Leeways Childs Home, 17 Edward Rd, Bromley

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Lewisham Borough Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Please could you send me a copy of
1. The dossier "After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements" published by the London Borough of Lewisham on March 19th 1987
2. The minutes of the Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985
3. Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984
4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986
5. Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report)
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report,

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Reference No: 365953

Thank you for your recent request. Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions/exceptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions/exceptions, the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred. If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if appropriate). Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear for us to respond fully.

Kind Regards

Maria Kaminski
Corporate Information Team

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,
I have not had a reply within the 20 day workign timescale nor have I been informed of any extension as promised
"
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Reference No: 365953

Thank you for your recent request. Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions/exceptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions/exceptions, the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity."

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Reference No: 365953
 
Thank you for your email.
 
We apologise for the delay in you receiving a response to your request. I
have contacted the service who are dealing with your request and they have
been waiting for information to be able to respond. They are now in the
process of drafting a response but before it can be released, it must be
cleared by an officer in our Legal Services department. I have been
assured that you will receive a response before the end of next week.
 
We apologise for any inconvenience caused and for not informing you of
this delay sooner
 
Regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Information Team
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Foi, Wendy Stevens

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Reference No: 365953

you replied to my email re delay
"We apologise for the delay in you receiving a response to your request. I
have contacted the service who are dealing with your request and they have
been waiting for information to be able to respond. They are now in the
process of drafting a response but before it can be released, it must be
cleared by an officer in our Legal Services department. I have been
assured that you will receive a response before the end of next week."

The assurance you were given was incorrect and I did not receive a response by the end of that week or the week after.
The delay is unacceptable. Who was the service dealing with my request? Why is the delay now? Who assured you that there would be a response by the end of last week?

Thank you for your help in this matter

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Mail Delivery System,

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent has not yet been delivered to one or more of its
recipients after more than 24 hours on the queue on titan.ukcod.org.uk.

The message identifier is: 1bTRsL-0000OL-6U
The date of the message is: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:52:13 +0100
The subject of the message is: RE: Freedom of Information request - Leeways Childs Home, 17 Edward
Rd, Bromley - 365953

The address to which the message has not yet been delivered is:

[email address]
Delay reason: SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<[email address]>:
host in.hes.trendmicro.eu [150.70.226.152]: 450 4.7.1 <[email address]>:
Recipient address rejected: ERS-QIL.

No action is required on your part. Delivery attempts will continue for
some time, and this warning may be repeated at intervals if the message
remains undelivered. Eventually the mail delivery software will give up,
and when that happens, the message will be returned to you.

Sent request to Lewisham Borough Council again.

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Thank you for your email.
 
We apologise for the further delay you have experienced in receiving a
response to your FOI request.
 
As you are aware, the information you have requested is considered as very
sensitive and our response is subject to more than one department
examining and reviewing the information prior to release to ensure that we
comply with the Freedom of Information Act.
 
Please be assured we are dealing with your request and endeavour to
respond as soon as possible
 
We apologise for any inconvenience caused
 
Regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Information Team
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

If this is a legal delay please give the reason and section of the law.
Otherwise it is an illegal delay and the reply should be given immediately. The request is way overdue

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Tominey, David, Lewisham Borough Council

Good afternoon
 
I do apologise for the delay in responding to your FOI regarding Leeways. 
As you know we have responded previously in time, and on this occasion we
have unfortunately missed deadline.
 
I will aim to provide a draft this week, for sign off by the Director.
 
Kind regards
 
David Tominey
 
Complaints & Access to Records Manager
Children's Social Care
London Borough of Lewisham
3rd Floor, Laurence House
1 Catford Road, SE6 4RU
 
0208  314 6930
 
The information held within this email is highly confidential. The content
of this information must not be copied forwarded or disclosed to any
person other than the individual it was intended for unless the
information must be shared for the purpose it was given. When in receipt
of this information please ensure it is protected and maintained securely.
When you are finished with the information please delete it from your
system. Under no circumstances must this information be kept for longer
than needed. If you have received it in error please contact the sender or
forward to [1][email address] and delete the email.
 
If you do not adhere to the above disclaimer you could be in breach of the
data protection act 1998 and therefore could face legal proceedings.”
 
 
 
 
 
 

         
DISCLAIMER

This message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity it is addressed to. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail. Please note 
that we may monitor and check emails to safeguard the Council network
from viruses, hoax messages or other abuse of the Council’s systems.
To see the full version of this disclaimer please visit the following 
address: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/AboutThisSite...

For advice and assistance about online security and protection from
internet threats visit the "Get Safe Online" website at
http://www.getsafeonline.org

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Casework, CYP, Lewisham Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Fox

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Reference No: 365953
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
 
Please could you send me a copy of
 
1. The dossier "After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements"
published by the London Borough of Lewisham on March 19th 1987
 
A lot of internal documents were produced post Leeways, and some were
appended to confidential reports. Where we cannot identify the whereabouts
of a particular named document, this would require a manual trawl through
minutes, records and meeting books.
 
This information is not recorded in a readily accessible form. To retrieve
this information would require manual checks on all such individuals.
We apply Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, “Exemption
where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit”, to this part of your
request.
Section 12 states:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its
obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the
estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the
appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) ‘the appropriate limit’ means such amount
as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation
to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for
information are made to a public authority*
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting
in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to
be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the
purposes of this section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the
manner in which they are to be estimated.
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily
accessible format. It is estimated that the cost of locating, retrieving
and collating the information would cost in excess of £450 (the set limit)
and therefore exceeds the 'appropriate level' as stated in the Freedom of
Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
Costs for staff time i.e. staff retrieving and collating information are
set at £25 per hour and this task would require us to spend more than 18
hours of staff time on preparing the relevant information. You are able to
make a payment so that this task could be undertaken. You may also modify
your request to reduce the cost of this task. Please contact us if you
wish to proceed with one of these options.
 
 
2. The minutes of the Social Services Committee 23rd July 1985
 
 
3. Review of Childrens Residential Services believed to be July 1984
 
This information is not recorded in a readily accessible form. To retrieve
this information would require manual checks on all such individuals.
We apply Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, “Exemption
where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit”, to this part of your
request.
Section 12 states:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its
obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the
estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the
appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) ‘the appropriate limit’ means such amount
as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation
to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for
information are made to a public authority*
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting
in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to
be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the
purposes of this section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the
manner in which they are to be estimated.
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily
accessible format. It is estimated that the cost of locating, retrieving
and collating the information would cost in excess of £450 (the set limit)
and therefore exceeds the 'appropriate level' as stated in the Freedom of
Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
Costs for staff time i.e. staff retrieving and collating information are
set at £25 per hour and this task would require us to spend more than 18
hours of staff time on preparing the relevant information. You are able to
make a payment so that this task could be undertaken. You may also modify
your request to reduce the cost of this task. Please contact us if you
wish to proceed with one of these options.
 
 
4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be
February 1986
 
This information is deemed confidential, and will not be released.
 
5. Minutes of the Report to Council on 5 March 1986 (This should contain
discussion of Chief Execs Inquiry Report)
 
There are no records of a meeting on the date you quote. Please do advise
if this is the date you meant to ask for.
 
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report,
 
Information not held
 
We hope you find this information useful.
You have a right of appeal against this response. If you wish to appeal
you must do so in writing to the Corporate Information Manager at the
following address:
 
Corporate Information Team
London Borough of Lewisham
1^st Floor Town Hall Chambers
Catford
London
SE6 4RU
 
or
[1][email address]
Yours sincerely
David Tominey
Childrens Complaints & Access to Records Manager
Quality Assurance Service
020 831 46930
[2][email address]
 
 
You are free to use the information provided for your own purposes,
including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes
of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication,
requires the permission of the copyright holder. You may apply for
permission to re-use this information by submitting a request to
[3][email address]
 
 
Kind regards
 
David Tominey
 
Complaints & Access to Records Manager
Children's Social Care
London Borough of Lewisham
3rd Floor, Laurence House
1 Catford Road, SE6 4RU
 
0208  314 6930
 
The information held within this email is highly confidential. The content
of this information must not be copied forwarded or disclosed to any
person other than the individual it was intended for unless the
information must be shared for the purpose it was given. When in receipt
of this information please ensure it is protected and maintained securely.
When you are finished with the information please delete it from your
system. Under no circumstances must this information be kept for longer
than needed. If you have received it in error please contact the sender or
forward to [4][email address] and delete the email.
 
If you do not adhere to the above disclaimer you could be in breach of the
data protection act 1998 and therefore could face legal proceedings.”
 

         
DISCLAIMER

This message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity it is addressed to. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail. Please note 
that we may monitor and check emails to safeguard the Council network
from viruses, hoax messages or other abuse of the Council’s systems.
To see the full version of this disclaimer please visit the following 
address: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/AboutThisSite...

For advice and assistance about online security and protection from
internet threats visit the "Get Safe Online" website at
http://www.getsafeonline.org

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Thank you for your reply.
Reference No: 365953

1. "After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements" dossier is apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a child abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several children. It should from the size be relatively easy to find within your files. To help me understand could you explain how are Lewishams records from this time filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised index and also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “ Could you explain?

2. Thankyou for those minutes

3. Review of child services not able to be found . This was a major revamp only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the time limit?

4. "Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not be released. "
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the Report for your information.

5. Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986
This is link to a page 19 that has been supplied to me https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/10/0... I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.

6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did it this Report happen or has it been lost?

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Reference No: 379359
 
Please note, this refers to Q5 below. The other questions will be
addressed under separate cover.
 
Thank you for your recent request. Your request is being considered and
you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working
days, subject to the application of any exemptions/exceptions. Where
consideration is being given to exemptions/exceptions, the 20 working day
timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable depending on
the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases you will be
notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In
all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the earliest
opportunity.
 
There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or
where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in
writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from
you or your request is modified and/or reduced. 
 
Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public
authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred. If we are
unable to provide you with the information requested we will notify you of
this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if
appropriate). Please note that the directorate team may contact you for
further information where we believe that the request is not significantly
clear for us to respond fully.
 
Kind Regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Information Team
 

show quoted sections

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,
My request from 1 Oct is overdue, could you tell me when I will receive a reply

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I have not received a substantive reply to my FOI request of 1 Nov, nor an acknowledgement or reply to my emails since. Please apply the law as is your duty, and respond to my request. I am about to notify the ICO office if I do not receive a reply by return
Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Wendy Stevens Lewisham Borough Council,

You replied to my request of 1 Oct 2016 "Thank you for your recent request. Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working
days, subject to the application of any exemptions/exceptions"
I received a response to part of the request on 4 Oct, but a substantial part has not been replied to.

