Investigation of Complaint Cullompton Town Council

The request was refused by Audit Commission.

Dear Audit Commission,

Could you please pass this request to the most appropriate office , believed to be Exeter.

At end of 2010/Early 2011 a complaint was made by a member of the public about possible bad record keeping of accounts by Cullompton town council.

This was investigated and a report made to Cullompton in May 2011.

May I please ask for the following :-

1. A copy of the written complaint(s)
2. Date investigation started
3. Persons interviewed by job description if naming not permitted,
4. Name and position of investigator
5. Details of records examined, please provide copies if possible.
6. Copies of any correspondence sent received during investigation.
7. Copies of any notes, a copy of any phone records / conversation made
8. Copies of any reports internal / external made
9. Details of any councillors interviewed.
10. Please provide details of cost of investigation with a breakdown of those costs and who is liable to pay.

As this concerns a complaint of possible financial irregularities its in the public interest to release all details.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Thompson

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Thompson

Thank you for your email of 26 July asking us for information relating to a complaint about Cullompton Town Council.

The Audit Commission does not hold any information relating to this complaint. However, Jackie Bellard, the auditor appointed to the Council may have some of this information, and I have asked her to check her records. I am afraid that this is where it gets more complicated.

Appointed auditors are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, so your request won't be dealt with under FoI rules. However, auditors can consider disclosing information that they hold. under Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act.

Jackie Bellard will contact you to set out the requirements and conditions of s49. I do need to make it clear, though, that if she decides not to disclose anything, the Commission cannot question or alter that decision.

Regards,

Deborah Manns-Benson
Public Enquiries Team

Audit Commission
1st Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P 4HQ

show quoted sections

Jackie Bellard,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Thompson

I have been copied into the e-mail response from the Audit Commission FOI team and your request for information about Collumpton Town Council.

Can you confirm that you want me to consider your request under s49 of the Audit Commission Act?

By way of background,I have included the text of Section 49 as an attachment to this e-mail. Section 49(1) contains a general prohibition on disclosure without the consent of the body or person to whom the information relates.

However, District Auditors also have to consider Section 49(2B), irrespective of whether there is consent from other bodies or persons for disclosure. Section 49(2B) enables, but does not require, the auditor to disclose information except where the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of the auditor's statutory functions. Information released under Section 49 does not go into the public domain and become freely available to anyone. When it is received by the person who requested it, the information becomes subject to Section 49(2C) which requires consent from the District Auditor to disclose the information to anyone else.

Where the auditor holds information requested, he or she can consider whether to release it under Section 49, but the auditor usually allows the audited body and other bodies or persons to whom the information relates to make representations to the auditor prior to disclosure. However, the final decision on disclosure of information held by the auditor is a matter for the auditor, not for the audited body. In the interests of openness, we do have a predisposition to disclose information, unless there is a good reason not to do so.

Regards

Jackie Bellard
District Auditor
Audit Commission
Aspinall House
Aspinall Close
Middlebrook
Bolton
BL6 6QQ

Tel: 08447987011
[mobile number]

This email contains information intended for the addressee only. It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional Privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copyright or use of this communication without prior permission of the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Please send any Freedom of Information requests directly to: [Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Jackie Bellard,
Please send a private message to me via this website with a number I can call you on or I will provide a number for you to call me, I do NOT ring 0844 numbers owing to financial rip offs by some dubious companies using them for profit .

I was a councillor at time of your investigation and your report is flawed in many aspects and I wish those matters addressed.

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

Mike Thompson

Jackie Bellard,

Dear Mr Thompson

I'm sorry I don't have a landline number that isn't 0844 but you can call my mobile which is included in my e-mail below.

I am now away from the office until Wednesday next week but if you let me have a number I will call you then.

I have flagged this e-mail as private as requested and would be grateful if you would confirm that it appears so when you receive it.

Regards

Jackie Bellard
District Auditor
Audit Commission
Aspinall House
Aspinall Close
Middlebrook
Bolton
BL6 6QQ

Tel: 08447987011
[mobile number]

This email contains information intended for the addressee only. It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional Privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copyright or use of this communication without prior permission of the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Please send any Freedom of Information requests directly to: [Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Jackie Bellard,

Mobile numbers are removed from the web site for security purposes.

I do need to address matters as I am dissatisfied with your report and lack of proper investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Thompson

Jackie Bellard,

I am away from the office until 3 August 2011. If your message is urgent please call Karen Duggan on 0844 798 3563 or e-mail [email address] . Any Freedom of Information requests should be sent directly to [Audit Commission request email].'

show quoted sections

Jackie Bellard,

Dear Mr Thompson

I would be grateful if you could provide me with a private or business e-mail address that I can send communications to rather than a website or alternatively a postal address.

