Possible interception of public emails

Paul Cardin made this Freedom of Information request to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please read the following recent article from local newspaper The Wirral Globe:

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/111889...

Following these revelations, public concern has been raised that senior officers of the council may have overstepped their powers under RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and I would ask you to allay my own particular concerns by answering the following questions in full.

The following email addresses have been anonymised to protect my privacy and to avoid spammers, but will match both addresses for Paul Cardin which you will hold on your systems. I would ask that you substitute the correct addresses when answering the points within the FoI request below:

A. **f*@e***v******a********e.co.uk
B. **u*.***d**@*t*w****.com

1. Please provide a full list of the total number and identities of all Wirral councillors who have agreed, either in response to a prior request / suggestion or through their own autonomous actions, to have emails from the above A and B email addresses (and addressed "to" or "c.c." these councillors) diverted to the quoted "specific inbox" within the above article or to another distinct and separate inbox. Please state whether such a list does or doesn't exist and / or whether you do / do not hold it. Please state who does hold it if not yourselves.

2. Please provide a full list of the total number and identities of all councillors who have had emails originating from the above email addresses (and addressed "to" or "c.c." these councillors) diverted to the quoted "specific inbox" or to another distinct and separate inbox WITHOUT the relevant councillors' permission. Please state whether such a list does or doesn't exist and / or whether you do / do not hold it. Please state the name of the party holding it if not yourselves.

3. Please provide a copy of the information / document(s) identifying the name of the "specific inbox" and also a copy of information / documents detailing and making clear whether it is monitored and read by officers or elected members. Please state whether such documents do or do not exist and / or whether you do / do not hold them. Please state the name of the party holding them if not yourselves.

4. Although I am not making any allegations as regards overstepping RIPA powers, due to the potential seriousness of this matter, please provide a copy of the quoted "confidential note" (correctly and professionally redacted) sent by CEO Graham Burgess to councillors. The reason for this aspect of my request is that the note could contain crucial information to implicate / vindicate council officers - which would in turn clarify whether or not this matter needs to be reported to and pursued further by the appropriate regulating authorities.

5. Please provide information / documents detailing the total number of councillors who were "offended" - presumably these will be the ones making, to quote the CEO, "a number of complaints regarding the content, unacceptable tone and high volume of emails sent by [an individual] including a specific concern regarding comments about the Hillsborough memorial service held at Wallasey Town Hall".

This is not a vexatious request as it is clearly:

o not obsessive
o not a repeat request
o not designed to cause disruption or annoyance
o not imposing a significant burden
o of serious purpose and value
o not likely to harass or cause distress to council staff

Wherever DPA issues come into play under Section 40(2) of the FOIA, please redact any potentially identifying information accordingly. However such considerations should not arise when the requested detail is e.g. "total number of councillors".

For your information, I've emailed Graham Burgess to ask whether my emails are being filtered and to state that it would have been a courtesy to advise members of the public that these actions were being considered, but have not received a response.

I did receive a "read receipt" so presumably my emails to the CEO are not being filtered away or worse, intercepted without my knowledge,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

FAO JANE CORRIN

The following email was sent to Surjit Tour and cc. you on 9th May 2014 at 11:51.

(This is an excerpt from it)

"Please modify your eventual response to the following FoI request that was lodged with you recently, as Mr Tour has kindly answered the first two points that were raised:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Many thanks,

Paul Cardin"

If I could explain this further, although Surjit Tour has addressed points 1 and 2...

- despite 2 clear written requests, you have failed to acknowledge either, AND you have failed to respond fully to points 3, 4 and 5.

Please do so before the end of this week, or I will be exercising my statutory rights and asking for an internal review to be undertaken by a senior officer of the council.

This was never a vexatious request, neither is this follow up,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

James Griffiths left an annotation ()

G'day Paul

why are we waiting
why can't we start changing
why are we waiting
always so frustrating
why are we waiting
we need rearranging
why are we waiting

Trust you are well.

Ooroo

James

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Possible interception of public emails'.