I have not , nor have i received even a reply to my subsequent emails. If I do not receive a reply I will therfore be forced to put in a complaint against you.

Please tell me who the head of Freedom of Information Department is?
Please could you tell me who the Lewisham Council Monitoring Officer is presently?
Please could you tell me why I have not received a reply to my FOI of 1 Oct 2016 nor subsequent emails?
Please answer my requests as Lewisham Council is required to by law.
I gather that my next stage is to ask for an internal review. If i do not receive reply to my requests by 5pm on 25th Jan 2017, please take thas a request for Internal Review

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Tominey, David,

Please could you tell me why I have not received a full reply to my FOI of 1 Oct 2016 nor subsequent emails?
Please answer my requests as Lewisham Council is required to by law.
I gather that my next stage is to ask for an internal review. If i do not receive reply to my requests by 5pm on 25th Jan 2017, please take this a request for Internal Review

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Casework, CYP,

Please could you tell me why I have not received a full reply to my FOI of 1 Oct 2016 nor subsequent emails?
Please answer my requests as Lewisham Council is required to by law.
I gather that my next stage is to ask for an internal review. If i do not receive reply to my requests by 5pm on 25th Jan 2017, please take this a request for Internal Review

Please tell me who the head of Freedom of Information Department is?
Please could you tell me who the Lewisham Council Monitoring Officer is presently

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Head of Foi Dept ,
Please could you tell me why I have not received a full reply to my FOI of 1 Oct 2016 nor subsequent emails?
Please answer my requests as Lewisham Council is required to by law.
I gather that my next stage is to ask for an internal review. If i do not receive reply to my requests by 5pm on 25th Jan 2017, please take this a request for Internal Review

Please tell me who the head of Freedom of Information Department is?
Please could you tell me who the Lewisham Council Monitoring Officer is presently

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Tominey, David, Lewisham Borough Council

I have left Lewisham Council.

 

Please direct your email to [email address]

Many thanks

 

George, Anthony, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox

 

Please note that I have referred your email to the appropriate team
regarding your request for an internal appeal, they will contact you in
due course acknowledging your request.

 

 

 

Anthony George

Complaints and Access to Records Manger

Children and Young People

3rd Floor Laurence House

1 Catford Road

London SE6 4RU

Tel 0208 3146930

E. [1][email address]

Website [2]www.lewisham.gov.uk

 

 

         
DISCLAIMER

This message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity it is addressed to. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail. Please note 
that we may monitor and check emails to safeguard the Council network
from viruses, hoax messages or other abuse of the Council’s systems.
To see the full version of this disclaimer please visit the following 
address: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/AboutThisSite...

For advice and assistance about online security and protection from
internet threats visit the "Get Safe Online" website at
http://www.getsafeonline.org

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
We sincerely apologise for the delay in responding to both your Freedom of
Information request 379359 and your appeal to FOI 365953.
 
The Council’s legal services team are assisting with these matters and are
prioritising your requests as a matter of urgency. We confirm that we will
be writing to you again in the first instance within the next 10 working
days with a view to issuing a full response to both your outstanding
request and appeal soon after. We are conscious that these matters have
been outstanding with the Council for some time and are very sorry for any
inconvenience caused to you as a result of our delays, however as you will
appreciate, to be able to properly address your requests which relate to
particularly serious and sensitive matters requires a great deal of time
from our legal team to fully investigate.
 
In answer to your 2 questions posed in your email sent today 24/01/17:
 
The Head of the Freedom of Information Department is Georgina Chambers, I
have copied her into this email.
The Lewisham council Monitoring Officer is Kath Nicholson
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Information Team
 

show quoted sections

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,
"We confirm that we willbe writing to you again in the first instance within the next 10 working
days with a view to issuing a full response to both your outstanding
request and appeal soon after. "
I beleive the 10 working days are up and yet again no communication is received. Can you please tell me what is happening by return

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Freedom of Information request 379359
Appeal  FOI-365953.
 
Sincere apologies for not replying within the given time.  It was thought
we could provide you with a definite date by now for when you will receive
our full response to your outstanding queries.  A trawl again across the
relevant Council sections has been undertaken for this during the last
couple of weeks.  Given the sensitive nature of the enquiry,  case papers
were also despatched by our legal team to external Counsel.  We have asked
Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await
confirmation of this.
 
We are really conscious that you have been waiting to receive the
Council's reply for some time. We will definitely revert to you once we
hear back from Counsel.  So, we ask you to please wait a further 2 weeks,
by which time we believe we will be in a position to respond fully.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Information Team
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

The original request was on 6 June 2016 and second on 1 Oct 2016.

How can I trust anything that Lewisham Borough Council has said, as they have time after time , been found to be not trustworthy?

It is perfectly feasible for you to confirm by return, what documents you hold.
It is perfectly feasible to answer what legal reason that you were refusing to release the "4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986" on confidentiality grounds or admit that there was no legal reasons.

If you do not do this by tomorrow, please send this as a formal complaint to Georgina Chambers, Head of FOI and the Monitoring Officer Kath Nicholson.

I will wait for the other information until the further 2 weeks you have asked for, but if i have not received a full and proper reply to all issues outstanding by 5pm on 22 Feb 2017 , including Internal Reviews, then please send this email to Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer, as a formal complaint against all persons involved in this request, and against Lewisham Council who have failed to fulfill their duty time after time.

If this date and tiem is reached and I still do not have a full and proper reply to all my outstanding issues, please provide a list of all persons involved in this FOI request from the start as well and their title and function.

Further delays will mean the Council agrees that I can implement my fee schedule for time delays incurred and for failing to fulfill their statutory duty

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Sent to the monitoring officer by email on 22 Feb 2017 at 19.00 approx
This request and subsequent request and I think two internal reviews are way overdue. I keep getting told that I will receive a reply within a certain time, and that time passes without answer. I have warned that i will make a complaint to the monitoring officer, and so here it is.
Is it usual for Lewisham Council to flout the law and their duties in this way?
I wish to make a formal complaint against all those involved with my request, including the Head of FOI, as well as the Council itself, for unreasonable delays and not replying when they say, and not fulfilling their duties, under the Acts.
I also could have received some information before now, even if some was delayed. Even if it was delayed I should have been kept informed and reasons given under FOI
Who is involved in this request?
The whole sorryy saga of delay and more delay and yet more delay is available to be seen on this link, leaving Lewisham appear wholly untrustworthy
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...
kind regards
C Fox

Dear Foi,

You are in breach of the FOI Act. You dont even bother to reply time after time. You choose to delay and hide information as the Council . Am i to believe that you still await confirmation?
What about a further response in two weeks it is now over three and still not heard, never mind the months since the original request. Utter disgrace.

"We have asked Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await
confirmation of this.
We are really conscious that you have been waiting to receive the
Council's reply for some time. We will definitely revert to you once we
hear back from Counsel. So, we ask you to please wait a further 2 weeks,
by which time we believe we will be in a position to respond fully. "

I believe that Lewisham Council is trying to cover up child sexual abuse - how sick is that and you are all involved.

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear George, Anthony,
You are in breach of the FOI Act. You dont even bother to reply time after time. You choose to delay and hide information as the Council . Am i to believe that you still await confirmation?
What about a further response in two weeks it is now over three and still not heard, never mind the months since the original request. Utter disgrace.

"We have asked Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await
confirmation of this.
We are really conscious that you have been waiting to receive the
Council's reply for some time. We will definitely revert to you once we
hear back from Counsel. So, we ask you to please wait a further 2 weeks,
by which time we believe we will be in a position to respond fully. "

I believe that Lewisham Council is trying to cover up child sexual abuse - how sick is that and you are all involved.

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Tominey, David,

You are in breach of the FOI Act. You dont even bother to reply time after time. You choose to delay and hide information as the Council . Am i to believe that you still await confirmation?
What about a further response in two weeks it is now over three and still not heard, never mind the months since the original request. Utter disgrace.

"We have asked Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await
confirmation of this.
We are really conscious that you have been waiting to receive the
Council's reply for some time. We will definitely revert to you once we
hear back from Counsel. So, we ask you to please wait a further 2 weeks,
by which time we believe we will be in a position to respond fully. "

I believe that Lewisham Council is trying to cover up child sexual abuse - how sick is that and you are all involved.

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Casework, CYP,

You are in breach of the FOI Act. You dont even bother to reply time after time. You choose to delay and hide information as the Council . Am i to believe that you still await confirmation?
What about a further response in two weeks it is now over three and still not heard, never mind the months since the original request. Utter disgrace.

"We have asked Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await
confirmation of this.
We are really conscious that you have been waiting to receive the
Council's reply for some time. We will definitely revert to you once we
hear back from Counsel. So, we ask you to please wait a further 2 weeks,
by which time we believe we will be in a position to respond fully. "

I believe that Lewisham Council is trying to cover up child sexual abuse - how sick is that and you are all involved.

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,
You are in breach of the FOI Act. You dont even bother to reply time after time. You choose to delay and hide information as the Council . Am i to believe that you still await confirmation?
What about a further response in two weeks it is now over three and still not heard, never mind the months since the original request. Utter disgrace.

"We have asked Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await
confirmation of this.
We are really conscious that you have been waiting to receive the
Council's reply for some time. We will definitely revert to you once we
hear back from Counsel. So, we ask you to please wait a further 2 weeks,
by which time we believe we will be in a position to respond fully. "

I believe that Lewisham Council is trying to cover up child sexual abuse - how sick is that and you are all involved.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

I have received a one sentence reply from Lewisham deputy council to which i have replied
Helen Glass

Thank you for your reply.

Your letter does not address the fact that I have been told on several occasions I would be contacted and I have not been.

Your letter offers no apology for the crass, impolite and illegal way I have been treated.

Your letter does not provide me with the procedure for complaining about Kath Nicholson that I asked for.

Your letter does not address my formall complaints, nor what is happening to those, which is quite separate to the other processes.

Onb 8th Feb I was told " Given the sensitive nature of the enquiry, case papers were also despatched by our legal team to external Counsel. We have asked
Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await confirmation of this."

Your letter only tells me what I already was told. Therefore your communication tells me nothing new, it just emphasises the lack of courtesy and consideration

that Lewisham Council have given me and the public over all this time.

Please tell me when papers were sent to external counsel.

Just because papers were sent to external counsel doss not excuse this length of delay or lack of information.

Your letter does not address the points in my FOI request that are nothign to do with external legal counsel having been consulted ie

"How can I trust anything that Lewisham Borough Council has said, as they have time after time , been found to be not trustworthy?

It is perfectly feasible for you to confirm by return, what documents you hold.
It is perfectly feasible to answer what legal reason that you were refusing to release the "4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986" on confidentiality grounds or admit that there was no legal reasons."

