Martin Morton and Steve Greenway

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

Dear Copeland Borough Council,

1. Please confirm that Mr Morton was paid compensation when he left the employment of Copeland Borough Council

2. On what basis was this sum paid?

3. Please provide details of the procurement process used to appoint Steve Greenway to undertake work at the Market Hall

4. Please confirm the position to which Mr Greenway was appointed in relation to the Market Hall

5. Please advise of any relationship you are aware of that Mr Greenway may have with any current employee of the Borough Council

6. Does any member of your staff have any association with the Company that provided the furniture for the Market Hall?

7. Are Officers of your Council at Director level subject to whole time service conditions such that they cannot have any other employment e.g Director of a Company, without your Council's approval ?

8. Please provide details of any approvals given by the Council for any Director to undertake private work - if any

I am confident that you will decline to comply with the FOI Act in relation to this request. The request will remain and readers can form their own views as to why you decline to answer

Yours faithfully,

Steven Robinson

Info, Copeland Borough Council

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email.

I have passed your Freedom of Information request to the relevant officer who shall liaise with yourself within the given time scale.

Kindest Regards


Customer Service Officer

show quoted sections

Clifford Walker, Copeland Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Sir,


The Freedom of Information Act is a piece of legislation which quite
rightly opens up public authorities to greater scrutiny and
accountability. Under the provision of the Act an authority must process a
request in writing from a named applicant under the terms and conditions
of the legislation. Whilst giving maximum support to individuals genuinely
seeking to exercise the right to know, the Commissioner's general approach
will be sympathetic towards authorities where requests can be
characterised as being vexatious. Section 14(1) is designed to protect
public authorities by allowing them to refuse any requests which are
believed not to be from the named applicant.

Therefore with regard to this request we are including a warning under
Section 14(1) (Vexatious Request) of the Freedom of Information Act that
this and any future requests may attract this exemption.

I believe you may be using a pseudonym and are in effect not who you state
you are.

In order to avoid attracting this exemption, I will require you to provide
some form of identification to enable me to establish that you are who you
say you are before I can consider processing this and any other requests
any further.

Acceptable identification could be a driving license, utility bill or
something similar that establishes your full name, date of birth and
address with photo ID. An original copy of the proof of identity document
should be sent to the below address, or produced in person.

I will place this request 6788/17 on hold pending receipt of
identification from you. Please note that if no identification is received
within 20 working days, the request will be withdrawn.




Cliff Walker

Information Management Officer

Business Support

Copeland Borough Council


Tel: 01946 59 8529

Email: [1][email address]


Copeland Borough Council, The Copeland Centre, Catherine Street,
Whitehaven, Cumbria, CA28 7SJ. Tel: 01946 598300. Fax: 01946 598303.
[2], [3][Copeland Borough Council request email]

[4]Description: cid:image001.png@01CE1E6D.7E7E5480

Working to improve lives, communities and the prosperity of Copeland




show quoted sections

Steven Robinson left an annotation ()

When the CBC does not wish to provide information that it may perceive to be difficult for it it has tended to adopt the position that it will use this tactic to avoid a reply. Yet the Monitoring Officer communicates with me, politely, and even places before the Audit and Governance Committee complaints that I have submitted relating to misconduct by Councillors. So one side of the Council accepts I am who I am but for FOI purposes that same Council doesn't. Interesting times.

Dear Clifford Walker,

I note that your Authority accepts that I am who I am for other purposes but that you do not. I assume that this goes back to your instructions for the purposes of withholding certain information regardless of the obligations in the FOI Act.

I also note that you have not provided any assurances as to confidentiality and in particular that personal data will not be passed to any third party. It is well known that your IT has been hacked into and thus I cannot have an assurance that it will not happen again. Data held by your Council is at risk. Whilst your Council will not, or cannot, provide sufficient and meaningful assurances you cannot rely on these parts of the FOI Act to deny individuals information reasonable requested.

I also note that within your response you have not given any indication that, in your consideration, you have taken into account my rights under the Human Rights Act. S6 Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. One such right being my right to privacy under Article 8. The law requires that your duty
must be demonstrated in your decision making process. As I say in the decision set out in your reply you have failed to demonstrate compliance with the Human Rights Act. That naturally is of considerable concern in the circumstances.

Having failed to comply with your legal obligations I find that I cannot have confidence in your Council's ability to properly respect my rights to confidentiality. Your Council cannot then insist on its present position and should simply deal with the FOI as the law requires. I look forward to a response to my request within the time scale prescribed by the Act.


Yours sincerely,

Steven Robinson

Sarah Johnson left an annotation ()

Perhaps the MO has no control over the FOI process, hence the different approach.

Steven Robinson left an annotation ()

The MO is supposed to act when Officers do not comply with the law