Procurement cards/invoices - original receipts

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

Dear Welsh Government,

Request Title/summary within scope.

I am writing to make an open government request for all the
information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

Please send me recorded information, which includes information
held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten
documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.

If this request is too wide or unclear, and you require a
clarification, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I
understand that under the Act, you are required to advise and
assist requesters.(Section 16 / Regulation 9).

If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify
all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I
will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve
the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to
charge excessive fees.

If any of this information is already in the public domain, please
can you direct me to it, with page references and URLs if
necessary.

Please confirm or deny whether the requested information is held ( section (Section 1(1)(a) and consider whether information should be provided under section 1(1)(b), or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of the Act.

If the release of any of this information is prohibited on the
grounds of breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with
copies of the confidentiality agreement and remind you that
information should not be treated as confidential if such an
agreement has not been signed.

I would like the above information to be provided to me as
electronic copies, via WDTK. The information should be immediately
readable - and, as a freedom of Information request, not put in a PDF or any closed form, which some readers may not be able to access.

I understand that you are required to respond to my request within
the 20 working days after you receive this letter. I would be
grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received
this request.

::::::::

The request:

I refer to the Wales on line article ( linked below) on the audit of all Welsh Government procurement cards/invoices over the period described in the article- totalling around £7.5m.

:::

I am requesting original data and would draw your attention to the ICO's Decision on the provision original documents on file - rather than newly written letters of response, or copies / lists etc of the requested data.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

::

Please therefore provide the original receipts for WG procurement cards / invoices for the purposes of the audit, described in the article:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politi...

'The purchases are outlined in a 259-page document showing the £1.4m that was spent on the 237 active cards in the 2015-16 financial year.

A spokesman for the Welsh Government said the purchases were "in line with Welsh Government business objectives".

However he said the £100 spent in Victoria's Secret – who advertise their products as the “sexiest bras, lingerie and women’s fashion” –had been repaid after an investigation found it was "fraudulent".

Foreign trips
The figures, revealed following a freedom of information request, show nearly £7.5m has been spent on the cards over the last five years – an average of £1.5m a year'.

:::

The original receipts should be already to hand - since they have been audited and are therefore on file without a complicated or time consuming search.

They should therefore not exceed the normal time taken to provide a FOIA response.

Clarification: I would first like to read the receipts of receiits/invoices referred to in this article as the prime criteria of the response.

Please therefore supply the original receipts/invoices data.

NB This request does not require a newly letter drafted for the purposes of response - as the requested data is on file.

Yours faithfully,

JtOakley

Welsh Government

1 Attachment

 
Dear Jt Oakely
 
Further to your recent request for information, please find attached an
acknowledgement letter containing further information on when we will next
write to you.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Jamie
Jamie Jenkins
Rheolwr Gwybodaeth/Information Manager
Busnes, Eiddo a Gwasanaethau Proffesiynol (BEGP)/Business, Property and
Professional Services Division (BPPS)
Swyddfa’r Prif Weinidog a Swyddfa’r Cabinet/Office of the First Minister
and Cabinet Office
Llywodraeth Cymru - Welsh Government
Ffôn - Phone : 02920 821578
E-bost - E-mail [email address]
 
 
 
 
On leaving the Government Secure Intranet this email was certified virus
free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Wrth adael Mewnrwyd Ddiogel y Llywodraeth nid oedd unrhyw feirws yn
gysylltiedig â’r neges hon. Mae’n ddigon posibl y bydd unrhyw ohebiaeth
drwy’r GSi yn cael ei logio, ei monitro a/neu ei chofnodi yn awtomatig am
resymau cyfreithiol.

Welsh Government

1 Attachment

 
Dear Jt Oakley
 
Further to your recent request for information, please find attached a
final disclosure letter sent on behalf of Mr Ian Hallett, Corporate Shared
Service Centre.
 