Please abide by the law, tell me why you have not and apologise for your failings
cfox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Freedom of Information request 379359
Appeal  FOI-365953.
 
I apologise for the delay in responding to your emails. We wish to provide
you with a further update.
 
We are still in negotiation with legal services regarding your appeal and
further request for information. As stated previously, they are working
with  external Counsel and are currently seeking urgent additional advice
given the sensitivity of the enquiry.
 
We apologise for the continued delay in being able to offer you a
substantive response and any inconvenience this is causing you.  As soon
as we receive any further information, we will of course relay this to you
 
Kind regards
 
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

How can I trust anything that Lewisham Borough Council has said, as they have time after time , been found to be not trustworthy?

It is perfectly feasible for you to confirm by return, what documents you hold.
It is perfectly feasible to answer what legal reason that you were refusing to release the "4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986" on confidentiality grounds or admit that there was no legal reasons."

Please abide by the law, tell me why you have not and apologise for your failings

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Foi,
You are still unlawfully delaying replying to these points, and as such you are personally liable as you not carrying out the duties you are required to whilst working for the Council

It is perfectly feasible for you to confirm by return, what documents you hold.
It is perfectly feasible to answer what legal reason that you were refusing to release the "4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986" on confidentiality grounds or admit that there was no legal reasons."

Please abide by the law, tell me why you have not and apologise for your failings

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

The only thing i have been told of substance is that external counsel should reply by 20 March and Lewisham will reply when they can after that, but as we have seen their words are meaningless, as they disgustingly break the law and refuse to answer legitimate questions and the Monitoring Officer de facto refuses to do anythign about it contrary to her job.

More emails have been sent to Monitoring Officer Kath Nicholson who went on holiday after stating she would "look into the matter as soon as possible and get back to you at the earliest opportunity. ." She has not replied

I am sorry you did not keep to your word, and went on holiday without getting back to me. The vast majority of questiosns have not been answered in your absence.
These points still have not been addressed by you or your colleague. The letter refferred to is an email to D Glass, who essenstially just carried on the Councils de facto policy of sayign nothing and delaying.

"Your letter does not address the fact that I have been told on several occasions I would be contacted and I have not been.

Your letter offers no apology for the crass, impolite and illegal way I have been treated.

Your letter does not provide me with the procedure for complaining about Kath Nicholson that I asked for.

Your letter does not address my formal complaints, nor what is happening to those, which is quite separate to the other processes.

On 8th Feb I was told " Given the sensitive nature of the enquiry, case papers were also despatched by our legal team to external Counsel. We have asked
Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await confirmation of this."
Please tell me when papers were sent to external counsel.

Just because papers were sent to external counsel doss not excuse this length of delay or lack of information.

Your letter does not address the points in my FOI request that are nothing to do with external legal counsel having been consulted ie

"How can I trust anything that Lewisham Borough Council has said, as they have time after time , been found to be not trustworthy?

It is perfectly feasible for you to confirm by return, what documents you hold.
It is perfectly feasible to answer what legal reason that you were refusing to release the "4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986" on confidentiality grounds or admit that there was no legal reasons."

Please abide by the law, tell me why you have not and apologise for your failings

Further email also to Helen Glass her Deputy who is also not answering the questions put.
Your further delay is noted, and that is rude dishonest and also some parts illegal.

Your letter was condescending and the more so as you did not address the very points I had written about. To remind you these are below.

The only one you addressed was the complaint procedure for Kath Nicholson. I repeat that I cannot find the procedure for a monitoring officer. Please give me the link. Please do not bother to try and make excuses for someone who has delayed further and then gone away without saying and thus delayed further.

Please also do not pretend that you are addressing my questions, unless you actually do so.

""Your letter does not address the fact that I have been told on several occasions I would be contacted and I have not been.

Your letter offers no apology for the crass, impolite and illegal way I have been treated.

Your letter does not provide me with the procedure for complaining about Kath Nicholson that I asked for.

Your letter does not address my formal complaints, nor what is happening to those, which is quite separate to the other processes.

On 8th Feb I was told " Given the sensitive nature of the enquiry, case papers were also despatched by our legal team to external Counsel. We have asked
Counsel to confirm when we can receive this Advice, and now await confirmation of this."

Your letter only tells me what I already was told. Therefore your communication tells me nothing new, it just emphasises the lack of courtesy and consideration that Lewisham Council have given me and the public over all this time.

Please tell me when papers were sent to external counsel.

Just because papers were sent to external counsel doss not excuse this length of delay or lack of information.

Your letter does not address the points in my FOI request that are nothing to do with external legal counsel having been consulted ie

"How can I trust anything that Lewisham Borough Council has said, as they have time after time , been found to be not trustworthy?

It is perfectly feasible for you to confirm by return, what documents you hold.
It is perfectly feasible to answer what legal reason that you were refusing to release the "4. Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be February 1986" on confidentiality grounds or admit that there was no legal reasons."

Please abide by the law, tell me why you have not and apologise for your failings"

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

They have told me via email that they are going to release a redacted copy of the former Chief Executive's report on the Leeways Inquiry but the Council has been unable to locate a copy of the document entitled “After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements”.
They still have not answered many complaints I have made or other questions by email.

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I was told by the Monitoring Officer that I would receive a full reply in a few days and that was over two weeks ago.
Please give me that full reply by Monday evening or why I am not receiving it.
I will be emailing the ICO on Monday evening, as it is clear that Lewisham Council is continually breaking FOI and every statement they make to me.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in responding.
 
We are continuing to work alongside legal services with regard to your
Freedom of Information request.
 
We appreciate that the delays you are experiencing must be very
frustrating for you and can only offer you our sincere apologies for this.
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

Rather than pontificate on what I might find frustrating, it would be better if
Lewisham Council
1. Answered my questions
2. Kept to what you said they would do
3. Answered as required by FOI law
4. Kept em informed when things changed

The Council have done none of these, and as I said will inform ICO of the pathetic failure of Lewisham Council to do this since 6 June last year.

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Foi,

I am still waiting for a substantive reply to my request over 10 months after it was sent and still await the internal review reports

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I am still waiting for a substantive reply to my request over 10 months after it was sent and still await the internal review reports

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Casework, CYP,

I am still waiting for a substantive reply to my request over 10 months after it was sent and still await the internal review reports

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Kath Nicholson, monitoring officer, "Head of Law" is currently refusing to send the reply to this website, on the grounds that she will only send it to my "given email address" ie the personal email address used to make a complaint about the delay
This is in line with Lewisham council obstruction of this request from 6 Jun 2016, 11 months ago when i first made this request.

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

I sent this email directly to Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer, as she refuses to provide the response to this website -

I have received your email

I am unsure of what your definition of "given correspondence email address". Please could you elaborate.

However, for your information, I wish the substantive reply to my FOI to be sent to the specialist FOI website, WDTK which has been email address I made the request and which all subsequent correspondence on the substance of the FOI has been made.

I had cause to email you directly, (using a private email address) as monitoring officer, some approximately 8 months after my initial request, as Lewisham Council had failed repeatedly to abide by the FOI Act, as it is Lewishams duty to provide the answer within 20 working days.

I made a formal complaint about the staff involved in the request to date. I made a complaint about the delay in the request. I made a complaint about the failure of the Council to answer my requests for internal reviews and further information.

The email address supplied to you by me was to be used for these purposes only. As yet you have not addressed any of these issues.

I repeat that the substance of the FOI is to be answered to the email address from WDTK. This has always been what is intended and nothing has changed. On this WDTK website it is automatically made public and is in a thread with the rest of the request for others to follow. Further I do not open attachments from sources I do not know to be trusted via personal email. Even further the disclaimer at the bottom of your email, could produce issues with any reposting should the attachment be opened.

For the purposes of FOI the request has not been fulfilled.

I am sorry that Lewisham Council and yourself continuing to obstruct this request and the other issues and complaints.

(all rights reserved)

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I wish to make it clear that the substantive answer to my FOI requests should to be sent to this WDTK email address. The request is not answered until it this has happened and no substantive responses have been or will be accepted on email addresses provided for other purposes.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I still have not received even an acknowledgement of my emails on this website stating that I wish the information released to this website.
I have not received a substantive reply to this website as requested, nor have I received the internal reviews nor have I received the further information I have requested.
Please acknowledge this communication on the wdtk website and fullfil Lewisham Borough Council's duty under the FOI Act's.
It is my understanding that if this duty is not fulfilled then individuals are personally responsible. Please confirm if this is your understanding.
It is a disgrace that Lewisham Council behaves this way and particularly sad and disgusting that Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer is blatantly disregarding her duty. It is further repulsive that she is doing this over a subject as serious as child sexual abuse. Shame will be forever upon her.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Foi,

I have still not received a substantive reply to my request on this website, nor any explanation of any redaction made, nor any acknowledgement of my complaints, nor any internal reviews, or further requests.

Lewisham Council are failing in their duty under the FOI Act.
Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer is failing in her duties to abide by the Act

Please take this as a new FOI request.

Please send all correspondence about this request to me on this address under FOI.
Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council acts under

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Customer, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Reference No: 406339
 
Thank you for your recent request (highlighted below in red) Your request
is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory
timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any
exemptions/exceptions. Where consideration is being given to
exemptions/exceptions, the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a
period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of
your request .In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a
revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to
deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.
 
There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or
where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in
writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from
you or your request is modified and/or reduced.
 
Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public
authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred. If we are
unable to provide you with the information requested we will notify you of
this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if
appropriate). Please note that the directorate team may contact you for
further information where we believe that the request is not significantly
clear for us to respond fully.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Corporate Complaints and Casework Team
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Thank you for your reply.

" Thank you for your recent request (highlighted below in red) Your request
is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory
timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any
exemptions/exceptions. Where consideration is being given to
exemptions/exceptions, the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a
period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of
your request .In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a
revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to
deal with your request at the earliest opportunity."

