Timmins review

The request was partially successful.

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

I refer to your published document "WBC's response to external reports 2010-2013" currently embedded within the Audit and risk committees papers for their meeting in October 2013. therein you allude at sections 6.2 and 6.3 to the review performed by the Interim head of Finance in September 2011 regarding Internal Audit's investigation into BIG and ISUS.

Please furnish me with a copy of the review . I cannot conceive it is exempt since it concerns the methodology of the Internal audit investigation and not its target, any wrong doing by a Service Provider, which currently is still subject to investigation

Yours faithfully,

nigel hobro

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Good Afternoon

 

Thank you for your request, Wirral Council can provide to you the attached
information.

 

Kind regards

 

Tracy O'Hare

Information Management

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

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 'Timmins review'.

I have had quick sight of this review from a Councillor. Its contents will not prejudice any investigation and will harm only the reputation of Wirral Borough council. It is in the public interest that the failures of its internal audit investigation be known. Mr Timmins in the review quotes that it will cost £10,000 to reassemble the papers that have been scattered to the four winds. He underlines the fallibility of relying on, without evidence, the assertion by those investigated that I was vindictive and violent. Mr Timmins discounts this reliance as not being sufficient to justify denying my claims.

The review supports my assertion that malpractice has occurred within the Council. Ther coverring -up of such malpractice is never in the public interest which is why I contend that WBC has misapplied the "public interest " test.

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

Yours faithfully,

nigel hobro

Corrin, Jane, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your request below for an Internal Review.  Please see text
below as Council’s response to that request.

 

The reviewer, after undertaking a full review of your Freedom of
Information Request concludes the following; that the reliance of Section
30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may not apply in this particular
set of circumstances.  This is because, as you have pointed out, the
‘Timmins Review’ was not part of the investigation conducted by the
Internal Audit department.

 

The reviewer does agree with the initial response however, in that Section
31 (2) and also Section 31 (1), (a) (b) & (c) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 are clearly appropriate in this instance and release
of this document would or would likely prejudice the ongoing work in
relation to this investigation.  Further guidance on Section 31 can be
found on the Information Commissioner’s website at [1]this link.

 

The reviewer has given due consideration to the public interest test when
relying on this exemption and believes the public interest in maintaining
the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  The key
factors considered were:-

 

Public interest in safeguarding the investigatory process

The right of an individual or organisation to request information,
balanced against the potential to undermine an investigation

The need to ensure individuals will disclose details and report wrongdoing

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the response to any Internal Review, then
you have the right to complain further to the Information Commissioner.

[2]http://ico.org.uk

  

Kind regards

Jane Corrin

Information and Central Services Manager 

Transformation & Resources Department

Wallasey Town Hall

Brighton Street

Wallasey

Wirral

CH44 8ED 

 

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. Thank you for your
request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

           

 

From: nigel hobro [mailto:[FOI #183878 email]]

Sent: 05 December 2013 11:59

To: InfoMgr, FinDMT

Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Timmins
review

 

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 'Timmins review'.

 

I have had quick sight of this review from a Councillor. Its contents will
not prejudice any investigation and will harm only the reputation of
Wirral Borough council. It is in the public interest that the failures of
its internal audit investigation be known. Mr Timmins in the review quotes
that it will cost £10,000 to reassemble the papers that have been
scattered to the four winds. He underlines the fallibility of relying on,
without evidence, the assertion by those investigated  that I was
vindictive and violent. Mr Timmins discounts this reliance as not being
sufficient to justify denying my claims.

 

The review supports my assertion that malpractice has occurred within the
Council. Ther coverring -up of such malpractice is never in the public
interest which is why I contend that WBC has misapplied the "public
interest " test.

 

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

 

Yours faithfully,

 

nigel hobro

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://ico...
2. http://ico.org.uk/

john hardaker left an annotation ()

Nigel obviously they do not want this information in the public domain & as far as this council is concerned
they are neither open nor transparent & whilst Davies & co are in control there is little or no chance of the cover up ever being made public, so why not publish
what you know & see them wriggle & squirm they way out of that situation or better still ask Wirral leaks to leak it for you where at least 700 of the followers will see what you know. Just a thought.

nigel hobro left an annotation ()

John Haredaker thank you for your interest in this matter. Currently a request for the same report is with the ICO as a subjects right to know, 16th September 2013, so it cannot take much longer.