Yours sincerely
Jamie
Jamie Jenkins
Rheolwr Gwybodaeth/Information Manager
Busnes, Eiddo a Gwasanaethau Proffesiynol (BEGP)/Business, Property and
Professional Services Division (BPPS)
Swyddfa’r Prif Weinidog a Swyddfa’r Cabinet/Office of the First Minister
and Cabinet Office
Llywodraeth Cymru - Welsh Government
Ffôn - Phone : 02920 821578
E-bost - E-mail [email address]
 
 
 
On leaving the Government Secure Intranet this email was certified virus
free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Wrth adael Mewnrwyd Ddiogel y Llywodraeth nid oedd unrhyw feirws yn
gysylltiedig â’r neges hon. Mae’n ddigon posibl y bydd unrhyw ohebiaeth
drwy’r GSi yn cael ei logio, ei monitro a/neu ei chofnodi yn awtomatig am
resymau cyfreithiol.

Dear Welsh Government,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Welsh Government's handling of my FOI request 'Procurement cards/invoices - original receipts'.

Thank you.

But you seemed to have ignored the narrowing of the request provided by the clarification - to be applied if the time constraint ran over the allotted FOIA time.

Here it is:

Clarification: I would first like to read the receipts of receiits/invoices referred to in this article as the prime criteria of the response.

Please therefore supply the original receipts/invoices data.

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

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Dear Welsh Government,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Welsh Government's handling of my FOI request 'Procurement cards/invoices - original receipts.

1. There is no weighing of a public interest determination in the response.

2. I would add that you have not complied with S 16 and provided help and advice as to how I might narrow my request - since I cannot possibly know the WG filing system as a member of the public.

3. If the previous clarified narrowed request is not narrow enough, I wish to read the receipt for Victoria's Secret and any other receipts which have been deemed to be not complying with the criteria set for the use of WG cards.... Those receipts that have been presented to the WG but have either been claimed and then repaid, or those that have had to be refused by the WG.

These should readily be to hand - as they have been disputed claims.

4. In addition, If any of the receipts are for any time before April 2015, then clearly there is no need to retain them for the current financial year's audited accounts, as they will already have been audited.

5. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

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

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

An Ipsa spokesman said after the ruling: “We need to study the judgment carefully. The court made clear that this is an important test case with implications not just for Ipsa but for all other public bodies.

“We were right to test the point of law through an appeal to see whether images of receipts add anything additional to all the information about MPs’ expenditure that we already release.

“We remain completely committed to openness and transparency and already publish a detailed breakdown of every claim made by every MP.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015...

Welsh Government

1 Attachment

Clare M Collett
Gwasanaethau Archwilio Mewnol
Internal Audit Services
Swyddfa'r Prif Weinidog a Swyddfa'r Cabinet / Office of the First Minister and Cabinet Office
Llwodraeth Cymru
Welsh Government

Llinell Union/Direct Line: 029 2082 3457 
Ebost/Email:  [email address]
The IAS intranet / IAS ar y we: http://intranet/English/CentralServices/...

Welsh Government

1 Attachment

Dear Jt Oakley
 
Further to your recent request for an internal review of the Welsh
Government’s handling of your FoI request, please find attached a letter
outlining the findings of my review.
 
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
Clare
 
Clare M Collett
Gwasanaethau Archwilio Mewnol
Internal Audit Services
Swyddfa’r Prif Weinidog a Swyddfa’r Cabinet / Office of the First
Minister and Cabinet Office
Llwodraeth Cymru
Welsh Government

Llinell Union/Direct Line: 029 2082 3457 
Ebost/Email:  [email address]
The IAS intranet / IAS ar y we:
[1]http://intranet/English/CentralServices/...

 
 
 
On leaving the Government Secure Intranet this email was certified virus
free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Wrth adael Mewnrwyd Ddiogel y Llywodraeth nid oedd unrhyw feirws yn
gysylltiedig â’r neges hon. Mae’n ddigon posibl y bydd unrhyw ohebiaeth
drwy’r GSi yn cael ei logio, ei monitro a/neu ei chofnodi yn awtomatig am
resymau cyfreithiol.

References

Visible links
1. http://intranet/English/CentralServices/...

Dear Welsh Government,

Thank you -but please could you confirm that no LIST of these financial payments was provided to the auditors.