However as you may see on the WDTK website, then nothing comes through in colour, link here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Could you state which parts you are taking as a new request of my email, reproduced below

"I have still not received a substantive reply to my request on this website, nor any explanation of any redaction made, nor any acknowledgement of my complaints, nor any internal reviews, or further requests.
Lewisham Council are failing in their duty under the FOI Act.
Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer is failing in her duties to abide by the Act
Please take this as a new FOI request.
Please send all correspondence about this request to me on this address under FOI.
Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council acts under"

Please could you also note and address and reply to this part
"I have still not received a substantive reply to my request on this website, nor any explanation of any redaction made, nor any acknowledgement of my complaints, nor any internal reviews, or further requests.
Lewisham Council are failing in their duty under the FOI Act.
Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer is failing in her duties to abide by the Act"

The request was made on 16 June 2106 and I still have not received a substantive reply via this website as is the duty of the council https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l... send all the information to via the WDTK website
Please also ensure that any reply I receive has full explanations for any abbreviations and redactions as required by the FOI Acts.
Any refusal please carry out an internal review

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Thank you for your email. We apologise for any confusion. Just to clarify,
the part previously highlighted in red is as follows:
 
Please take this as a new FOI request.
Please send all correspondence about this request to me on this address
under FOI.
Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council
acts under"
 
Kind regards
Corporate Complaints and Casework Team
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

Thankyou, however you have not addressed this part - Please could you explain the continued refusal to even acknowledge the existence of what i am writing to you

"Please could you also note and address and reply to this part
"I have still not received a substantive reply to my request on this website, nor any explanation of any redaction made, nor any acknowledgement of my complaints, nor any internal reviews, or further requests.
Lewisham Council are failing in their duty under the FOI Act.
Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer is failing in her duties to abide by the Act"

The request was made on 16 June 2106 and I still have not received a substantive reply via this website as is the duty of the council https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l... send all the information to via the WDTK website
Please also ensure that any reply I receive has full explanations for any abbreviations and redactions as required by the FOI Acts.
Any refusal please carry out an internal review"

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Foi,

I have still not received a substantive reply to my request on this website, nor any explanation of any redaction made, nor any acknowledgement of my complaints, nor any internal reviews, or further requests.
Lewisham Council are failing in their duty under the FOI Act.
Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer is failing in her duties to abide by the Act and in her capacity of monitoring officer to act on complaints.

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

[L1] News Articles on Leeways Childrens Home https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/06/1...

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Dear Foi,

Please provide me with the contact name and email address to make a complaint about Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Today I wrote to Kath Nicholson informming her that i was making an official complaint about her
I have made an official complaint about Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer of Lewisham Council to her boss Janet Senior.
I have written to Petra Del Man who is Principal Lawyer to Kath Nicholson and has been delegated some tasks as yet unstated on some of the foi information
I have published this blog about the situation and to name and shame Lewisham and Kath Nicholson https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/06/2...

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Due to the continued failure of Lewisham Council to fulfill their legal obligations under the FOI Act, I have written to Kath Nicholson informing her that i was making an official complaint about her, I have now made an official complaint about Kath Nicholson, supposed Monitoring Officer of Lewisham Council to her boss Janet Senior and I have written to Petra Del Man who is Principal Lawyer to Kath Nicholson and has been delegated some tasks, as yet unstated, on some of the FOI information
I have also published this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/06/2... about the situation and to name and shame Lewisham and Kath Nicholson, as the public and taxpayers should be informed as to how their Councils and public servants behave. In this case this has been sustained breaking of the FOI Act and the failure of certain officials, notably Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer, to carry out her duties in this regard.
Petra Del Man assures me "that further documents are going to be sent to you. I know work to that specific effect is in hand. I am pushing for that task to happen."

It should therefore be no problem to be told by return which information this is, ie which information Lewisham Council hold, as required by Section 1a of the FOI Act, and I ask that this is done by return

General right of access to information held by public authorities.
(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Customer, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339
 
Thank you for your recent request. This is to inform you that we are
examining the applicability of qualified exemptions with respect to your
request. As such, the 20 working-day time period no longer applies
(section 10(3) of the FOI Act).
 
For your additional information, please access the guidance from the
Information Commissioner's Office at the following link regarding an
explanation of timeframes for consideration of qualified exemptions:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
 
Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. We aim to
provide you with a full response as soon as possible and within a further
20 working days.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Complaints, Casework and Information Governance Team
 
 
 
_____________________________________________

show quoted sections

Dear Foi, Customer,

Lewisham Council have a history of behaviour of delaying as long as possible, so it is no surprise that, in line with lewishams MO, that they seek to do so again. However this part of the request is straightforward and should not be cause for any delay - "Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council acts under"

If Lewisham council seek to delay this part under the guise that it is apart of the same request as the part you wish to delay, then please regard it as a new request.

I am glad that Lewisham Council is now seeking to abide by the FOI Act, which they have failed to do for the past year on another request, and i would expect you to all requests.

In light of the severe delay that and not abiding by the FOI Act and terrible treatment by Lewisham of the other request, a "reasonable" period for this request 406339 would in fact be to extend the 20 day period by 10 days.

I must mention that as yet, I have received no acknowledgment of this correspondence, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l... and Lewisham have failed to abide by the FOI Act as regards my .

Under advice and assistance S16, have you received this correspondence, and if so why have I not received an acknowledgment or reply? When I am going to receive the information, internal review, complaint resolution and further request information? Do Lewisham only abide by parts of the Act that benefit them?

"Please could you also note and address and reply to this part
"I have still not received a substantive reply to my request on this website, nor any explanation of any redaction made, nor any acknowledgement of my complaints, nor any internal reviews, or further requests.
Lewisham Council are failing in their duty under the FOI Act.
Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer is failing in her duties to abide by the Act"

The request was made on 16 June 2106 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l..., and I still have not received a substantive reply via this website as is the duty of the council1 Please send all the information to via the WDTK website
Please also ensure that any reply I receive has full explanations for any abbreviations and redactions as required by the FOI Acts.
Any refusal please carry out an internal review"

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Fox
 
Please accept our sincere apologies for the lengthy delay in responding to
your queries below.
 
Our responses are below in red:
 
Please note, the attachments, are located at the foot of this thread.
 
Once we have any further information, this will be conveyed to you.
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Thank you fro your recent reply, the contents of which i will look at.
However on first glance again being highlighted in red is mentioned, although no highlighting can be detected on WDTK website.
On point 4
4. "Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be
February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not be
released. "
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I
also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the
Report for your information. This information was recently released to
you- Closed
I assure you that this matter is not closed. I wish the report "Chief Executives Report" to be sent to this website, as this is where the request was made, it is public on this website, and the website is safe from viruses, and this is where I requested it to be sent. Are Lewisham Council refusing to send it to this site?. This has been mentioned in my complaint but obviously the message is not getting through so please register this as a separate complaint. I do not trust an attachment sent to a private email address, especially by a person who has proved untrustworthy on many occasions.
Lewisham Council appear to be continuing to obstruct my request. I will reply to the rest of your reply in due course

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Each day that goes by without sending the Chief executives report to this WDTK site is a day that Lewisham Council, Kath Nicholson, Petra Del Man and others are covering up child sexual abuse in Lewisham Council
There is no excuse

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Wendy Stevens, Lewisham Borough Council,

On 22 Jun I wrote, "It should therefore be no problem to be told by return which information this is, ie which information Lewisham Council hold, as required by Section 1a of the FOI Act, and I ask that this is done by return"
Another week has gone by , and over a year since my request was made, without being told which information Lewisham Council hold.

On 23rd Jun I said "I wish the report "Chief Executives Report" to be sent to this website, as this is where the request was made, it is public on this website, and the website is safe from viruses, and this is where I requested it to be sent. Are Lewisham Council refusing to send it to this site?. This has been mentioned in my complaint but obviously the message is not getting through so please register this as a separate complaint. I do not trust an attachment sent to a private email address, especially by a person who has proved untrustworthy on many occasions. Lewisham Council appear to be continuing to obstruct my request. "

I have not heard from anyone about this since.

As I am not getting anywhere with my request to have the Chief Execs Report sent to the FOI site as requested via you., I will explain a bit more for you.

I wrote to Kath Nicholson in her capacity as Monitoring officer on 22 February to complain about the lateness of the FOI Request and internal reviews.
Eventually on 5th May, she sent the Chief Execs Report to me at the email address provided for the complaint.

At no time did I request or expect that I would be sent replies to FOI request on a private email, especially when I had clearly made the request on a public FOI site.

I want it sent it to the WDTK email address for several reasons, among them it is public and free from worry about viruses.

Since then have asked her to send it to the WDTK email address but she has refused.

I wish the request reply public, I do not have the required software to check for attachment is safe and I believe that the disclaimer on the bottom of the email may well exclude me from sending to to the site.

"DISCLAIMER - This message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity it is addressed to. "

Further I do not believe that Lewisham Council guarantee that the attachment would be free from virus nor would pay for virus checks or removal should it be so infect. please correct me if that is wrong.

I further believe that is it a misuse of my personal data for the FOI reply to have been sent to that personal email address.
If I do not receive the Chief Execs Report by 4 pm Friday 7th July to that website, I have written to Janet Senior that from then she is to take it as an outline complaint against you on which I will subsequently provide her with more details.

It appears that Lewisham Council and some individuals within it are deliberately obstructive. That is a misuse of public power. That they should be allowed to continue to do this is instructive about Lewisham Council.

That is should be done to cover up child sexual abuse is sickening. The longer this obstruction and delay goes on the more the public will see that Lewisham is hiding something and that Lewisham Council is substandard.

I would be grateful for your swift reply

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Email from Petra Del Man saying she has asked corporate team to send on chief execes report, she said they were looking at another document to send and wanted to know what Internal review was!

Sent reply to Petra

You should understand that I have heard all these platitudes and promises many times before.

By now you could easily have sent Chief Execs document to the WDTK website

You could easily have stated the documents that the Council hold that they are considering releasing. The most basic duty an authority under the FOI Act

"(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—

(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request"

If you have not come across references to an internal review, then you quite clearly have not done any basic research on this matter. You
have not looked at the FOI thread on the WDTK website - the first place to look.
I give you the link https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

You will find it mentioned several times, it is a standard part of the FOI process.

Yet again Lewisham Council disappoint..

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Fox
 
We are now in a position to address all outstanding matters regarding your
appeal (FOI 365953)  and subsequent FOI request (FOI-379359)
 
1. "After Leeways, Challenges, Changes and Achievements" dossier is
apparently approximately 160 pages and was the main Lewisham response to
the Inquiry into the horrific situation of Lewisham Council having a child
abuser in charge of its childrens home who had abused several children. It
should from the size be relatively easy to find within your files. To help
me understand could you explain how are Lewishams records from this time
filed or catalogued, whether there is a digitised index and also whether
Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a
fee has to be paid for searching?
I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To
retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain?
 
The Council relied on the exemption, Section 12(1) in its original
response on the grounds of cost.  However, a search of manual records has
been conducted and I can confirm that the Council does not hold this
information.  Hard copies of documents are only held by the Council for 6
years and electronic records go back only to 2002.  The information you
have requested pre-dates this.
 
2.  Thankyou for those minutes- This information was released as part of
our original response in September 2016.
 
3. Review of child services not able to be found . This was a major revamp
only 30 years ago. Is this not able to be found easily within the time
limit?
 
Although the Council has previously relied on the exemption, Section
12(1), a thorough search has been conducted and the document was provided
on 23rd June 2017.
 
