Tony Maione Solicitor / Monitoring Officer's implied threat

The request was partially successful.

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

Tony Maione, North East Lincolnshire Council's Solicitor and Monitoring Officer implied a threat in an email sent 18 May 2016 concerning fraud and perjury, his correspondence contained the following:

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthre...

"You will no doubt appreciate that making allegations including perjury which are found to be unsubstantiated and/or not evidenced is itself a serious matter."

Peter Hanmer, Head of Audit and Assurance, Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect has since concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

What does North East Lincolnshire Council hold on record with regard to taking action against the accuser in the serious matter of making allegations including perjury which have been found to be unsubstantiated?

Yours faithfully,

fFaudwAtch UK

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Gilliatt

 

I am pleased to acknowledge your request for information, which has been
allocated the reference number NEL/2327/1617.

Your request has been passed to the relevant department for processing and
you can expect your response within the 20 working day limit. If it will
take us longer than 20 working days to respond to you, we will inform you
of this and provide you with the expected date for receiving a response.

Further information about how we will deal with your Freedom of
Information requests is available on our website at:

[1]https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/council-infor....

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or
assistance quoting the reference number above.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Feedback Officer

 

 

show quoted sections

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Gilliatt (aka fFaudwAtch UK)

 

On 23/06/2016, you submitted 4 Freedom of Information requests
NEL2320/1617, NEL2321/1617, NEL2322/1617 and NEL/2323/1617 through the
‘whatdotheyknow’ website, which have been followed by further requests,
follow-ups to previous requests and correspondence on 24/06/02016
(NEL2240/1617),  27/06/2016 (NEL/2327/1617),  and 01/07/2016 (2367_1617).

 

We consider that these requests, along with the large number of related
requests submitted over the past 4 of years under your own name and
pseudonyms such as fFaudwAtch UK through the ‘whatdotheyknow’ website,
form a campaign intended to frustrate and challenge the Council’s ability
to effectively administer and collect Council Tax in accordance with the
Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

Despite the Council answering and directing you to the information you
require, and signposting you to the established procedures in place to
formally challenge Council Tax decisions, you have continued to submit
regular and overlapping requests challenging the administration and
collection of Council Tax by the Council. This unreasonable persistence
and intransigence, is placing an unreasonable burden on the resources of
the Council. Further the inclusion in your requests of unfounded
accusations and the targeting of individuals addressing the issues you
have raised, appears to be a deliberate intention to personalise requests
and cause annoyance or distress. As your requests have no serious purpose
other than to continue your challenge of the Council’s administration of
Council Tax, and are not intending or attempting to obtain any recorded
information held by the Council, I have determined by virtue of section 14
(1) of the Freedom of Information Act that your requests NEL2320/1617,
NEL2321/1617, NEL2322/1617, NEL/2323/1617, NEL2240/1617, NEL/2327/1617,
and NEL 2367_1617, are vexatious in nature.

 

We will therefore not be answering be responding to requests NEL2320/1617,
NEL2321/1617, NEL2322/1617, NEL/2323/1617, NEL2240/1617, NEL/2327/1617,
and NEL 2367_1617, by virtue of section 14 (1) of the Freedom of
Information Act.

 

The Council will consider any future requests received, on a request by
request basis, but would again draw your attention to guidance issued by
the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding what you should and should
not do when making an information request, which is available on their
website: [1]https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici...

 

Please note however that requests made to continue your campaign to
challenge the administration and collection of Council Tax by the Council,
or which target the processes or individuals that are in place to handle
and address your requests for information and complaints, will be refused
in accordance with section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or
the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review
by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

 

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

 

Feedback Officer

 

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended)

Dear North East Lincolnshire Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of North East Lincolnshire Council's handling of my FOI request 'Tony Maione Solicitor / Monitoring Officer's implied threat'.

It is not the first time I've asked NELC to refrain from making spurious statements regarding unfounded allegations. I have always made doubly sure that any statements I do make can be fully supported and the council will know this. I suggest that the next time you think about making such assertions you bear this in mind.

If the council took the trouble to review every instance where it has tried to discredit me it will in all cases find that everything I have contended with regards the Council’s administration of Council Tax and established procedures has been correct. As such my requests do have serious purpose and in light of certain officers refusing to address the most recent injustice caused by the council there is even more reason for taking to the use of Freedom of Information.

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,

fFaudwAtch UK

PPD - FOI, North East Lincolnshire Council

Dear Mr Gilliatt

Further to your request an Internal Review has taken place into North East
Lincolnshire Council's handling of your information request NEL/2327/1617.

I have reviewed the response provided to you and the handling of your
request, and determine that this has been in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act, and your request was correctly refused on the basis of
Section 14 (1) of the Freedom Information Act.

I trust that this Internal Review answers your queries in relation to your
request, and clarifies that your request has been handled in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act. 

If you remain dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of your request, or
the decision of the internal review you can request an independent review
by contacting the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely on behalf of North East Lincolnshire Council

Feedback Officer

 

 

 

show quoted sections

fFaudwAtch UK (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Complaint to Information Commissioner's Office for the council's mishandling of this freedom of information request.