An list made by the WG for accounting purposes being part of the data that the WG would hold on these transactions and therefore is within scope as data on file.

Response: As previously stated in the Welsh Government’s correspondence dated 19 August 2016 (reference ATISN10603) the Welsh Government are unable to release original procurement card receipts as they are master records which need to be retained for to comply with HMRC and audit regulations. The retention period is currently a minimum of six years. To make copies of the requested documentation would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) for the reasons set out in our original response and outlined above. Complaint Not Upheld

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Dear Welsh Government,

Since I have received no reply as to why this information was:

1. not already listed for the auditors,

The response:

2. there is also no proper working estimate within the review of how the narrowed request could not be met

3. No S 16 help and assistance to allow me to narrow my request even further

I will forward to the ICO - since I have waited long enough for a response.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Dear Welsh Government,

As a reminder, these are the purchases and amounts referred to in the article.

Please state how long it would take WG accountants to extract this data.

::::

£370 of luxury yachtwear,

iTunes subscriptions totalling £377.32,

more than £1,500 of Welsh cakes,

A ToysRUs transaction of nearly £280.

£100 spent in Victoria's Secret

Bills for accommodation included stays worth £9,043.79 at the Raffles Hotel in Beijing

£1,450.76 at the £300-a-night Hotel New Otani in Tokyo.

Two transactions at the InterContinental Hotel in Qatari capital Doha also featured.

Bags4Everything - £45.99 purchase.

Three payments for accommodation at the Hotel New Otan

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Decision Notice FS50657073 /to come.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Decision (including any steps ordered)

1. The complainant has requested the original receipts for Welsh Government procurement cards for the purposes of an article reported in Wales Online showing that £1.4 million was spent on 237 active cards in the financial year 2015 to 2016. The Welsh Assembly Government refused the request on the basis of section 12 of the FOIA, inviting her to refine it. The Welsh Government subsequently refused the refined request on the same basis.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government in failing to provide appropriate advice and assistance in its response to both the original and refined requests, has breached section 16 of the FOIA, and based on the information provided to date regarding its record held centrally, the Welsh Government cannot rely on section 12 in respect of the complainant’s refined request.
3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
 Provide suitable help and assistance as prescribed by section 16 of the FOIA as to the nature of the information held for both requests. Reconsider the refined request and issue a fresh response compliant with the FOIA that does not rely on section 12.
4. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

On 24 July 2016, the complainant wrote to the Welsh Government and requested the following information related to an audit of all Welsh Government procurement cards/invoices over the period described in the article totalling approximately £7.5 million:
“...the original receipts for WG [Welsh Government] procurement cards / invoices for the purposes of the audit described in article ...outlined in a 259-page document showing the £1.4 that was spent on the 237 active cards in the 2015-16 financial year.”
6. The Welsh Government responded on 19 August 2016. It stated that it was unable to release the original procurement card receipts as they are master records which need to be retained for agreed retention periods to comply with HMRC and Audit rules. It further informed the complainant that to provide copies of the information requested would cost more than the appropriate limit and therefore refused the request by virtue of section 12 of the FOIA.
7. The complainant contacted the Welsh Government expressing dissatisfaction with its response on the basis that there was no weighing of the public interest test, and that it had not complied with its obligations under section 16 FOIA to provide advice and assistance. She also confirmed that if any of the receipts were pre dated April 2015, there would be no need to retain them for the current financial year’s audited accounts.
8. The complainant also submitted a refined request as follows:
“...I wish to read the receipt for Victoria’s Secret and any other receipts which have been deemed to be not complying with the criteria set for the use of WG cards...Those receipts that have been presented to the WG but have either been claimed and then repaid, or those that have had to be refused by the WG.”
9. Following an internal review the Welsh Government wrote to the complainant on 20 September 2016. It did not uphold the complaint in respect of the public interest confirming that section 12 is not subject to the public interest test. The Commissioner can confirm that this is correct.
10. It partially upheld the complainant’s concern that the Welsh Government had not complied with section 16 of the FOIA to provide advice and assistance as to how she might refine her request. However, it further stated that it was difficult to see how this request could be narrowed although offered the complainant the opportunity to submit a refined