Despite...

o Councillors congratulating each other on "improvements"
o Councillor McLachlan continuing to blame the public for Wirral's poor performance
o A recent reminder I sent to you via the WDTK website (see above)

(see here: http://johnbrace.com/2014/06/20/cllr-ann... )

...the bulk of this FoI request remains unacknowledged and unanswered.

Please ask a senior officer to deal with it.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

I am confident that my persistent and determined approach in requesting this information / internal review has a high level of value and is of serious purpose. It is also polite and not harassing or distressing to your staff; does not make up an unnecessary burden, and that having overturned 3 x failed 'vexatious request' accusations by Surjit Tour's legal team, I'm confident my motives in requiring full and frank answers can be clearly seen to be genuine.

Notwithstanding the veiled threat that was made at the end of Surjit Tour's recent response to another FoI request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

...I still have faith in your ability to keep to your statutory obligations laid out within the FOIA. I say this even despite the well-publicised history of statutory obligations being breached in other areas, bullying, gagging, pay offs, abuse of power, etc.

I want to be positive, and still hold faith that you can buck up, become more self-aware and improve your performance some time soon,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

It's looking like my newly burgeoning faith in Wirral Council was severely misplaced.

I've waited months and months and months, but it's all been in vain. So much for the improved FoI performance recently trumpeted by certain councillors.

Off we go again, down the path most trodden.

This has now been appealed to the ICO.

James Griffiths left an annotation ()

Paul

Me old mate.

Are some of these fools and buffoons actually trumpeting about anything good to do with FOI's.

"He who can talk for twenty minutes without breathing or saying anything" must be trying to get the job. Ha ha ha ha the lying barstard.

Ask "Highbrow" about the latest farce over his FOI.

They just say anything they think they can get away with hence an email to him before sparrow's fart this morning.

Ooroo

James

Keep up the great work, one of my four Wirral Heroes.

Has "The Dunny Chain Wearer" imploded yet?

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Thanks James. As the anniversary of this request rapidly approaches, here's a response from the ever-so-patient ICO which I got earlier. I think we should be going for the hattrick. Let's keep drawing the veil back, exposing their persistent failure and we'll get them monitored for a record THIRD TIME (hot on the heels of the record second time).

27th January 2015

Case Reference Number FS50568736

Dear Mr Cardin
Your ref: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Your information request to Wirral Council

Thank you for your correspondence of 22/01/15 in which you complain about the above public authority’s failure to respond to your information request dated 06/05/14.

When considering complaints about delayed or failed responses to information requests our priority is to ensure requesters receive a response as quickly as possible where one has not been provided, and to monitor any persistent trends which might indicate that a public authority is routinely failing to respond within the statutory timeframe.

We monitor complaints where a serious contravention of section 10 is recorded and where persistent contraventions occur we will consider placing a public authority on our monitoring programme (http://www.ico.org.uk/what_we_cover/prom... ).

I have written to the public authority to provide them with a copy of your original request, reminding them of their responsibilities and asking them to respond to you within 10 working days of receiving our letter. I enclose a copy of my letter to the public authority for your information. If you do not receive any response within 10 working days, please contact us.

The late response will be recorded and as described will form part of our on-going activity to consider the performance of public authorities and the Freedom of Information Act.

The Commissioner does not need to serve a decision notice in an individual case in order to use that case as evidence for future enforcement action. Should you wish the Information Commissioner to issue a decision notice for your specific complaint we are able to do so.

If the public authority responds and refuses to release the information you have asked for and you are dissatisfied, you may, after exhausting their internal complaints procedure, complain to us again.

Thank you for bringing these concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner. If you require any further assistance then please contact me on the number below.

Yours sincerely

Jim Dunn
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

9 months and counting, but still no response from the 'improved' data controller, Wirral Council.

I've contacted Jim Dunn at the ICO and asked him to elevate this to the next stage.

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

From:Paul C
Sent: 11 February 2015 22:24
To: 'casework@ico.org.uk'
Subject: RE: Confirmation from ICO - complaint against Wirral Council received[Ref. FS50568736]

FAO JIM DUNN

Dear Mr Dunn,

Sadly, I did not receive any response within 10 working days.