As you will appreciate I cannot provide information in relation to an FOI that I am considering under s49 to what may be a public website.

Regards

Jackie Bellard
District Auditor
Audit Commission
Aspinall House
Aspinall Close
Middlebrook
Bolton
BL6 6QQ

Tel: 08447987011
[mobile number]

This email contains information intended for the addressee only. It may be confidential and may be the subject of legal and/or professional Privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copyright or use of this communication without prior permission of the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Please send any Freedom of Information requests directly to: [Audit Commission request email]

show quoted sections

watchingyou left an annotation ()

Jackie Bellard I have to say after reading your replies they do not seem to have the ring of truth in them.

Surely you have access to other phones or do you make your friends and family pay you money to speak with you on your 0844 numbers.

Dear Freedom of Information,
I am informed that this reply was not made by a trained FOI Officer, could a proper reply be made.

I am also concerned as legislation :

Freedom of Information Act 2000

3 Public authorities.
(1)In this Act “public authority” means—(a)subject to section 4(4),any body which, any other person who, or the holder of any office which—

(i)is listed in Schedule 1, or(ii)is designated by order under section 5, or

(b)a publicly-owned company as defined by section 6.

(2)For the purposes of this Act, information is held by a public authority if—

(a)it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person, or

(b)it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

From advise given to me I believe my request does come under FOI legislation and should be answered accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Thompson

Julie Hope,

Dear Mr Thompson

Thank you for your email. You may be aware that the Audit Commission is being abolished, and we are downsizing accordingly. We have a fully trained FOI manager who is currently on annual leave, but we no longer have specifically trained cover. That will be the case until the Commission is fully closed.

Mrs Manns-Benson has completed the Audit Commission FOI training, and is fully aware of how to deal with FOI requests. She is perfectly capable of dealing with your request.

However, if you prefer to wait until the FOI manager comes back from leave, we will pause your request, and I will ask him to respond at some point in the week commencing 8 August.

Yours sincerely

Julie Hope

Julie Hope
Director, Chairman and Chief Executive's Office
Audit Commission
1st Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4HQ
Tel: 0844 798 2104
M: 07976 126 713

show quoted sections

Dear Julie Hope,

I would like to point out that Mrs Deborah Manns-Benson herself said she was not foi trained, that is why I made my comments. IF she is fully trained then I want this dealt with asap as there may be pending complaints.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Thompson

K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()

Even when the Audit Commission was up and running its F of I procedures were dodgy. For example, if a 'review' of a refusal was requested, this might be referred back to the same person who dealt with it in the first place. Their complaints procedures operate in a similarly flawed manner.

Julie Hope,

Dear Mr Thompson

I'm sorry if there was any confusion. As I explained, Mrs Manns-Benson has had the compulsory Audit Commission FOI training - but she is not the FOI manager, who has had more in-depth training, and has completed a specific course on FOI.

If you are happy for her to do so, I will ask Mrs Manns-Benson to continue with your request.

Yours sincerely

Julie Hope

Julie Hope
Director, Chairman and Chief Executive's Office
Audit Commission
1st Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4HQ
Tel: 0844 798 2104
M: 07976 126 713

show quoted sections

Dear Julie Hope,

Please....

Yours sincerely,

Mike Thompson

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Thompson

I have looked again at your Freedom of Information request submitted on 26 July in which you asked for:

1. A copy of the written complaint(s)
2. Date investigation started
3. Persons interviewed by job description if naming not permitted,
4. Name and position of investigator
5. Details of records examined, please provide copies if possible.
6. Copies of any correspondence sent received during investigation.
7. Copies of any notes, a copy of any phone records / conversation made
8. Copies of any reports internal / external made
9. Details of any councillors interviewed.
10. Please provide details of cost of investigation with a breakdown of those costs and who is liable to pay.

In my email of 27 July I advised you that:

- the Audit Commission does not hold this information;
- there was a possibility the District Auditor (DA) did hold some of the information; and
- the DA would check and consider your request under Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act and contact you in due course.

Following receipt of my email, you phoned me on Friday 29 July and said that you were sure the Audit Commission did hold the information because 'someone from the Audit Commission had been present at meetings and had had access to papers'.

If there is any misunderstanding about who holds the information, I think this may be it. The appointed auditor is the person most likely to hold it, and he or she could well have attended a Council meeting. If the information was collected as part of an audit, then the auditor holds it in his, or her, own right. It is not automatically also held by the Commission, just because the auditor is employed by the Commission. It would also be the case if the appointed auditor was from one of the audit firms, like Deloitte or PwC.

If the auditor does hold it, it is not covered by FoI. If the Commission holds it, it may be.

If, having read this, you still think the Commission could hold it, then please let me know why you think that is the case and, if possible, who from the Commission attended the meeting that you refer to. I would like to assure you that this is not an attempt to be unhelpful or dismissive of your request - it is simply that the rules are different, depending on who has the information you want.