request, taking into consideration the information previously supplied to her regarding the appropriate limit.
11. In response to the pre-April 2015 receipts, the Welsh Government confirmed that it is unable to release any of the requested original procurement card receipts as they are master records which need to be retained to comply with HMRC and audit regulations for a minimum of six years. It added that the processes required to locate, retrieve and extract copies of the requested documentation would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12.
12. In respect of the complainant’s refined request, it confirmed that the Victoria’s Secret transaction was fraudulent and was flagged by the Welsh Government’s procurement card provider and did not involve a Welsh Government employee. It confirmed that it did not therefore hold any receipts in respect of this transaction.
13. In respect of the rest of the refined request, the Welsh Government confirmed it was refusing these on the same basis as the original request.
14. Following its internal review, the complainant contacted the Welsh Government on the same date asking it to confirm that no list of these financial payments was provided to the auditors, stating that a list made for accounting purposes would be likely to form part of the data the Welsh Government would hold on these transactions and would therefore be in scope.
15. The complainant again wrote to the Welsh Government stating that she had not received a reply as to why the information was not already listed for the auditors adding that there was no proper working estimate within the review in respect of how the narrowed request could not be met, and no section 16 help to allow her to narrow her request even further.
Scope of the case
16. The complainant contacted the Commissioner on 24 November 2016 to complain about the way her request for information had been handled.
17. In particular, she expressed concern that the Welsh Government had not given her suitable advice and assistance as to how she could refine her request, adding that it is not the responsibility of the requester to know how to refine the request, as it is the authority who understands its filing system. She further stated that she considered her request justifiably of public interest now that MP’s have to state their expenses, and cannot see why Welsh Assembly Member’s should be exempt from
the same scrutiny as MP’s. Finally, she stated that the internal review, did not match the narrowing of her request.
18. The Commissioner has not considered the Welsh Government’s reliance on section 12 in respect of the complainant’s original request as she has not complained about it. Neither has she taken into consideration the complainant’s comments regarding the expenditure of Assembly Members and would point out that there is nothing to stop the complainant submitting a request specifically in relation to the expenditure of AM’s.
19. The scope of her investigation therefore, is to consider whether the Welsh Government complied with its obligations under section 16 FOIA in respect of both the complainant’s original and refined requests and whether it can rely on section 12 FOIA in respect of the refined request.
Reasons for decision
Section 16 – duty to provide advice and assistance
20. Section 16(1) of the FOIA provides that a public authority should give advice and assistance to any person making an information request, so far as it would be reasonable to do so. Paragraph 14 of the section 45 Code of Practice takes this further and explicitly states that where a public authority is relying on section 12 of the FOIA that it:
“...should consider providing an indication of what, if any, information could be provided within the cost ceiling. The authority should also consider advising the applicant that by reforming or re-focusing their request, information may be able to be supplied for a lower, or no fee.”
21. The complainant has specifically raised concerns that the Welsh Government did not provide adequate advice and assistance to enable her to refine her request so that some relevant information might be provided. The Commissioner notes that she also raised this following both the Welsh Government’s original response and its internal review. Indeed, the Welsh Government partially upheld this aspect of the complainant’s concerns in its internal review, however then went on to say that it is difficult to envisage how this request could be further narrowed. It further stated that she may wish to submit a refined request taking into consideration the information previously supplied to her regarding the appropriate limit.
22. The Commissioner has therefore considered the information previously supplied to the complainant in relation to its record keeping, and notesthat it is the responsibility of each procurement card holder to retain on a registered file all original receipts and supporting documentation for each purchase they make on their card. For the financial year 2015-16 there were 10,436 card transactions with the receipts retained on 236 separate cardholder registered files. In addition, there were also 2,032 receipts relating to purchases made with procurement cards lodged with the Welsh Government’s stationary provider and retained by 135 stationary officers.
23. Providing the information in respect of the original request, would require the Welsh Government to locate and collect the 236 cardholder files, plus the 135 stationary officer files and manually extract the information in respect of each receipt.
24. However, whilst the Commissioner notes the complainant had asked for original receipts/invoices, the Welsh Government has provided no information to the complainant in respect of the information it holds centrally within its finance department or for audit functions which may have allowed the complainant to refine her request.
25. The Commissioner raised this point with the Welsh Government during her investigation, and its response stated:
“...a full description of the Welsh Government’s filing system in terms of procurement cards and receipts was set out in our original response to the requester...”
26. The Welsh Government further argued that it viewed both the original and the refined requests as very clear in that the complainant wished to read actual ‘receipts’. It further considered that the complainant was unlikely to be satisfied by the provision of centrally held details relating to her refined request, adding:
“The request for receipts would imply that, if not only satisfied by copies of the receipts, at least the level of information on purchases contained on a receipt would be required. The information held centrally is basic transactional information...”
27. The Commissioner does not accept this and would refer to the complainant’s post internal review correspondence referred to in paragraphs 14 of this notice where she asked the Welsh Government to confirm that no list of the financial payments was provided to the auditors. In the Commissioner’s this view, this demonstrates that the complainant was open to compromise regarding what might be provided within the appropriate limit.