Please elevate this complaint to the next stage. May I remind you that the request itself is now nine months old with no response, and I would therefore expect it to receive yours and your colleagues’ earliest attention. Any failure to act quickly will only serve to compound the frustration created by Wirral Council’s irresponsible conduct.

Despite the intervention of an LGA “Improvement” Board, funded by public money, the council’s nine months of inaction now appears to be verging on the vexatious,

Best regards,

Paul Cardin

James Griffiths left an annotation ()

G'day Paul

I stopped writing to all the councillors on a daily basis because I thought they might do the right thing at 8 October "Burger with lot's farce of a public meeting" on Big, ISUS and Working Neighbourhoods.

You know the one were lies were told publicly.

I might start up again.

Ooroo

James

James Griffiths left an annotation ()

G'day Paul

What do they do when they get caught out.

Simples...

Lie, refuse to answer or lose the evidence.

Nothing like being open, honest and transparent.

Bring in the Administration or vote a new face.

Ooroo

James

Ps Or say it is not our money..fools lead by fools of Super Directors.

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

A response is in from the ICO. Remember, this FoI request, placed in good faith, has NEVER been responded to in nine months (by an abusive council which was 'improved' when the LGA stepped in at great public expense not long back).

Here's the response:

From: casework@ico.org.uk [mailto:casework@ico.org.uk]
Sent: 20 February 2015 16:06
To: Paul C
Subject: Confirmation from ICO - complaint against Wirral Council accepted[Ref. FS50568736]

20th February 2015

Case Reference Number FS50568736

Dear Mr Cardin

Your ref: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Your information request to Wirral Council

Thank you for your correspondence of 11/02/15 in support of your complaint about the above public authority’s handling of your request for information.

Your complaint has been accepted as eligible for further consideration and will be allocated to a case officer as soon as possible.

We aim to deal with complaints in chronological order and, because of the number of complaints we are required to deal with, there may be a delay in allocating your case. Where possible and appropriate your case may be accelerated. Once your case is allocated to an officer they will contact you to explain how your complaint will be progressed.

If you wish to send any further documentation while the case is awaiting allocation, please quote the reference number at the top of this letter. This will ensure that the information is added directly to your case.

Please be aware that this is an automated process. The information will not be read by a member of our staff until your case is allocated to an officer.

If you have any specific concerns before your case is allocated to an officer, please contact our helpline on 0303 123 1113, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer not to call an ‘03’ number, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Jim Dunn
Sent on behalf of
Andrew White
Group Manager
Information Commissioner’s Office

...so as far as expediency goes, it doesn't matter that this has been ignored for nine months. There is no automatic acceleration and it goes to the back of the queue. I may as well have placed it 20 days ago and the abusive council has just run over the normal deadline.

nigel hobro left an annotation ()

Paul this is the sameas the excuses given by a DCLG officer to me yesterday re the delay in producing the ISUS report...lack of resources.

The state weakens because of such a lack, admits a flood of criticism but, equally its lack of resources prevents it from properly dealing with legitimate complaints.

For example DCLG have no power to prosecute in a criminal court so refer erdf abuses to Police who invariably proffer the same answer "No case to answer". The reason being expense and resources

Thereby we have the satisfaction of enunciating "you are useless! you lied . You cheated" but we dont have the satisfaction of exemplary justice!

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Nigel, thanks.

Similarly the IPCC can't apparently do anything about police officers who lie, which tends to happen a lot, because the IPCC, by careful design, can't do anything about police officers who lie, which tends to happen a lot, er... because etc. etc.

Corrin, Jane, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

 

 

From: Corrin, Jane
Sent: 13 July 2015 16:48
To: '[FOI #210014 email]'
Cc: InfoMgr, FinDMT; '[email address]'
Subject: 787985 FS50568736 Possible Interception of Public Emails

 

Dear Mr Cardin,

 

Case Reference Number FS50568736

 

I refer to the decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner’s
Office on 9 June 2015. I refer to your request for information dated 6 May
2014, which was as follows:-

 

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

 

Please read the following recent article from local newspaper The Wirral
Globe:

 

[1]http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/111889...

