Security at the Grove

jimmy3 made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty's Treasury

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Her Majesty’s Treasury,

Please specify how much we, the taxpayers, are paying for security at the Grove Hotel in Watford for this years Bilderberg meeting.

Who signed off on using taxpayers money to fund security for this event this year?

Please specifify names of MPs or Lords who have blocked any debates from happening in the house of commons about this use of taxpayers money.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Glynne Powell.

Enquiries, CEU - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

Dear Mr Powell,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. I write to confirm receipt of your request and to let you know that it is receiving attention. If you have any enquiries regarding your request do not hesitate to contact me.

Ryan Holmes.

Correspondence and FOI Support Officer,

HM Treasury.

show quoted sections

Dear Enquiries, CEU - HMT [Restricted],

I have received an email stating you "have not replied to your FOI request Security at the Grove promptly, as required by law", thus I'd like to add a further question to my original request.

My further question, out of curiosity is "What penalty does your department incur for breaking the law by not answering a FoI request within the specified time". I assure you this is a genuine question and is not raised with any malice on my side.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Glynne Powell.

Enquiries, CEU - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

Dear Mr Powell

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. I write to confirm receipt of your request and to let you know that it is receiving attention. If you have any enquiries regarding your request do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,

Vicky Gallagher
Correspondence and Information Rights Team

show quoted sections

responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Powell

Please find attached our response to your recent enquiry.

Re timing, you sent your enquiry to HM Treasury on 2 June which was a
Sunday, so the request was received by us on 3 June and thus by replying
today we have met the statutory deadline of replying not later than the
twentieth working day following the date of receipt.

 

You have now asked:

 

·         What penalty does your department incur for breaking the law by
not answering a FoI request within the specified time. I assure you this
is a genuine
question and is not raised with any malice on my side.

 

Section 50 of the FOI Act gives requesters the right to complain to the
Information Commissioner who may serve an enforcement notice requiring
steps to be taken.  Under Section 54 of the Act, failure to comply with an
enforcement notice may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

I hope this answers your question.

Regards

Wendy Rendall 

HM Treasury | Information Rights Unit |1 Horse Guards Road | SW1A 2HQ
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Her Majesty’s Treasury,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Treasury's handling of my FOI request 'Security at the Grove'.

It is my understanding that HM Treasury is the department which holds taxpayers money and allocates it according to George Osborne's wishes. Therefore it must hold some record(s) to answer my initial question at the very least. If not, you should be able to provide information of which department does hold the information. Departments don't just spend taxpayers money and then forget how much they spent.

Q1: Please specify how much we, the taxpayers, are paying for security at the Grove Hotel in Watford for this years Bilderberg meeting.

Q2: Who signed off on using taxpayers money to fund security for this event this year?

Q3: Please specifify names of MPs or Lords who have blocked any debates from happening in the house of commons about this use of taxpayers money.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr Glynne Powell.

Enquiries, CEU - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

Dear Mr Powell

Thank you for your Internal Review request. I write to confirm receipt of your request and to let you know that it is receiving attention. If you have any enquiries regarding your request do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,

Vicky Gallagher
Correspondence and Information Rights Team

show quoted sections

responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Powell,

 

Please find attached a response to your FOI request.

 

Many thanks

 

Information Rights Unit |Correspondence and Information Rights

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted],

Thank you for your letter ref 13/671 which answers what happens if an FoI request is not dealt with within the legal time.

However I would still like to politely remind you that I'm waiting for an internal review on my other questions:

[as I previously stated]

"I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Treasury's handling of my FOI request 'Security at the Grove'.

It is my understanding that HM Treasury is the department which holds taxpayers money and allocates it according to George Osborne's wishes. Therefore it must hold some record(s) to answer my initial question at the very least. If not, you should be able to provide information of which department does hold the
information. Departments don't just spend taxpayers money and then forget how much they spent.

Q1: Please specify how much we, the taxpayers, are paying for security at the Grove Hotel in Watford for this years Bilderberg meeting.

Q2: Who signed off on using taxpayers money to fund security for this event this year?

Q3: Please specifify names of MPs or Lords who have blocked any debates from happening in the house of commons about this use of taxpayers money.

Yours sincerely,

jimmy3

responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

Thank you for your email. This is an automatic acknowledgement to tell you
that we have received your communication safely. Please do not reply to
this email.

If your email is to make a new Freedom of Information request, or to
request an Internal Review, we will send a full acknowledgement in the
next few days and reply to you in due course.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Powell

 

Please find attached response.

 

Information Rights

 

show quoted sections

responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Powell,

Please find attached your response to the internal review request you made.

Kind Regards,

Mohammad

Correspondence and Information Rights Team | Corporate Centre Group | 2nd Floor Blue Zone | HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Rd, London, SW1A 2HQ | Please consider the environment before printing this email.
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted],

Unfortunately I am not able to see the content of your recent reply (it appears as squigly characters). Please would you kindly re-post your reply

Yours sincerely,

Mr Glynne Powell.

Dear responses, FOI - HMT [Restricted],

I have today received an email from whatdotheyknow informing me that a response from you is long overdue.

Here is the email:
"Her Majesty’s Treasury are long overdue.

They have not replied to your FOI request Security at the Grove, as required by law.

Click on the link below to send a message to Her Majesty’s Treasury telling them to reply to your request. You might like to ask for an internal
review, asking them to find out why response to the request has been so slow.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/c/j4c9qe5... "

Yours sincerely,

Mr Glynne Powell.

emma gomez left an annotation ()

It appears that Her mjesty's Treasury sees it self as above the law. Please answer the questions we are all waiting for a reply to the first 3 questions? Why the secrecy?

Dear Her Majesty’s Treasury,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Treasury's handling of my FOI request 'Security at the Grove'.

When I post replies stating your content is in squigly characters I expect that to be corrected within a reasonable timeframe - which has elapsed.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr Glynne Powell.

jimmy3 left an annotation ()

Emma Gomez - they have provided some info which lead to me creating this foi request to the Home Office:

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

As yet though I'm still waiting for them to sort out their squigly characters from the Treasury's last response.

Underwood, James - HMT [Restricted], Her Majesty's Treasury

Dear Mr Powell

Thank you for your recent correspondence. I have been asked to investigate, and I have set out my conclusions below.

You wrote to us on 2nd June 2013 asking a number of questions about the Bilderberg conference in Watford. You wrote again on 29th June stating that our response was overdue and asking what the penalty was.

My colleague responded on 1st July with a full response stating that the information you were seeking was not held by the department. She also explained that we had met our statutory duty of replying within 20 days as your initial request had been sent on a Sunday.

You asked for an internal review on the same day.

The Treasury responded on 29th July with a formal answer about what penalties apply to departments who do not comply with the Act, and we then sent our internal review reply on Friday 30th August.

Unfortunately, it seems that due to an administrative error, the same letter was sent again on Monday 2nd September, but you were unable to open it in a readable format. I have investigated and can confirm it is the same letter as 30th August albeit dated differently and despatched by a different person.

I apologise for the confusion with this case and the delay in responding to your query. I hope that my response today helps to clear the matter up.

Thanks
James

show quoted sections