28. The Commissioner has considered the concerns raised by the complainant, the information provided by the Welsh Government in terms of its record keeping, and the Welsh Government’s arguments, and considers that there were a number of ways it might have suggested the complainant refined her request. For example, a shorter time period, of for a particular group of card holders perhaps restricting it to senior civil servants. In her view therefore, the Welsh Government failed to offer appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant and has therefore breached section 16 of the FOIA.
Section 12 – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit
29. Section 12 of the FOIA states that:
“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.”
30. The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (the ‘Regulations’) sets the appropriate limit at £600 for the public authority in question. Under these Regulations, a public authority can charge a maximum of £25 per hour for work undertaken to comply with a request. This equates to 18 hours work in accordance with the appropriate limit set out above.
31. A public authority is only required to provide a reasonable estimate or breakdown of costs and in putting together its estimate it can take the following processes into consideration:
(a) determining whether it holds the information,
(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the
information,
(c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the
information, and
(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.
32. As stated elsewhere in this notice, the Commissioner has not considered the Welsh Government’s reliance on section 12 in respect of the original request as it does not form part of the complaint. However, the requestor has expressed dissatisfaction with the Welsh Government’s reliance on section 12 in respect of her refined request.
33. As stated in paragraph 8 of this notice, the refined request asked for receipts deemed to be not complying with the criteria set for the use of Welsh Government cards, presented to the Welsh Government but either claimed and then repaid, or those that had to be refused.

34. The Welsh Government informed the complainant and maintains to the Commissioner that the same processes necessary for complying with the original request, and outlined in paragraphs 22 and 23 of this notice, would need to be undertaken to comply with the refined request. However, the Welsh Government has not provided the Commissioner with sufficient information regarding its centrally held records of information relevant to this request, for her to determine whether this is indeed the only method available.
35. For example, the Welsh Government informed the Commissioner that it holds only basic transactional information centrally, which is required for the charging of expenditure to its ledgers and, by way of an example, provided a hyperlink to its transparency releases on its procurements card expenditure. The link opens a spreadsheet with information under the following headings:
 Expense type
 Supplier name
 Transaction date
 Transaction reference
 Amount
36. The Commissioner considers that in the process of collating this spreadsheet, the Welsh Government is likely to hold additional information centrally. This is further reinforced by comments that:
“A limited number of transactions have been withheld from publication based on exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000”.
37. Further, the Welsh Government also informed the Commissioner that an alternative interpretation of the refined request that focusses on the second sentence, would be that the requester was simply asking for receipts presented to the Welsh Government that have either been claimed and then repaid, or that have had to be refused. It added:
We have a small number of cases where card holders have used their Welsh Procurement cards in error. In these cases the card has been used accidently to purchase personal items and the usage declared by the card holder and refunded... Charges refused by the Welsh Government are by definition not Welsh Government expenditure...As in either case no receipts are presented, the information relating to receipts “presented to the WG but have either been claimed and then repaid, or those that have had to be refused by the WG ...is not held...”
38. The Commissioner considers that the Welsh Government’s ‘alternative interpretation’ of the refined request, is very similar to her interpretation of the refined request, and even if this is not the case, that it demonstrates that it holds more information centrally than originally suggested, otherwise it would not have been in a position to inform the Commissioner of these transactions.
39. Based on the above information in paragraphs 35 to 38 of this notice, the Commissioner is not therefore satisfied that the Welsh Government has demonstrated that it would need to follow the same processes outlined in respect of the original request for the refined request, and as such, cannot conclude that section 12 of the FOIA is engaged.
40. Furthermore, whilst the Welsh Government’s position that it does not hold information (receipts) of the transactions referred to in paragraph 37 of this notice, it clearly holds some information in respect of them.
Other matters
41. The Commissioner is concerned at the Welsh Government’s continued narrow interpretation of the complainant’s requests and its failure to engage further with either the complainant or the ICO as to how it might satisfy her request within the cost limit.