 

Following these revelations, public concern has been raised that senior
officers of the council may have overstepped their powers under RIPA
(Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and I would ask you to allay
my own particular concerns by answering the following questions in full.

 

The following email addresses have been anonymised to protect my privacy
and to avoid spammers, but will match both addresses for Paul Cardin which
you will hold on your systems.  I would ask that you substitute the
correct addresses when answering the points within the FoI request below:

 

A. [2]**f*@e***v******a********e.co.uk

B. [3]**u*.***d**@*t*w****.com

 

1.  Please provide a full list of the total number and identities of all
Wirral councillors who have agreed, either in response to a prior request
/ suggestion or through their own autonomous actions, to have emails from
the above A and B email addresses (and addressed "to" or "c.c." these
councillors) diverted to the quoted "specific inbox" within the above
article or to another distinct and separate inbox.  Please state whether
such a list does or doesn't exist and / or whether you do / do not hold
it.  Please state who does hold it if not yourselves.

 

2.  Please provide a full list of the total number and identities of all
councillors who have had emails originating from the above email addresses
(and addressed "to" or "c.c." these councillors) diverted to the quoted
"specific inbox" or to another distinct and separate inbox WITHOUT the
relevant councillors' permission.  Please state whether such a list does
or doesn't exist and / or whether you do / do not hold it.  Please state
the name of the party holding it if not yourselves.

 

3.  Please provide a copy of the information / document(s) identifying the
name of the "specific inbox" and also a copy of information / documents
detailing and making clear whether it is monitored and read by officers or
elected members. Please state whether such documents do or do not exist
and / or whether you do / do not hold them.  Please state the name of the
party holding them if not yourselves.

 

4.  Although I am not making any allegations as regards overstepping RIPA
powers, due to the potential seriousness of this matter, please provide a
copy of the quoted "confidential note" (correctly and professionally
redacted) sent by CEO Graham Burgess to councillors.  The reason for this
aspect of my request is that the note could contain crucial information to
implicate / vindicate council officers - which would in turn clarify
whether or not this matter needs to be reported to and pursued further by
the appropriate regulating authorities.

 

5.  Please provide information / documents detailing the total number of
councillors who were "offended" - presumably these will be the ones
making, to quote the CEO, "a number of complaints regarding the content,
unacceptable tone and high volume of emails sent by [an individual]
including a specific concern regarding comments about the Hillsborough
memorial service held at Wallasey Town Hall".

 

This is not a vexatious request as it is clearly:

 

o not obsessive

o not a repeat request

o not designed to cause disruption or annoyance

o not imposing a significant burden

o of serious purpose and value

o not likely to harass or cause distress to council staff

 

Wherever DPA issues come into play under Section 40(2) of the FOIA, please
redact any potentially identifying information accordingly.  However such
considerations should not arise when the requested detail is e.g. "total
number of councillors".

 

For your information, I've emailed Graham Burgess to ask whether my emails
are being filtered and to state that it would have been a courtesy to
advise members of the public that these actions were being considered, but
have not received a response.

 

On 9 May 2014, you asked that the Council modify the request for
information, indicating that the Council had responded to parts 1 and 2 of
your request, separately to your private email address. As the Council had
not responded to the balance of your request, you asked for an internal
review on 3 July 2014. I have copied this response to the Information
Commissioner’s Office.

 

Questions 3, 4, and 5

 

Section 40 Personal Information

 

I  consider that some of the information you have requested under
Questions 3,4 and 5  is exempt information under Section 40 (2) and (3)
(1) (a) (i)  of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, (FOIA) in that you
are requesting information which is personal data, in respect of which you
are not the data subject.  I consider that the disclosure of the requested
information would contravene the first data protection principle, that
personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully, and shall not be
processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Data
Protection Act 1998 is met.  I consider disclosure of the requested
information would have an unjustified adverse effect on data subjects and
I do not consider that any of the conditions in Schedule 2 would be met
and particularly Condition 6 of Schedule 2 in that the processing would be
unwarranted by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the data subjects.  I do not consider that such
processing would be necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests
pursued by yourself as a third party, being a member of the public and
that your legitimate interest has already been met by the information
which was provided to you in answer to Questions 1 and 2.