4. "Chief Executives Inquiry Report, subsequent to Leeways believed to be
February 1986 This information is deemed confidential, and will not be
released. "
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? I
also enclose a link to a document which gives some more detail as to the
Report for your information.
 
This information was released to you on 5th May 2017. The 2 documents are
now attached again, with redactions to exclude 3rd party/personal
information to comply with the DPA 1998.
 
5. Minutes of Report to Council 5 March 1986 This is link to a page 19
that has been supplied to me
[1]https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...
I believe it to be from the “After Leeways Report” but I could be
mistaken. It describes this Report to Council. I wonder whether it would
be possible to find it with this help. Is it also possible to identify the
other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to? I realise this maybe taken as a new request.
 
This was logged as a new FOI request. FOI-379359.
 
The SSC minute books have no record of a meeting on that date of the SS
committee. In order to advise and assist, the minute books were further
interrogated to ascertain if any meetings took place at any time around
the date given in case there was an error with the date requested. We can
confirm that this information is not held.
 
6. Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did it this Report happen or has it been lost?
 
We can confirm that the information is not held by Lewisham Council. We
are obliged under the FOI act to release recorded information (unless
subject to any exemptions) which is held at the time of a request. If
after carrying out adequate searches the requested information is found
not to be in our possession, then under the terms of the act, we are
entitled to state that the information is not held.
 
As stated on numerous occasions, we sincerely apologise for the delays
that have occurred with regard to your requests and further apologise for
any inconvenience this may have caused you.
 
We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory. However, you
have a further right of appeal against this decision, which you can do so
in writing, stating your reasons to the regulating body, the Information
Commissioner's Office.
Contact details: [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 0303 123 1113 or Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

You state "We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory"
Is this intended to be an internal review or have I misunderstood?

Thank you for the chief executives report - it would have been so much easier to have posted it here as requested 8 weeks ago, instead of Lewisham Council, Kath Nicholson and others being awkward.
This was point 4. "Chief Executives Inquiry Report,...
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? "
You replied "...redactions to exclude 3rd party/personal information to comply with the DPA 1998. "
I need and you are required to give section of the FOi Act for which exemption you are using. Please could you do that.

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain? "

On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to?"

On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

The response is far from satisfactory as you can see, this can only be by utter incompetence or deliberate obstruction and maladministration - which is it?

Please also assist with details of Lewishams FOI internal review procedure.

Furthermore, Wendy Stevens please will you assist with why you deliberately ignored all my requests for the Chief execs report to be posted to this site?

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

I have written to Petra Del Mann who is meant to be sorting out all that has gone wrong
Petra

Thank you for the reply to the FOI including the Chief Execs documents.

In your reply you mentioned "I believe there is a document still being looked at by Council officers with a view to seeing if it needs to be redacted in any particular way before disclosure to you."

There is no such document in the reply- please could you tell me what it was and have it sent on.

I have replied to the still unsatisfactory FOI reply as follows

You state "We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory"
Is this intended to be an internal review or have I misunderstood?

Thank you for the chief executives report - it would have been so much easier to have posted it here as requested 8 weeks ago, instead of Lewisham Council, Kath Nicholson and others being awkward.
This was point 4. "Chief Executives Inquiry Report,...
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? "
You replied "...redactions to exclude 3rd party/personal information to comply with the DPA 1998. "
I need and you are required to give section of the FOi Act for which exemption you are using. Please could you do that.

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain? "

On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to?"

On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

The response is far from satisfactory as you can see, this can only be by utter incompetence or deliberate obstruction and maladministration - which is it?

Please also assist with details of Lewishams FOI internal review procedure.

Furthermore, Wendy Stevens please will you assist with why you deliberately ignored all my requests for the Chief execs report to be posted to this site?"

I would be grateful if you coudl ensure a full and proper answer is provided , after all we are only 13 months past the original request date.

regards

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

I have received a totally unsatisfactory reply from Janet Senior to my complaint on Kath Nicholson, Monitoring Officer. This is my reply.

Janet

Firstly it would be useful to me if you could send me a copy of your reply that was itself able to be copy and pasted.

You state that my complaint was against Petra Del Man and Wendy Stevens as well as Kath Nicholson. Please could you tell me the date and the words I used to complain about Petra Del Man and Wendy Stevens.

On the complaints procedure, please explain who the Stage 2 complaint woudl go to as you are I think Kath Nicholsons Head of Service and Executive Director.

"Stage 2 If you are unhappy with the response that you have received at stage 1, you can ask for your complaint to be reviewed. The head of the service or their executive director will write to you within 20 working days with their decision."

Please could you send me the "timeline"that you received so I can ensure that you received the correct information.

regards

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

[Le3] Lewisham Chief Executives Report https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2017/07/0...

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
We require some clarification on the following question:
 
‘Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council
acts under’
 
We are not aware of a Corporate identity and number. Do you mean our data
protection registration number?
 
If you could supply us with any further information on this, we will be
able to carry out some further enquiries.
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Foi, Customer
Sent: 23 June 2017 13:46
To: '[FOI #338492 email]'
Cc: Foi
Subject: FW: FW: Freedom of Information request - Leeways Childs Home, 17
Edward Rd, Bromley-406339
 
 
Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339
 
Thank you for your recent request. This is to inform you that we are
examining the applicability of qualified exemptions with respect to your
request. As such, the 20 working-day time period no longer applies
(section 10(3) of the FOI Act).
 
For your additional information, please access the guidance from the
Information Commissioner's Office at the following link regarding an
explanation of timeframes for consideration of qualified exemptions:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
 
Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. We aim to
provide you with a full response as soon as possible and within a further
20 working days.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Complaints, Casework and Information Governance Team
 
 
 
_____________________________________________

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

"We require some clarification on the following question:
‘Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council
acts under’
We are not aware of a Corporate identity and number. Do you mean our data
protection registration number?
If you could supply us with any further information on this, we will be
able to carry out some further enquiries. "
The question was because I want to know what kind of legal entity Lewisham Council is and trades under- I was under the impression that most councils are corporations, if not then what entity is Lewisham Council and what gives the council the legal right to exist and trade?

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Janet Senior has now replied to my letter, which was a reply to her supposed dealing with the complaint against Kath Nicholson.
She has now admitted wrongly acting as though the complaint was against Petra Del Man and Wendy Stevens as well! She has sent a timeline through of my corespondence, though I have not checked it as it is on an attachment.
I replied

"Thankyou

Bearing in mind that you supposedly dealt with a complaint against three people, and have now admitted it should be against one, what changes are you going to make to your reply to the stage 1 complaint?

Please could you give me Kevin Sheehans email address as I wish to take the Kath Nicholson complaint forward but I wish to make clear some salient points first.

Please could you tell the email of the person to whom I make a first stage complaint against yourself for dealing totally incompetently with a Stage 1 complaint against Kath Nicholson."

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

I have written 2 emails to Petra Del Man who is supposedly sorting out this failure by Lewisham Council to answer my requests.
1.
Petra

It is now over a week since I wrote to you , asking about the document that needed checking for redaction. I have received no acknowledgment nor reply. I would have thought that a week is overly generous in time for you to reply especially in view of Lewishams failures in the past in this regard, that you are meant to be overseeing proper replies to my FOI, and it was you that stated about thsi document.

The text of the last email is below

"Thank you for the reply to the FOI including the Chief Execs documents.

In your reply you mentioned "I believe there is a document still being looked at by Council officers with a view to seeing if it needs to be redacted in any particular way before disclosure to you."

There is no such document in the reply- please could you tell me what it was and have it sent on."
regards

2
Petra

Further to my email that you have not replied to as regards the extra document, I have cause to write to you as I have received no response to my reply to Wendy Stevens, on the obviously unsatisfactory supposed conclusion to my FOI

I wrote the following a week ago and have received no acknowledgment or reply to this.

Can you tell me when I am going to get a reply to this, as you are supposed to be overseeing the proper answering of my FOI?

It has so blatantly included the questions in the reply but not answered them, that even a plea of total and utter incompetence appears unlikely and it would appear that Lewisham Council and Wendy Stevens are quite deliberately and calculatedly not answering the legitimate questions.

Can you explain why this is?

"You state "We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory"
Is this intended to be an internal review or have I misunderstood?

Thank you for the chief executives report - it would have been so much easier to have posted it here as requested 8 weeks ago, instead of Lewisham Council, Kath Nicholson and others being awkward.
This was point 4. "Chief Executives Inquiry Report,...
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? "
You replied "...redactions to exclude 3rd party/personal information to comply with the DPA 1998. "
I need and you are required to give section of the FOi Act for which exemption you are using. Please could you do that.

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain? "

On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to?"

On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

The response is far from satisfactory as you can see, this can only be by utter incompetence or deliberate obstruction and maladministration - which is it?

Please also assist with details of Lewishams FOI internal review procedure.

Furthermore, Wendy Stevens please will you assist with why you deliberately ignored all my requests for the Chief execs report to be posted to this site?"

I would be grateful if you coudl ensure a full and proper answer is provided , after all we are only 13 months past the original request date. "

regards

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Ms Fox
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339
 
Thank you for your request for information.
 
1)Please send all correspondence about this request to me on this address
under FOI.
2)Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council
acts under
 
 
With regard to responding to Q1 the Council applies Section 12 of the Act,
"Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit", which
states;
 
12 (1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its
obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the
estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the
appropriate limit.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) "the appropriate limit" means such amount
as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation
to different cases.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for
information are made to a public authority -
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting
in concert or in pursuance of a campaign.
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to
be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the
purposes of this section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the
manner in which they are to be estimated.
 
This acts as a refusal notice. This information is not held in a readily
accessible format. It is estimated that the cost of determining whether
the information is held and locating, retrieving and collating the
information would cost in excess of £450 (the set limit) and therefore
exceeds the 'appropriate level' as stated in the Freedom of Information
(Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
([1]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/uksi_20...).
 
According to the Information Commissioner’s Office’s guidance and
regulations the following criteria can be used when applying S12 to a
request:
 
The Regulations allow a public authority to charge the following
activities at a flat rate of £25 per hour of staff time:
 
• determining whether the information is held;
• locating the information, or a document which may contain the
information;
• retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the
information; and
• extracting the information from a document containing it.
 
With regard to your request, the information requested is not held
centrally. An initial exercise has determined that there could be in
excess of 800 emails sent and received by various officers across the
Council from the offset of your previous request to the date of your
current request.  After collating the information each email would have to
be opened and scrutinised to remove any legally privileged information,
remove any duplicate emails and determine if any of the emails would
require redaction to remove personal information. To complete this task
would take in excess of 18 hours and cost in excess of £450 and therefore
evoke the application of S12 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
'Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit' to your
request.
In this case it would be very difficult to advise how you could narrow the
scope of your request as even by using a shorter date range would involve
the same level of searches.
 