Senior Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire
SK9 5AF

J Roberts left an annotation ()

"27. The Commissioner does not accept this... the complainant was open to compromise regarding what might be provided within the appropriate limit.

28. ...there were a number of ways it [Welsh Government] might have suggested the complainant refined her request.

The link opens a spreadsheet with information under the following headings:
Expense type
Supplier name
Transaction date
Transaction reference
Amount

36. The Commissioner considers that in the process of collating this spreadsheet, the Welsh Government is likely to hold additional information centrally.

41. The Commissioner is concerned at the Welsh Government’s continued narrow interpretation of the complainant’s requests and its failure to engage further with either the complainant or the ICO as to how it might satisfy her request within the cost limit. "

Sound reasoning above by the Commissioner.

I am confused by matters surrounding the Victoria's Secret payment:

'However he said the £100 spent in Victoria's Secret – who advertise their products as the “sexiest bras, lingerie and women’s fashion” –had been repaid after an investigation found it was "fraudulent".'

Then from the decision:

"12. In respect of the complainant’s refined request, it confirmed that the Victoria’s Secret transaction was fraudulent and was flagged by the Welsh Government’s procurement card provider and did not involve a Welsh Government employee. It confirmed that it did not therefore hold any receipts in respect of this transaction."

The transaction was fraudulent, did not involve a Welsh Government employee and has been repaid. If the procurement card was stolen and used by someone unknown to the card holder, it is unlikely the money would be repaid. Did, say, the partner or an acquaintance of the card holder unlawfully make the purchase? Was the fraud reported to the police and was the fraud proved in court?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

WG - Very cagey about the Victorias Secret Card charge.
As would be expected...

‘ A spokesman for the Welsh Government said the purchases were "in line with Welsh Government business objectives".

At first it was mooted that there ‘ maybe criminal charges’.

But there is no reason to provide the data as if there are no criminal charges.

The point is that all the cards should have been audited already. So that is the data that I was requesting,

The WG trying to muddy the waters by asking me to refine an audit. It should be easily accessible.
Because the auditor has already has to assemble - and pass it.

And the names of individuals should be given - if they are public facing.

Which, given the expenditure, is very likely.

This request follow on....

https://www.the-eye.wales/house-of-cards/

=====

A spokesman for the Welsh Government said the purchases were "in line with Welsh Government business objectives".

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politi...

Nb Not my request.

Dear Welsh Government,

Just a reminder that the data is due today.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Welsh Government

1 Attachment

Dear JT Oakley
 
Please find attached letter and annex providing further help and
assistance in respect of your request and a response based on your revised
request of 19 August 2016.
 
 
Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
 
Yours Sincerely
 
Matthew Denham-Jones
 
Deputy Director Financial Control
Welsh Government
 
Tel 03000 259167
e mail [email address]
 
 
 

Dear Welsh Government,

Thank you for your extensive explanation. I will study it and take advice.

===

However, you still have not addressed this point.