 

I do not consider that the sixth condition contained in schedule 2 of the
Data Protection Act 1998 would be met and that if the personal data of
 individuals contained in the information you are seeking were to be
disclosed, I consider that there would be prejudice to the rights and
legitimate interests of those individuals and the strong likelihood that
their personal data will be processed in breach of the first data
protection principle.

 

Questions 4 and 5

 

Section 36-prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs

 

I consider as the authorised person, that in my reasonable opinion,  that
the exemption contained in Section 36 (2) (b) of FOIA applies to the
information you are requesting, in that disclosure of the information
would, or would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of
advice or the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation.  I have had regard to the latest guidance published by the
Information Commissioner’s Office, Prejudice to the effective conduct of
public affairs (section 36) Version 3.

[4]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

 

It is my reasonable opinion that disclosure of the requested information
would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the exchange of
views.  It is paramount the Council has a safe space to deliberate and
then offer advice to Members/Officers.

 

I also consider that in my reasonable opinion, if the requested
information were disclosed, there would likely to be a chilling effect
which would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of
views between Senior Managers and Members/Officers.   Officers have a
right to express an open and candid view and they have the right for those
views to be kept internal to the Council.

 

Where the Council finds that the qualified exemption is engaged then it is
necessary to consider the test under s.2(2)(b),of FOIA, namely that “in
all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”.

 

Public interest factors for maintaining the exemption

o Disclosure would restrict the free and frank provision of advice.
o Disclosure would have a potential detrimental effect on the decision
making within the Council, if it were not afforded a safe space to
deliberate and then offer advice. 

 

Public interest factors against maintaining the exemption

o Public interest in the transparency  of the Council’s processes.
However it does not necessarily follow that the transparency or
openness of the process requires that information contained in
confidential notes to Councillors be made publicly available.

 

I consider that the public interest test in maintaining the exemption
outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the requested information.

 

In conclusion, the Council seeks to rely on the exemptions contained in
Section 40 (2) of FOIA and Section 36 (2) (c) of FOIA in refusing your
request for information as detailed in questions 3, 4 and 5.

 

Yours sincerely and sent on behalf of

 Surjit Tour

Head of Legal & Member Services

and Monitoring Officer

 

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Department of Transformation and Resources

Town Hall

Brighton Street

Wallasey

Wirral

CH44 8ED

 

Visit our website: [5]www.wirral.gov.uk

 

[6]cid:image002.jpg@01D066DD.D7571B40

      ‘Most Improved Council’

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/111889...
2. mailto:**f*@e***v******a********e.co.uk
3. mailto:**u*.***d**@*t*w****.com
4. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
5. http://www.wirral.gov.uk/

James Griffiths left an annotation ()

G'day Paul
This is why I have never sent an FOI request and I hope all these secrets haunt them forever. They are not clever just slimey, sneeky, creepy self-absorbed scum.
Ooroo
James

ScarletPimpernel left an annotation ()

@James

The way in which and speed with which FOI requests are answered give great insights into the culture of a public body and how efficiently it can retrieve information.

If it can't get access to information reasonably quickly it's not very well organised and how can the public body make good decisions if the decision makers don't have the information in a timely manner?

In Wirral Council's case they have been known in the past to refuse requests for information to keep it out of the public domain and not even know that the information requested has already been published on their website.

If you ran a business like that wouldn't people go to other businesses instead? However with the public sector people are forced to pay taxes and then get a vote for the politicians, who are supposed to be there to represent the people. Some politicians are better at politics than others though, all however are human and make ... yes mistakes.

Tony Blair regarded his Labour government bringing into law the FOI legislation as one of his big mistakes, although others would say invading Iraq based on faulty information was a mistake too (if only Tony Blair had made a FOI request first to Saddam Hussein to see if he had any weapons it would've saved a lot of bother? ;)).

