronic communications. Action may be taken against any malicious or
deliberate attempts to infect the councils’ networks.
The information contained in this email may be subject to public
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless this
information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this
email and your reply cannot be guaranteed. Email is not considered a
secure medium for communication and we advise that you understand and
accept this lack of security when communicating with us by email.
Privacy Notice can be found on our website Data Protection
https://onesource.co.uk/privacy-and-poli... , which outlines your rights
and how we collect, use, store, delete and protect your personal data.
References
Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/
2. mailto:[email address]
Dear GDPR-data protection,
In relation to this request which was refused, we have raised this with the Information Commissioners Office (Case Reference: IC-320726-Y2M7 ) and request the following information:
Where the Council has indicated that information been provided in relation to how the organisation was found.
The information has been reviewed and the response was that the information had previously been provided, however there is nowhere in the response does it provide the information was selected, only that they were selected due to a previous track record.
Specifically the request is how was this organisation found as they have no phone number, no email address, no website or address. Furthermore, requests made to all UK local government authorities and public health bodies has resulted in none of these organisations having had engaged with this organisation which further undermines a previous statement that they were selected due to a track record. It is also noted that the organisation created a temporary website immediately after we made the initial request which remains without updates since its creation and information provided by Companies House also have demonstrated that the number of employees was 1 at the time of engagement, further contradicting previous responses to an FOI.
REQUEST SPECIFICS: How was this organisation found for engagement, please provide a detailed response rather than a generic reply.
Yours sincerely,
Irvine Looms
Thank you for your email.
We will aim to respond to you as soon as we can but as we are experiencing
a high level of demand on our resources at this time this may take us
longer than our usual two working days but no longer than four working
days.
If your enquiry is urgent please email us again providing your deadlines.
Kind regards
The Information Governance Team
oneSource
Second Floor West, Newham Dockside, 1000 Dockside Road, London E16 2QU
oneSource – working on behalf of Havering and Newham councils
[1]www.onesource.co.uk
Follow us on Twitter: @onesourceUK
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This communication is sent by oneSource on behalf of the London Borough of
Havering or the London Borough of Newham. The views expressed in it are
not necessarily the views of any of the councils.
This email and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may
be confidential. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
use the reply function to inform us and then permanently delete the email.
The email has been scanned for viruses before it was sent and on leaving
the councils was found to be virus free. Incoming and outgoing emails are
routinely monitored for compliance with the councils’ policies on the use
of electronic communications. Action may be taken against any malicious or
deliberate attempts to infect the councils’ networks.
The information contained in this email may be subject to public
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless this
information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this
email and your reply cannot be guaranteed. Email is not considered a
secure medium for communication and we advise that you understand and
accept this lack of security when communicating with us by email.
Privacy Notice can be found on our website Data Protection
https://onesource.co.uk/privacy-and-poli... , which outlines your rights
and how we collect, use, store, delete and protect your personal data.
References
Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.onesource.co.uk
Dear Irvine
Thank you for your email.
We have provided you with the information we hold and that does not fall under an exemption.
Following the conclusion of my internal review I stated that the next steps were to contact the ICO if you were still dissatisfied with our response. I understand that you have contacted the ICO and we will engage with them when they make contact with us.
Kind regards
Angie
Angela Harding | Senior Information Governance Officer
Information Assurance
one source - working on behalf of Havering and Newham councils
Dear GDPR-data protection,
Thank you for your reply. The information below is for the ICO and does not require a repsonse.
- You will not provide the information related to whom issued the contract, despite providing this in other instances.
- You will not provide information as to how this organisation was found despite them not having any digital presence
- You will not provide information as to the qualifications of this organisation and why they were selected in light of not having undertaken any work like this previously
- You have stated that this organisation has a track record of providing similar services, however a request to the LGA whom contacted all local authorities has shown that they have never done so
- You have stated that this organisation is a not a single person entity, however the information held at Companies House contradicts this
ICO / LGPAC / CPS
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your complaint about: London Borough of Newham
Their Reference: 29769641
Our reference: IC-330811-T8Z4
Yours sincerely,
Irvine Looms
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now