You will recall that I refined my request on November 24, 2016, order to more understand the process, in its original setting.

( see above).

WG has still not supplied this data , or even estimated how long it would take to supply It.

Could you therefore explain why this request for specific data, to assist me (S16 ) in my request has been overlooked, since there cannot amount to more than an estimated 25 pieces of original data.

===

Once again, here is narrowing of the request to which I refer:

As a reminder, these are the purchases and amounts referred to in the article.

Please state how long it would take WG accountants to extract this data.

::::

£370 of luxury yachtwear,

iTunes subscriptions totalling £377.32,

more than £1,500 of Welsh cakes,

A ToysRUs transaction of nearly £280.

£100 spent in Victoria's Secret

Bills for accommodation included stays worth £9,043.79 at the Raffles Hotel in Beijing

£1,450.76 at the £300-a-night Hotel New Otani in Tokyo.

Two transactions at the InterContinental Hotel in Qatari capital Doha also featured.

Bags4Everything - £45.99 purchase.

Three payments for accommodation at the Hotel New Otan

Yours faithfully,
jto

======

As stated, I will reply again after taking further advice as for the rest of the request, after reading it thoroughly

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

J Roberts left an annotation ()

My confusion over the repayment of the transaction concerning the lingerie company has been cleared up:

"The amount was refunded by the card provider themselves and the card cancelled and reissued. As no Welsh Government employees were involved the Welsh Government does not hold any receipt in respect of this transaction. "

But I do wonder when the procurement card was reported missing. Did the cardholder contact the Welsh Government to report it missing, or did the Welsh Government contact the cardholder for an explanation? If the latter, how soon after the transaction?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

As the card holder was in no way responsible, then there will be no problem in providing the information.

Dear Welsh Government,

Referred back to ICO on the following grounds:

I have received some advice but the WG have totally overlooked the previous narrowing of my request.

Nb the request was narrowed on the grounds that the WG stated it would take it too long to supply a response to the original request and take it over the statutory hours.

===

I have replied on the WDTK site:

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

Dear Welsh Government,

Thank you for your extensive explanation. I will study it and take advice.

===

However, you still have not addressed this point.

You will recall that I refined my request on November 24, 2016, order to more understand the process, in its original setting.

( see above).

WG has still not supplied this data , or even estimated how long it would take to supply It.

Could you therefore explain why this request for specific data, to assist me (S16 ) in my request has been overlooked, since there cannot amount to more than an estimated 25 pieces of original data.

===

NARROWED REQUEST

Once again, here is narrowing of the request to which I refer:

As a reminder, these are the purchases and amounts referred to in the article.

Please state how long it would take WG accountants to extract this data.

::::

£370 of luxury yachtwear,

iTunes subscriptions totalling £377.32,

more than £1,500 of Welsh cakes,

A ToysRUs transaction of nearly £280.

£100 spent in Victoria's Secret

Bills for accommodation included stays worth £9,043.79 at the Raffles Hotel in Beijing

£1,450.76 at the £300-a-night Hotel New Otani in Tokyo.

Two transactions at the InterContinental Hotel in Qatari capital Doha also featured.

Bags4Everything - £45.99 purchase.

Three payments for accommodation at the Hotel New Otan

Yours faithfully,
jto

======

As stated, I will reply again after taking further advice as for the rest of the request, after reading it thoroughly

Yours faithfully,

Jto

It seems that the WG is still ignoring the narrowed request ....almost a year later.

There is no S16, or weighing of the public interest on these card payments, as you have stipulated.

I would also point out that since the there is either a fraudulent transaction, or not on the Victoria’s Secret underwear. Since the money has been repaid, presumably by the fraud, and, as such, there is no police involvement, then the card payment should be produced within the terms of the FOIA.

The rest will take some time to investigate, as I am not an accountant and will investigate the processes described, although I cannot see how the explanation received applies to the narrowed request, as there is no mention of it in the WG reply.

Therefore I reserve the right to add to this continuing complaint.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

If public interest it seems..

https://www.the-eye.wales/keeping-secret/

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org