With regard to Q2- we are making further enquiries and will respond to
this question as soon as we have received the information requested.
 
You are free to use the information provided for your own purposes,
including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes
of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication,
requires the permission of the copyright holder. You may apply for
permission to re-use this information by submitting a request to
[2][email address]
You have a right of appeal against this response which you can exercise by
writing to: Information Governance – 1st floor Town Hall Chambers,
Catford, London. SE6 4RU. Or at: [3][email address]
 
This must be requested within 40 working days of the date of this
response.
 
If you remain dissatisfied after receiving this decision, you then also
have a further right of appeal, which you can make in writing, stating
your reasons to the regulating body, the Information Commissioner's
Office.
Contact details: [4]http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 0303 123 1113 or Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Corporate Complaints and Casework Team
___________________________________________
From: Foi
Sent: 11 July 2017 14:14
To: ''[FOI #338492 email]'
Subject: FW: FW: Freedom of Information request - Leeways Childs Home, 17
Edward Rd, Bromley-406339
 
 
Dear Ms Fox
 
We require some clarification on the following question:
 
‘Please also name the Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council
acts under’
 
We are not aware of a Corporate identity and number. Do you mean our data
protection registration number?
 
If you could supply us with any further information on this, we will be
able to carry out some further enquiries.
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Foi, Customer
Sent: 23 June 2017 13:46
To: '[FOI #338492 email]'
Cc: Foi
Subject: FW: FW: Freedom of Information request - Leeways Childs Home, 17
Edward Rd, Bromley-406339
 
 
Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339
 
Thank you for your recent request. This is to inform you that we are
examining the applicability of qualified exemptions with respect to your
request. As such, the 20 working-day time period no longer applies
(section 10(3) of the FOI Act).
 
For your additional information, please access the guidance from the
Information Commissioner's Office at the following link regarding an
explanation of timeframes for consideration of qualified exemptions:
[5]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
 
Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. We aim to
provide you with a full response as soon as possible and within a further
20 working days.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Corporate Complaints, Casework and Information Governance Team
 
 
 
_____________________________________________

show quoted sections

Dear Foi,

You are not allowed to take into account redaction times under the FOI guidance, therefore your following statement is invalid

" After collating the information each email would have to
be opened and scrutinised to remove any legally privileged information,
remove any duplicate emails and determine if any of the emails would
require redaction to remove personal information. To complete this task
would take in excess of 18 hours and cost in excess of £450 and therefore
evoke the application of S12 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
'Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit' to your
request. "

Please expand what you mean that "This information is not held in a readily
accessible format."
I beleive that they are digitally held and could be found quite quickly with judicious use of search terms

I believe you could carry out this task in much less than 18 hours

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Petra Del Man has replied suggestign that her out of office email sent me an email which of course I did not receive, which is why she took a long time to reply. She laughably appears to suggest that "a considered review" has been carried out. I can only think that they are trying to pass off the reply of 6th July which failed to answer many questions as an internal review.
I have sent the following reply
Please confirm by producing the data that your "out of office assistant" did send me a mail, as I have not received one.

So you were mistaken were you when you said that there were further documents, who told you that?

Is that really meant to be a considered review? That is a joke.

Why has it not blatantly not answered the following--

"You state "We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory"
Is this intended to be an internal review or have I misunderstood?

Thank you for the chief executives report - it would have been so much easier to have posted it here as requested 8 weeks ago, instead of Lewisham Council, Kath Nicholson and others being awkward.
This was point 4. "Chief Executives Inquiry Report,...
Could you give the exemption Lewisham is claiming under the FOI Act? "
You replied "...redactions to exclude 3rd party/personal information to comply with the DPA 1998. "
I need and you are required to give section of the FOi Act for which exemption you are using. Please could you do that.

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “ Could you explain? "

On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied to?"

On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

The response is far from satisfactory as you can see, this can only be by utter incompetence or deliberate obstruction and maladministration - which is it?

Please also assist with details of Lewishams FOI internal review procedure.

regards

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

If the reply dated 6th July is supposed to be an internal review, (scarcely believable) please assist me by stating who carried the review, when Lewisham made a foi internal review policy or guidance, and why the internal review, if that is what it is did not address the procedures and failures of Lewisham answering the foi request?

Also i wrote back also on 6th July, to which i have nto yet received an acknowledgment several questions, some of which follow as to why you didnt answer the following questions if it was supposed to be an internal review

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain? "

On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to?"

On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Petra Del Man has written saying she does not have any data to prove that her out of office assistant sent me a message, just her word that she set it.
She says she has no further information to give me.
I have replied
Petra

I never received any automated email, whether you set the machine or whatever it is or not.

Was your word good for the extra document that you were going to provide, about which incidentally you have failed to answer the last question about, on who you got that information from?

Please could you confirm that it is the reply of 6th July that is supposed to be the internal review?

Can you please say who carried it out and can you send me the guidnace and procedure that Lewisham have for carrying out FOI internal reviews.

It is so obviously substandard that it is barely believable that Lewisham are trying to pass it off as an internal review.

How can Lewisham Council wish to be taken seriously about anything, if you dont answer these questions, never mind supposed to have an internal review about it?

Why do you and Lewisham Council feel you are not bound to answer as per the FOI Act, even after a supposed internal review that never addresses them?

You are presumably an intelligent person, you know that this internal review is not in any way, shape or form adequate nor even resembles a FOI Internal review.

Are just going to ignore the fact that these questions amongst others were ignored in the reply of 6th July, and if so why.?(see below)

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “ Could you explain? "
On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied to?"
On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

regards

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Petra Del Man has replied stating that her word is very good, claims that a document she promised to me was sent by Wendy Stevens on 6th April [presumably 6th July]
Bizarrely she said she had previously asked me what i meant by
"internal review" and she apologised for the delay and incrediblyhas nothing further to assist me with!
For now I have written back
"I presume you have made a mistake and mean 6th July not 6th April which does not make sense, is that correct?

If that is correct, then the only document was sent to me on the 6th July was the chief execs report. You could not possibly have been referring to that, not only because you refer to those documents separately in your 3rd July email, but because also because they had already been redacted. So just which document were you referring to?

It is a thoroughly reasonable question to ask.

"I have definitely asked the Corporate FOI team to forward over to you again, using the email address you now wish them to be sent to, those documents which had previously been sent to you, by Ms Nicholson, at your private email address.Ms Nicholson, had one week of leave last week and has trusted me to look into this for you.I believe there is a document still being looked at by Council officers with a view to seeing if it needs to be redacted in any particular way before disclosure to you. "

regards

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

25th July 2017 I have written to Kevin Sheehan to make a Stage 1 Complaint against Janet Senior for her pathetic Stage 1 complaint investigation Kath Nicholson.
I have written to Petra Del Man as follows detailing exactly what they have not done. It does appear that Petra Del Man was jsut brought in to obfuscate and perhaps delay any complaint agaisnt Nicholson, so now she is not even pretending to help.

Petra
An internal review for a FOI is different from a Stage 1 complaint against kath Nicholson. Janet Senior carried out a Stage 1 complaint aginst kath Nicholson. FYI Janet Senior has admitted that she was wrong " investigating" you and Wendy Stevens as i had made no complaint agaisnt you .
Janet Senior did not carry out an foi internal review and neither did Wendy Stevens. I have not yet received a valid internal review under the foi act
I thought you were brought it to assist with getting the items that i had requested answer to my questiosn under s 16 for advice adn assistance adn clear up all matters to to with the foi.
you say " Given the inordinate delays prior to my involvement, I have ensured completely that you have been provided with all of the documents requested that have been / are in the possession / control of the Council."
It appears that nothing further has been provided, no questions have been answered, no internal reviews done.
Yes the Chief Execs report sent to my personal email has now ben sent to the correct place. No apology afaik has been made for kath Nicholsons refusal to do this.

You refuse to even look into the information as to why you made your statmetn about a further document 3 july

"I believe there is a document still being looked at by Council officers with a view to seeing if it needs to be redacted in any particular way before disclosure to you. "

What caused you to beleive this? If you are refusign to say who told you about it, I have no other course of action to find the truth but to make a complaint about you so that the issue comes out in that.
You also appear to refuse to answer out the following legitimate points
"On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain? "
On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to?"
On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

The response is far from satisfactory as you can see, this can only be by utter incompetence or deliberate obstruction and maladministration - which is it?

Please also assist with details of Lewishams FOI internal review procedure.

Furthermore, Wendy Stevens please will you assist with why you deliberately ignored all my requests for the Chief execs report to be posted to this site?"

If you are not going to help, then i have no option but to put in a complaint about you in this regard

She wrote back , changing her story yet again that the review was in fact the "corporate team" but she is not sure.

Almost laughably she offered an apology from Kath Nicholson.
She thought that corporate team had replied to points 1, 5, 6, she says

So i wrote back
So you are now saying the review which you previously said was carried out by Senior was in fact carried out by Wendy Stevens?? You dontappear to know very much.

That was not an internal review, that is just a reply to my foi, by the smae people who had faield to deal with it up to then, and an incomplete one at that.

The email on 6th did not mention the document you had mentioned, so where had you got the idea of a document from? , you are refusing to say.

No reply has been received about numbered points 1, 5 and 6 noted below and it is quite obvious that you are not going to do anythign about it, despite Lewsiham being under a duty to do so under the foi act.

Nor it seems were you ever going to do anything and you are refusign to oversee that anyone does answer them. It is difficult to understand why you ever became involved other than to cover for Nicholson and pretend something was belatedly being done

I do not accept apologies made on others behalf. Nicholson should apologise and she should do so herself. But she should also do her job as monitoring officer and apologise for failing to do that in regard to what i wrte to her about

You have no more information as you refuse to seek it , such as why did someone inform you of a document that subsequently was not provided?

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I believe Petra Der Man has written to the corporate team. The corporate team should therefore be aware from that source as well that I have not received an answer to my points 1, 5, 6.
Nor have I received any copy of your FOI internal review procedure, nor an acknowledgment of my communication below.
Do you intend to reply with with answers?

If the reply dated 6th July is supposed to be an internal review, (scarcely believable) please assist me by stating who carried the review, when Lewisham made a foi internal review policy or guidance, and why the internal review, if that is what it is did not address the procedures and failures of Lewisham answering the foi request?

Also i wrote back also on 6th July, to which i have nto yet received an acknowledgment several questions, some of which follow as to why you didnt answer the following questions if it was supposed to be an internal review

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain? "

On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to?"