I think the big mistake is that many of the people making requests don't really understand what FOI is for, the people working in the public sector to respond to requests are sometimes poorly trained/ overworked and get facts wrong, or there are deliberate instructions given from above by senior employees/politicians/press offices to keep sensitive information out of the public domain. Even the best FOI officer can't force an organisation to be more open and transparent, just like a HR department at Wirral Council can't force managers to do performance appraisals of staff (apparently this is difficult to do for school crossing patrol staff, or staff off sick, on maternity leave, paternity leave, adoption leave.... the list of excuses goes on and on... !)

If I was a FOI officer (with instructions from above to surpress information) you could legitimately turn down a request at the 20 day limit, take another 40 days for an internal review, if appealed to ICO another 8/9 months for a decision notice, take 28 days then appeal that decision notice to a tribunal (another 8-9 months), then could appeal that decision to the upper tribunal, appeal etc etc.. another 8 years later you're probably at the Supreme Court and unless the FOI requester is either a lawyer or has access to a lot of legal resource, time and money they've already given up well before then because if they lose a legal case they may have to pay their legal costs and the legal costs of the public body too!!!

I mean seriously it took 10? years to get the Prince Charles letters. I'm sure Wirral Council could wait 10 years (by which time the info would no longer be embarrassing as the people involved would probably not be affected by its release).

Dear Surjit Tour,

I am writing to inform you of my next steps with regard to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Possible interception of public emails'.

Following a delay of 13 months, Wirral Council have incorrectly applied exemption 36 to this FOIA request in an attempt to circumvent information that is strongly in the public interest being made publicly available.

It cannot be claimed that the information requested could possibly inhibit "free and frank advice/exchange of views".

Neither can Section 40 be used as justification for the witholding of information which relates to the treatment of citizens' emails and their engagement in approved processes.

The witholding of this information is not in the public interest, is an affront to openness and transparency and is a further abuse of power by Wirral Council.

As the ICO were omitted from your response, despite their production of a decision notice, I have now referred this to the ICO on your behalf and on mine.

I plan to expand upon the terms of my appeal in the near future.

Regards,

Paul Cardin

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

As the subject of "emails" is central to this case, the legitimate and compelling public interest is raised again in favour of:

o prompt action
o disclosure
o openness
o transparency
o effective oversight

... with the following news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33...

Corrin, Jane, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Cardin,

Thank you for your email below, just to advise you the ICO were sent a
copy of the response.

Yours sincerely

Jane Corrin

Information and Central Services Manager -  Legal and Member Services

Wirral Council

Transformation and Resources

Wallasey Town Hall Brighton Street

Wirral

Merseyside

CH44 8ED

 

Visit our website: [1]www.wirral.gov.uk

 

[2]cid:image002.jpg@01D066DD.D7571B40

      ‘Most Improved Council’

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Corrin, Jane,

Thank you. However, you failed to answer my original request and the public were left in the dark for 13 months.

Your eventual response (which was in breach of the Act) compounded the original breach by failing to inform me that the ICO had been included in the response. It would be helpful if your council made strenuous efforts not just to live up to the ubiquitous "Most Improved Council" claims but to sharpen your response times and be more inclusive and *aware*,

Regards,

Paul Cardin

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mr Cardin

Further to the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice FS50589778 please find the Council's response below.

1. What is the name of the diverted email box? 

[email address]
 
2. Is the mailbox monitored and read by officers or elected members?

The mailbox would be monitored upon a specific request from the Chief Executive.  The monitoring would be done by an officer nominated by the Chief Executive, such as an Internal Auditor.
 
3. Are emails held in this diverted box and are they held by the Council?

There are emails held in the diverted mailbox and yes they are held by the Council.

Kind regards,

Sent on behalf of

Jane Corrin
Information Management
Legal & Democratic Services
Transformation and Resources
Wirral Council
 
This information supplied to you is copyrighted and continues to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for example commercial publication, would require our specific permission, may involve licensing and the application of a charge.

show quoted sections

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The email released in the last message is

diverted at wirral.gov.uk

--

Richard - WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer