Dear Ms. Malinen

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST REF: 2017-1236

I am writing to confirm that we received your information request on 13
August 2017. For your information and future communications your request
has been allocated the reference number FOI2017-1236. Please quote this
reference in any future correspondence.

We will consider your request and respond in accordance with the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Our duty is to
respond promptly or at least within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely

Robin Yu

Information Governance and Management
Officer                                                                          

Shared ICT Service

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX

Tel: 020 7938 8226

Email: [1][email address] | Website: [2]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk

Dear Ms Malinen

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST REF: 2017-1236

I am responding to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
which we received on  13 August 2017, for information held by the Council.

Your request is as follows:

Please provide the following documents:

1) Invoices and payment records for refurbishment of KCTMO managed
properties from 2014 to date

2) All invoices from RGE Services

3) The protocol for the process on oversight for subcontracting works

4) The protocol for the process of oversight between KCTMO and RBKC on
financial, legal and safety matters

Our response to questions 3 and 4 is below:

The relationship between the KCTMO is set out in the Modular Management
Agreement which can be found on the KCTMO website,  link below :

[1]http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-meet...

[2]http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-meet...

We  have decided to withhold the your other requests for the reasons
below.

Section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act provides that environmental
information shall be handled in accordance with the Environmental
Information Regulations (EIR). Your request has been handled in accordance
with EIR as it is our opinion that the information requested constitutes
environmental information.

Regulation 2(1) of the EIR states that environmental information is:

“…any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other
material form on –

(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and
atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites…biological
diversity and its components…and the interaction among those elements;

(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or
waste…emissions…and other releases into the environment, affecting or
likely to affect the elements referred to in (a);

(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies,
legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities
affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a)
and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those
elements;…”.

The withheld information is about, refurbishment works at Grenfell Tower
which we believe falls under the definition of environmental information
above.

Under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b), public authority may refuse to
disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely
affect the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair
trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a
criminal or disciplinary nature.

We believe that disclosure of the information would adversely affect the
ability of a public authority, namely the Metropolitan Police, to conduct
an enquiry of a criminal nature.

The Metropolitan Police have stated publicly said that there are
“reasonable grounds” to suspect that the council and Kensington & Chelsea
TMO of corporate manslaughter. This complex criminal investigation is at a
very early stage and is ongoing.

In accordance with the Code of Practice The council has consulted with the
Metropolitan Police as a third party who may be affected by the disclosure
or otherwise have an interest in whether the disclosure is effected. They
have advised that the information relating to fire safety is relevant to
their investigation and expressed a view that disclosure would or would be
likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the
apprehension of prosecution of offenders. 

In addition, the terms of reference of Grenfell Public Inquiry include:
decisions relating to Grenfell Tower’s modification, and refurbishment and
the fire safety measures in place. We also consider that disclosure of the
information would adversely impact upon the course of justice, namely the
ability of the Pubic Inquiry to carry out its investigation. 

The Council is required to disclose information which is relevant to the
terms of reference to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry who in turn make it
available to Core Participants.  All participants are required to enter
into confidentiality undertakings to keep the information provided to them
by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry confidential.  These undertakings will only
cease when the information is placed in the public domain by the Inquiry
or lawfully placed into the public domain by a third party.  We consider
that disclosure of this information and this early stage before the
Inquiry team or the core participants have had the opportunity to review
it and while investigation is live would prejudice the course of the
Inquiry. 

In applying the exception, we are obliged to consider whether public
interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the
exception. There is a considerable public interest in the disclosure of
information held by the council about the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower,
and the cause and spread of the fire. The council recognise this and are
committed to being accountable and transparent. Where possible, we will be
releasing information that relates to Grenfell Tower.

However, there is also a significant public interest in withholding this
information so as to not adversely affect the criminal investigation and
course of justice at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.   In assessing this risk
of prejudice the council has taken account of the views of the
Metropolitan Police and the need to exercise a significant degree of
caution before disclosing any information that will adversely impact on
the criminal investigation and the Inquiry. We therefore do not believe
that there is an overriding reason to disclose this information. 

At this point in time, it is our belief that the public interest in
withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Complaints

I trust this has satisfied your request. Should you be unhappy with the
handling of your request, the Council has an internal complaints process
for handling FOIA complaints. Complaints are reviewed by the Chief
Solicitor and Monitoring Officer or her nominee. A form is available from
our website to lodge your complaint
[3]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocra...
Please contact us if you do not have website access and we can provide you
with a copy of the form. Following this review, should you still be
unhappy with how your information request has been handled, you have a
further right to appeal to the Information Commissioner who is responsible
for ensuring compliance with FOIA.  

Yours sincerely

Information Management Team

Information Technology 

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX

Email: [4][email address]

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-meet...
2. http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-meet...
3. http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocra...
4. mailto:[email address]