On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    FW FW Freedom of Information request Leeways Childs Home 17 Edward Rd Bromley 406339 RESPONSE.rtf

    68K Download View as HTML

Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339 - Appeal
 
We apologise for the delay in responding to your email.
 
We acknowledge receipt of your appeal of our response to your information
request, reference numbers 406339. We will now undertake a review of our
original response. We will endeavour to respond to you within 20 working
days.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

I am glad that Lewisham are recognising correct procedure.
However you will note that the FOI internal review request was delivered on 14 July (see below)and the 20 working days starts at that date.
It appears you have not addressed this point Please expand what you mean that "This information is not held in a readily accessible format."
I beleive that they are digitally held and could be found quite quickly with judicious use of search terms."
As you have identified over 800 emails, and redaction time cannot be taken into account, i think there should be way more time than you need.
Please could you list all the individuals who have been involved.
You will know of course that I am still waiting for your a copy of Lewishams internal review policy , which it would be useful if you could send by return.
I do not seem to be getting any reply about the parts of the other request still unanswered and if you are really attempting to pass the Lewisham reply of 6th July as an internal review.

"If the reply dated 6th July is supposed to be an internal review, (scarcely believable) please assist me by stating who carried the review, when Lewisham made a foi internal review policy or guidance, and why the internal review, if that is what it is did not address the procedures and failures of Lewisham answering the foi request?

Also i wrote back also on 6th July, to which i have nto yet received an acknowledgment several questions, some of which follow as to why you didnt answer the following questions if it was supposed to be an internal review

On point 1. you have not answered "....also whether Lewishams records are stored in house or via an external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve this information would require manual checks on all such
individuals. “ Could you explain? "

On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date of the SS ctte, you have not answered "Is it also possible to identify the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were supplied
to?"

On Point 6 " Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1 year on from
Leeways Report. Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" you have failed to answer" Did this Report happen or has it been lost?" You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it happened or not?"

14 july - You are not allowed to take into account redaction times under the FOI guidance, therefore your following statement is invalid

" After collating the information each email would have to
be opened and scrutinised to remove any legally privileged information,
remove any duplicate emails and determine if any of the emails would
require redaction to remove personal information. To complete this task
would take in excess of 18 hours and cost in excess of £450 and therefore
evoke the application of S12 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
'Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit' to your
request. "

Please expand what you mean that "This information is not held in a readily
accessible format."
I beleive that they are digitally held and could be found quite quickly with judicious use of search terms

I believe you could carry out this task in much less than 18 hours
-

"Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339 - Appeal

We apologise for the delay in responding to your email.

We acknowledge receipt of your appeal of our response to your information
request, reference numbers 406339. We will now undertake a review of our
original response. We will endeavour to respond to you within 20 working
days."

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    FW FW Freedom of Information request Leeways Childs Home 17 Edward Rd Bromley 406339 RESPONSE.rtf

    68K Download View as HTML

Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339 – Appeal Response
 
We have now considered your appeal of our original full response to you.
Your request was for information regarding correspondence around a
previous Freedom of Information request. In summary we wish to uphold our
decision to apply Section 12 of the Act,  "Exemption where cost of
compliance exceeds the appropriate limit" to your request.
 
We apologise if there was a misunderstanding around the wording of the
response. We stated the following:
 
‘After collating the information each email would have to be opened and
scrutinised to remove any legally privileged information, remove any
duplicate emails and determine if any of the emails would require
redaction to remove personal information’
 
We stated that checks would be made to determine if any emails required
redaction, not to carry out the redaction itself.
 
We would like to clarify the following:
 
"This information is not held in a readily accessible format’. The
information you requested is not held centrally in one place.
Correspondence is likely to be held by several staff members from more
than one service area. We have estimated that there could be in excess of
800 emails sent and received including duplicates. We further estimate
that to determine if the information is held, locate and gather this
information and then extract the relevant data would exceed the
appropriate limit.
 
With regard to the 2^nd question of the request, ‘Please also name the
Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council  acts under’. We are
now in a position to respond to this question and apologise for the delay:
 
The legal entity of the Borough is  “The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Lewisham” . In relation to   London boroughs the legal entity
is not the council as elsewhere in the country, but the inhabitants
incorporated as a legal entity by royal charter.  Thus, a London
authority's official legal title is "The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of X although under legislation the Council administers the
Borough.
 
We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory. However, you
have a further right of appeal against this decision, which you can do so
in writing, stating your reasons to the regulating body, the Information
Commissioner's Office.
Contact details: [1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 0303 123 1113 or Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Foi
Sent: 27 July 2017 15:31
To: '[FOI #338492 email]'
Subject: FW: FW: FW: Freedom of Information request - Leeways Childs Home,
17 Edward Rd, Bromley-406339
 
 
Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339 - Appeal
 
We apologise for the delay in responding to your email.
 
We acknowledge receipt of your appeal of our response to your information
request, reference numbers 406339. We will now undertake a review of our
original response. We will endeavour to respond to you within 20 working
days.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 

show quoted sections

CYP Casework, Lewisham Borough Council

London Borough of Lewisham - Freedom of Information request

Our Reference: 408520

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Fox

Freedom of Information Act 2000

We write regarding your request for information, received on 29 June 2017.

It is with regret that we have been unable to complete our response within
the 20 working days as required by the Act. This is because the request
was picked up late due to staffing issues. 

Please be assured that we are dealing with your request as matter of
urgency and we hope to provide you with a final response by 18th August
2017.  In the event that consideration is given to qualified exemptions we
will contact you again with a revised timescale.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Ajala
Complaint and Access to Recortds Officer

show quoted sections

Dear CYP Casework,

Please could you ensure your responses are sent to the correct thread/email in order that Lewisham Council does to cause futher confusion. Could you send the reply that you sent today to this thread, rather than the wrong thread you sent it to.
Furthermore what is the reason for the delay?

CYP Casework, Lewisham Borough Council 3 August 2017

London Borough of Lewisham - Freedom of Information request

Our Reference: 408520

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Fox

Freedom of Information Act 2000

We write regarding your request for information, received on 29 June 2017.

It is with regret that we have been unable to complete our response within
the 20 working days as required by the Act. This is because the request
was picked up late due to staffing issues.

Please be assured that we are dealing with your request as matter of
urgency and we hope to provide you with a final response by 18th August
2017. In the event that consideration is given to qualified exemptions we
will contact you again with a revised timescale.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Ajala
Complaint and Access to Recortds Officer

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Fox

 

With regard to the information you have sought, (using the numbering
wherever possible from our previous communications with you,) we confirm
the following:-

 

-       4. The statutory exemption relied upon pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act 2000,  [“FOIA”] with regard to the redactions made to the
‘Chief Executives Inquiry Report’, which has been supplied to you, is s.
40 of FOIA.

 

We apologise for omitting the exemption relied upon with regard to this
report. We apply Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
’Personal information’, to parts of your request.

 

Section 40 states:

(1) Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt
information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the
data subject.

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-

(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and

(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

(3) The first condition is-

(a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act
1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public
otherwise than under this Act would contravene-

(i) any of the data protection principles, or

(ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and

(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held by public
authorities) were disregarded.

(4) The second condition is that by virtue of any provision of Part IV of
the Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section
7(1)(c) of that Act (data subject's right of access to personal data).

(5) The duty to confirm or deny-

(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1), and

(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either-

(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial
that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart
from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section
10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in
section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or

(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Data Protection Act 1998
the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that Act (data subject's
right to be informed whether personal data being processed).

(6) In determining for the purposes of this section whether anything done
before 24th October 2007 would contravene any of the data protection
principles, the exemptions in Part III of Schedule 8 to the Data
Protection Act 1998 shall be disregarded.

(7) In this section-

"the data protection principles" means the principles set out in Part I of
Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998, as read subject to Part II of
that Schedule and section 27(1) of that Act;

"data subject" has the same meaning as in section 1(1) of that Act;

"personal data" has the same meaning as in section 1(1) of that Act.

 

This acts as an exemption notice. We have applied this exemption as
Section 40 (2). It is important to remember that when information is
released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it is considered
released to the wider public. Any such disclosure of personal information
would not be compliant with the provisions of the Data Protection Act
1998.

 

This is an absolute exemption and therefore does not require the balancing
of the public interests. For further information on personal data please
refer to the following link:

[1]http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guid...

 

1.    You ask “whether Lewishams records are stored in- house or via an
external agency where a fee has to be paid for searching? I do not
understand what you mean by “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve
this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “
Could you explain? "

 

The arrangements have been for the Council to hold documents internally. 
However, we have confirmed that we do not in fact hold the information; so
any previous reference by us to “individuals” is not relevant.  We
apologise though for any confusion caused..

.

 

 5. You have asked: “On point 5 you only talk about a meeting on the date
of the SS ctte, you have not answered  "Is it also possible to identify
the other 3 monthly progress reports and the meetings that they were
supplied to?"

 

We have conducted a further search.  Though there was in fact no meeting
on the date you have given us, we have conducted a search of all the
records of the Social Services Committee held between February 1986
through to March 1987.  We set out here below all of the said Committee
reports and minutes.

 

Please note, that though the 19^th March 1987 document (at para. 2.1 pg.
A.189) states that a document “ After Leeways” “ was attached to the
report, in fact it was not appended to either the report nor minutes.  We
have been unable to locate any such document notwithstanding a thorough
search.

 

Enclosed are the said Committee reports and minutes paginated for ease of
reference:

 

27/ 02/1986 – Minutes                                                 pgs.
A.1- A.3

 

27/ 02/1986 – Item 2 First Interim report                     pgs. A.4
–A.5

 

27/02/1986 – Item 5 to Committee report                    pgs.A.6 – A.18

 

1/07/1986 – Item 14 Second Interim report                pgs. A.19 – A.56

 

1/07/1986 – Minutes                                                   
pgs. A57 – A.72

 

9/10/1986 – Minutes                                                   
pgs. A73 – A.80

 

9/10/1986 – Minutes – Third Interim report                 pgs. A.81 –
A.138

 

25/11/1986 – Minutes – Item 8 Fourth / Final report   pgs. A.139 – A.178

                                       Including recommendations

 

25/11/1986 – Minutes                                                  pgs.
A.179 – A.184

 

19/3/1987 –Minutes – Item 1 Leeways Inquiry report  pgs. A.185 – A.188

 

19/3/1987 – Leeways Inquiry report                            pgs. A.189 –
A. 190  

 

6. You have asked: “ Report of the Elizabeth Lawsons Independent Panel 1
year on from Leeways Report. Did  this Report happen or has it been lost?"
you have failed to answer" Did  this Report happen or has it been lost?"
You state it is not held - can you assist (S16) by telling me whether it
happened or not?

 

 

Despite searches having been carried out, no such written report has been
found. It is therefore not held by the Council. We suspect  that the
document you are referring to may be the document entitled ‘After
Leeway’s’ which we have previously advised is not held by the Council.