In the meantime, as I explained in our telephone call, the DA, Jackie Bellard, thinks she may indeed hold some of the information contained in your original request of 26 July and will consider disclosure of information under Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act. Jackie will contact you direct about this.

I hope this explanation goes some way to reassuring you that your request is being dealt with in the proper manner.

Kind regards,

Deborah Manns-Benson
Public Enquiries Team

Audit Commission
1st Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P 4HQ

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information,
At no point did I say an auditor attended a council meeting, I am informed this was done by phone calls to clerk and by email, perhaps some hard copies sent to Auditor by clerk.

From advice given to me ====
Freedom of Information Act 2000

3 Public authorities.
(1)In this Act “public authority” means—(a)subject to section
4(4),any body which, any other person who, or the holder of any
office which—

(i)is listed in Schedule 1, or(ii)is designated by order under
section 5, or

(b)a publicly-owned company as defined by section 6.

(2)For the purposes of this Act, information is held by a public
authority if—

(a)it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another
person, or

(b)it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

From advise given to me I believe my request does come under FOI legislation and should be answered accordingly.

I wish this to be progressed asap as I believe that because of a poor incomplete investigation it damaged the council AND councillors, the implication from comments of "bad practice" without having spoken to councillors who make decisions is a faulty investigation.

This is why I want documents as requested, it is not right that I have to speak or rely on comments from the investigator, as its obvious I would not get the right answers especially if I criticise her failings, defence barriers would then be in place and a "cover up", my reputation and fellow councillors have been unfairly criticised without ever being spoken too or give our reasons for our decisions.

It is scandalous that such investigations" are allowed to make people guilty without ever hearing our side of events.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Thompson

Dear Audit Commission,
I previously mentioned my concern about direct contact with investigator as I may have to make a complaint.
Today I was contacted direct against that wish.
I now wish an internal review, if that is not done then a formal complaint will be made.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Thompson

Robert Mauler,

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Thompson, please find my response attached, along with three other documents which are explained in my response.

Yours sincerely

Rob Mauler
Public Enquires Manager

show quoted sections

Dear Audit Commission,

On 5th Aug 2011 I made following comment on-line
"Dear Freedom of Information,
At no point did I say an auditor attended a council meeting, I am informed this was done by phone calls to clerk and by email, perhaps some hard copies sent to Auditor by clerk."

In your report today allegedly of your review you have failed to notice my comment, which indicates a rather flippant attitude and disregard to my comments.
Please provide detail of who employees the investigator(s), business address and how often used, as they could be and I believe under foi Act be classified as part of an authority. Also please advise where this confidential and sensitive information is held. I am not happy with excuses offered.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Thompson

Nigel Middlewick left an annotation ()

Being an interested party to this request, it is of significant concern that the Audit Commission is using the status of external auditors carrying out the work to avoid providing any concerned party with any pertinent details relating to what is an extremely unprofessional and inaccurate report.
The Audit Commission appear to be allowing the use of their status without any responsibility or ownership of any statements made and, in spite of the fact that clear concerns have been raised about the quality of this report, have not sought to clarify for themselves what level of investigation was carried out. Though I suppose that would put the information in their possession so it would have to be released. Catch 22
I now believe that those of us who know the report contains significant inaccuracies make a formal complaint jointly against the auditor involved and the Audit Commission itself.

Robert Mauler,

Dear Mr Thompson, thank you for your email.

You have asked for information about the 'investigator'. I'm afraid that we do not have 'investigators'. I believe you are referring to the appointed auditor.

In this case the appointed auditor is Jackie Bellard, who has been appointed from our in-house audit practice. Therefore the employer is The Audit Commission, 1st Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4HQ.

As I explained before, auditors are appointed by the Audit Commission under Section 3 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (ACA) and regardless of the employer operate under their own statutory powers, separate from those of the Audit Commission. Unlike the Audit Commission, appointed auditors are not "public authorities" for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). This means that the information they hold is not subject to that Act. The decision notice given by the Information Commissioner, linked in my previous response, provides more information on this.

If you remain unhappy with my internal review, you should now contact the Information Commissioner:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Yours sincerely

Rob Mauler
Public Enquiries Manager

show quoted sections

Dear Robert Mauler,

IF a complaint is received it has "To be Investigated",
The auditor in question is employed by Audit Commision and documents held there.
As they are associated to a suitable authority, I request the information originally asked for.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Thompson

Robert Mauler,

Dear Mr Thompson, thank you for your email.

The Commission has nothing further to add to our previous responses.

We politely suggest approaching the Information Commissioner if you remain unhappy:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Yours sincerely

Rob Mauler
Public Enquiries Manager

show quoted sections