As far as time and how long this investigation has run it would be remiss of myself not to remind the reader of the following:-

The ISUS project lasted from 1st October 2009 until 16th December 2011 a total of 806 days

The investigation of ISUS has a duration from its arrival at Internal Audit on 16/08/2011 to-date

a total of 926 days

The investigation has lasted 120 days more than the programme itself.

Answer to Internal Review

WBC quotes this section of FOI act (2000):-

31 Law enforcement.

(1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—

(a)the prevention or detection of crime,

(b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(c)the administration of justice,

and

32 Court records, etc.

(2)Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it is held only by virtue of being contained in—

(a)any document placed in the custody of a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration, for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration, or

(b)any document created by a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration, for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration.

Will you confirm as to s31 1 (a-c)of what crime do we speak? The counter fraud activities were so poor that are you saying that exposure of Counter Fraud's failures will incite crime by those it is supposed to monitor? If not that what other logic links these causes and Timmins' report?

As far as section 32 is concerned there is no inquiry into the failings of Counter Fraud and the report itself does not contain relevant matter as to the shortcomings of the performance of Working wirral nor of ISUS. Simply it criticises the lack of movement of the Counter Fraud inquiry between August 2011 and September 2012.

For this reason I have sent this matter to the ICO

Yours sincerely,

nigel hobro

Corrin, Jane, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Hobro,

 

I refer to your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office and to
your original request for information dated 7 November 2013.

As part of the complaint process the Council has decided to amend its
response, which has also been copied to the Information Commissioner. Your
original request was as follows:-

 

 

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

I refer to your published document "WBC's response to external reports
2010-2013" currently embedded within the Audit and risk
committees papers for their meeting in October 2013,  therein you allude
at sections 6.2 and 6.3 to the review performed by the
Interim head of Finance in September 2011 regarding Internal Audit's
investigation into BIG and ISUS.

Please furnish me with a copy of the review. I cannot conceive it is
exempt since it concerns the methodology of the Internal audit
investigation and not its target, any wrong doing by a Service Provider,
which currently is still subject to investigation

 

The Council published a redacted copy of this review on its website in
connection with the meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee
which took place on 22 July 2014. The Council is no longer to seeking to
rely on the exemption contained in Section 31 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. In connection with your request for information I
enclose a redacted copy of the Review prepared for the then Interim
Director of Finance. I consider that the redacted information amounts to
personal data and is exempt information under Section 40 (2) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000; in that you are asking for 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 the individuals concerned.

 

Personal data relating to the author of the review has been redacted. This
individual was working for the Council on an interim basis and would have
a reasonable expectation that his personal data would not be disclosed to
a member of the public. The final paragraph of the report contains
information which is capable of amounting to personal data and relates to
a former employee of the Council who would also have a reasonable
expectation that their personal data would not be disclosed. This employee
was not of sufficient seniority that their personal data should be
disclosed and ceased working for the Council in 2012.

 

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. I
consider that your legitimate interest has been met by the disclosure of
the redacted report. I have considered whether there is a legitimate
public interest in disclosure and balanced this against the rights of the
individuals. I consider that disclosure of the redacted information would
cause an unwarranted interference with the rights of both the individual
who was working for the Council on an interim basis and also for the
former employee of the Council, which outweighs any legitimate interests
pursued by yourself as a third party.  I consider, as detailed above that
the first data protection principle would be breached if the withheld
information was disclosed.

 

I have had regard to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Edem
and the Information Commissioner and The Financial Services Authority
{2014, EWCA Civ 92). The issue in that appeal was whether disclosure of
the names of three employees could be withheld on the grounds that it was
personal data and that disclosure of that information would contravene the
first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 “Personal data is data
which relates to a living individual “who can be identified””.(Lord
Justice Moses-Paragraph 40 of the decision). I consider that
supplying information as to the identity of the individual who worked on
an interim basis for the Council amounts to supplying personal data. This
is an absolute exemption and not subject to the public interest test.

 

Yours Sincerely and sent on behalf of

Rosemary Lyon,

Solicitor,

Legal and Member 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

nigel hobro left an annotation ()

The person leaving in September 2012 will be Dave Garry of considerable seniority as Chief Internal Auditor.

The Garry report is contradicted by Grant Thornton and the review indicates that fiedwork amounted to a few hours by Beverley Edwards at the wirralbiz offices interviewing the two directors.

The gamut of D Garry's report amounts to mendacity and therefore I will appeal to the Information Commissioner that such mendacity does not merit protection under Data Protection Act.