 

 

You will however note that the 19^th March 1987 minutes to the Social
Services Committee do indicate that a verbal Statement” from Ms Elizabeth
Lawson (amongst others of the same Inquiry Panel) was in fact given ( See
Minute No. 1 at pg. A.185)

“ …Miss Lawson advised the Committee that all the Panel members were
impressed by the remarkable progress which had been made and by the way
the Council had tackled difficult issues, including the balance between
their duty to Social Service employee and the need to protect children
which might mean that issued had to be investigated in a different way  to
those occurring in other parts of the Council Service.  Mr Clough stated
that, as a document “After Leeways”; Challenges, Changes and Achievements”
was quite remarkable; one of the best he had seen and one which the
Council should be proud of.  The Council should share their work with
others.  Mr Ambrose stated that the 15 months which had been spent looking
at a specific incident and the issues raised by it had been very
beneficial for the Council and had produced a management audit, the result
of which could only be beneficial….”

 

Review: The requests submitted by you and the respective responses have
been thoroughly and substantially reviewed. That review has incorporated
the involvement of the Head of Law, subsequently the separate involvement
of a more senior Council officer; namely  the Council’s Executive Director
for Resources and Regeneration.

 

Your correspondence address: We have apologised for sending previous
responses to your own email address.

 

 

We believe we have now responded in full to your requests and have
exhausted our comprehensive review into our responses and handling of this
matter.  You may nonetheless wish to complain to the Information
Commissioner.

 

Complaints

Any person who is unhappy with the way in which the Council has handled
their request for information may request a review under the terms of
relevant legislation.  The information Commissioner is unlikely to
investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling of an information
request unless the review procedure has been exhausted.

 

A complaint may be made about the Council’s failure to release information
in accordance with its Publication Scheme, about requests that have not
been properly handled or where there is dissatisfaction with the outcome
of a request.

 

If following a complaint, the decision is made to release information,
this will be done as soon as is practicable and notification of intended
disclosure, if it is not accompanied by the information requested, will be
made at the earliest opportunity.  If the decision to refuse is upheld or
the internal review procedure is exhausted and the applicant is still
dissatisfied, they will be made aware of their right to apply for a review
to the Information Commissioner at:-

 

Contact details: http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 0303 123 1113 or Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

 

Wendy Stevens

Senior Customer Resolutions Officer

Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

Oh dear
Kevin Sheehan, Executive Director for Customer Services went on holiday and then comes back after the delay only to refuse to carry out a Stage 2 complaint into Kath Nicholson, making a mockery of the complaints system which i was told applied to all.
He is completely ignoring my complaints about Janet Senior and Margaret Anderson Executive Director for Children and Young People is refusing to address it as well.
Seems Lewishambles is in disarray.

Dear Foi,

I am accustomed to Lewisham Council not replying to a point, but this does not mean it is acceptable.
Elizabeth Ajala, Complaint and Access to Records Officer replied Our Reference: 408520 on 3 Aug to another FOI request on this thread and I asked you to send it to the correct thread . Please do so.

ON 4th Aug you replied in which you enclosed for the minutes of Social Services Committee of 17th Feb 1986. Thankyou

I asked what “individuals” in this sentence “To retrieve
this information would require manual checks on all such individuals. “
Could you explain? "
You still have not explained. You consider it irrelevant, i do not please explain what was meant

Thankyou for the information on Committee reports and minutes - i will look through that.

I note that you say "That review has incorporated the involvement of the Head of Law, subsequently the separate involvement of a more senior Council officer; namely the Council’s Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration."

I am still unsure which was the review, could you please tell me what date you sent it and who did it. I also note that you say it involved the Head of Law who is I believe Kath Nicholson, who is the subject of a complaint due to her aberrant behaviour, doing nothing to address any points i made and merely deliberately delaying. Could you confirm that is who you mean, and also the identity of the other person.

Wendy you have not answered why you chose to ignore many of my questions over many months and who told you to do so. Please could you do so now, otherwise please send this as a complaint to your in line manager and tell me who it is. Please send your in line manager's email address, to my personal email.

I have not received a copy of Lewishams Internal review policy and guidance, please could you ensure i receive this by return as it is overdue. Please also include the review procedure under Environmental information regulations

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Dear Foi,

Thankyou for the response of 1Aug 406339 of an internal review confirming that Lewisham Council is refusing to provide the emails for what i consider bogus reasons.
Assessing whether it needs redaction I believe is also part of redaction process.
However due to Lewishams intransigence I will therefore modify the requests to the metadata of the emails ie date, subject line and who it was from and who to.
On the second part please provide the recorded information showing that the legal entity of the Borough is “The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham”

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

Elizabeth Ajala, Lewisham Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Fox

Thank you for your query attached is the response to your Freedom of
Information Request.  We sincerely apologise for the lateness in sending
this to you.

Kind regards

Elizabeth Ajala
Complaints and Access to Records Officer 

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

Yet again, pure incompetence from Lewisham Council, ignoring my requests to reply to the proper thread on 3 and 13 august and so yet again you obfuscate even more this thread on a different subject.
Furthermore the question was not answered and so you have now received a request for an internal review.
( the proper thread is this one https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...)

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    FW FW Freedom of Information request Leeways Childs Home 17 Edward Rd Bromley 406339 RESPONSE.rtf

    68K Download View as HTML

Dear Ms Fox
 
Thank you for your further email in reply to our appeal response. I have
copied it below for your reference.
 
Dear Foi,
 
Thankyou for the response of 1Aug  406339 of an internal review confirming
that Lewisham Council is refusing to provide the emails for what i
consider bogus reasons.
Assessing whether it needs redaction I believe is also part of redaction
process.
However due to Lewishams intransigence I will therefore modify the
requests to the metadata of the emails ie date, subject line and who it
was from and who to.
On the second part please provide the recorded information showing that
the legal entity of the Borough is  “The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Lewisham”  
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Cathy Fox
 
Unfortunately in order to fulfil your modified request, it is estimated
that the task would take in excess of 18 hours and trigger S12 of the
Freedom of Information Act "Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds the
appropriate limit" The information you requested is not held centrally in
one place. Correspondence is likely to be held by several staff members
from more than one service area. We have estimated that there could be in
excess of 800 emails sent and received including duplicates. We further
estimate that to locate and gather this information and then extract the
relevant data would exceed the appropriate time and cost limit. In our
original FOI response we did state that modifying your request would
involve the same level of searches and would be unlikely to change our
position.
 
With regard to your second question- please provide the recorded
information showing that the legal entity of the Borough is  “The Mayor
and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham”  
 
Below is a link publicly available which  explains the historical and
legislative background to the title. 
 
 
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_gove...
 
 
Under the ICO’s Section 45 - Code of Practice – we have a duty to advise
and assist. We appreciate that due to the sensitive subject matter of your
FOI requests, you have experienced some long delays when requesting
information. There has also been some difficulties in identifying some of
the recorded information held by the Council due to the historic nature of
the material and our interpretation of the information you are seeking. We
maintain that we have made every effort to assist you with your requests
but acknowledge there have been occasions when the Council have not fully
understood precisely what information you are requesting. With this in
mind, we would like to invite you to our offices to discuss with the
relevant officers what further information you may require that would
satisfy your requests. Please let us know if you would like to consider
this offer and we can arrange a date and time that would be mutually
agreeable.
 
Kind regards
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
_____________________________________________
From: Foi
Sent: 01 August 2017 15:40
To: '[FOI #338492 email]'
Subject: FW: - Leeways Childs Home, 17 Edward Rd, Bromley-406339 Appeal
response
 
 
Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339 – Appeal Response
 
We have now considered your appeal of our original full response to you.
Your request was for information regarding correspondence around a
previous Freedom of Information request. In summary we wish to uphold our
decision to apply Section 12 of the Act,  "Exemption where cost of
compliance exceeds the appropriate limit" to your request.
 
We apologise if there was a misunderstanding around the wording of the
response. We stated the following:
 
‘After collating the information each email would have to be opened and
scrutinised to remove any legally privileged information, remove any
duplicate emails and determine if any of the emails would require
redaction to remove personal information’
 
We stated that checks would be made to determine if any emails required
redaction, not to carry out the redaction itself.
 
We would like to clarify the following:
 
"This information is not held in a readily accessible format’. The
information you requested is not held centrally in one place.
Correspondence is likely to be held by several staff members from more
than one service area. We have estimated that there could be in excess of
800 emails sent and received including duplicates. We further estimate
that to determine if the information is held, locate and gather this
information and then extract the relevant data would exceed the
appropriate limit.
 
With regard to the 2^nd question of the request, ‘Please also name the
Corporate identity and number that Lewisham Council  acts under’. We are
now in a position to respond to this question and apologise for the delay:
 
The legal entity of the Borough is  “The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Lewisham” . In relation to   London boroughs the legal entity
is not the council as elsewhere in the country, but the inhabitants
incorporated as a legal entity by royal charter.  Thus, a London
authority's official legal title is "The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of X although under legislation the Council administers the
Borough.
 
We hope you find this response to your review satisfactory. However, you
have a further right of appeal against this decision, which you can do so
in writing, stating your reasons to the regulating body, the Information
Commissioner's Office.
Contact details: [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 0303 123 1113 or Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Foi
Sent: 27 July 2017 15:31
To: '[FOI #338492 email]'
Subject: FW: FW: FW: Freedom of Information request - Leeways Childs Home,
17 Edward Rd, Bromley-406339
 
 
Dear Ms Fox
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 406339 - Appeal
 
We apologise for the delay in responding to your email.
 
We acknowledge receipt of your appeal of our response to your information
request, reference numbers 406339. We will now undertake a review of our
original response. We will endeavour to respond to you within 20 working
days.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Wendy Stevens
Senior Customer Resolutions Officer
Corporate Complaints, Casework & Information Governance Team.
 
 

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

1. Please state who carried out the appeal
2. You still have not put the email from Elizabeth Ajala in the correct thread, please could you do so. It has nothing to do with this thread and people looking for it in the other thread will not be able to find it. You continue to ignore this simple request to correct your mistake. Your intransigence is noted and will form the basis of another complaint unless you do so.
3. You refuse to fulfil my modified request for the metadata ie date, subject line and who it
was from and who to. on the emails on the basis of too much time need. I do not believe this but will again modify my request to the metadata of the emails sent to Kate Nicholson and the two most senior personnel in Lewisham that they were sent to.
4. I has asked to provide the recorded information showing that
the legal entity of the Borough is “The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Lewisham”. You sent a wikipedia link. This is not recorded information under the foi act and must insist you answer the question as required by the FOI Act

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org