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF

7 July 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FOI REQUEST NE LINC'S COUNCIL – REF NUMBER 2327-1617

I made a freedom of information request to North East Lincolnshire Council. The details can be found on the “what do they know” website at the following address:

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

“Tony Maione Solicitor / Monitoring Officer's implied threat”

BACKGROUND

North East Lincolnshire Council [redact] obtained a liability order by committing [redact]. There was no debt owing, however, the Council [redact] engineered a non-payment scenario. The Police, Local Government Ombudsman and judges are complicit because all of them have looked the other way when the matter brought to their attention.

The negligence of the organisations has enabled North East Lincolnshire Council unhindered to make further [redact] demands by appointing its [redact] bailiff firm Rossendales to enforce the liability order that was obtained by lying to the court about money that is not owed.

A formal complaint had been submitted to the Council which contained an allegation of [redact] but was dealt with through the corporate complaints procedure where the Council flatly refused to address it, asserting that the concerns raised fell outside the scope of the complaints process.

It was later discovered that the a member of the Council’s complaints team should have referred the matter to the Audit, Risk, Insurance and Corporate Fraud team immediately in accordance with the 'Fraud Response Plan’.

Correspondence was entered into with the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Mr Maione, to ensure that the [redact] allegations were investigated internally by the audit and assurance team as Humberside Police would not cooperate and refused to investigate. Mr Maione seemed reluctant to deal with the matter and implied a threat in an email sent 18 May 2016. Concerning the allegations his correspondence contained the following:

“You will no doubt appreciate that making allegations including [redact] which are found to be unsubstantiated and/or not evidenced is itself a serious matter."

The audit and assurance team claimed to have carried out a detailed investigation was which was reviewed by the head of audit and assurance (Northern Lincolnshire Business Connect) who concluded that, based on the evidence of the review, he had found no evidence that any [redact] activity had taken place and stated he would not be corresponding further on the issue.

Meanwhile, the [redact] charges continue increasing (currently around £500) and it is believed the internal investigation was a cover-up to protect the reputation of the council and those who, if the matter was investigated properly, would face serious consequences.

In light of the implied threat that was made prior to the investigation, it was viewed that if the investigation genuinely found no evidence that any fraudulent activity had taken place then there would be serious consequences for the person who had made the allegations.

It is believed that the council had no plans to act on its implied threat because the investigation was a sham. This is reinforced by Mr Maione stating he would not respond to further emails, and Mr Hanmer, that he would not be corresponding further on the issue when he was asked for details of the investigation.

FOI REQUEST – 27 JUNE 2016

It was asked that the Council disclose what it held on record with regard to taking action against the accuser in the serious matter of making allegations, including [redact], which have been found to be unsubstantiated.

RESPONSE – 6 JULY 2016

The Council determined the request vexatious and refused to provide the information under section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act as it considered the request had no serious purpose other than to continue challenging the Council’s administration of Council Tax, and so not intending or attempting to obtain any recorded information held by the Council. It stated further that the request included unfounded accusations.

REQUEST FOR INTERNAL REVIEW – 6 JULY 2016

The council was reminded that it was not the first time it was asked to refrain from making spurious statements regarding unfounded allegations and that it was always made doubly sure that any statements made could be fully supported and the council would know this. It was suggested that the next time the council considered making such assertions it bore this in mind.

It was put to the council that if it took the trouble to review every instance where it has tried to discredit me it would in all cases find that everything I have contended with regards the Council’s administration of Council Tax etc., had been correct. And with that in mind the requests do have serious purpose and in light of certain officers refusing to address the most recent injustice it had caused there was even more reason for taking to the use of Freedom of Information.

RESPONSE TO INTERNAL REVIEW – 7 JULY 2016

The response and the handling of the request was determined to have been in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the request correctly refused on the basis of Section 14 (1) of the Freedom Information Act.

Yours sincerely

Closing In left an annotation ()

Information Commissioner's Decision Notice (10 January 2017):
https://tinyurl.com/zoaz243

Information Rights Tribunal, Appellant’s notice (grounds of appeal) against Decision Notice:
http://tinyurl.com/hpqdjgr

Supporting papers of Grounds of Appeal:
http://tinyurl.com/jqtqygq Exhibit 1
http://tinyurl.com/gm5759f Exhibit 2
http://tinyurl.com/jcaq3va Exhibit 3
http://tinyurl.com/gweoj33 Exhibit 4
http://tinyurl.com/j76xuyg Exhibit 5
http://tinyurl.com/gr9wc69 Exhibit 6
http://tinyurl.com/jz3pjvs Exhibit 7
http://tinyurl.com/jb8dwp3 Exhibit 8

Commissioner’s Response to appeal:
http://tinyurl.com/hdq9pd8

Closing In left an annotation ()

Tribunal's decision (9 June 2017):

https://www.scribd.com/document/35084899...

Closing In left an annotation ()

Information Rights Tribunal, Appellant’s Reply to Commissioner's Response to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal:
https://tinyurl.com/lqpecnm

Supporting papers of Appellant’s Reply:
https://tinyurl.com/lbxaao3 Exhibit A-1
https://tinyurl.com/mxuo8ah Exhibit A-2
https://tinyurl.com/ld9xt25 Exhibit A-3

Tribunal's decision (9 June 2017):

https://www.scribd.com/document/35084899...

Closing In left an annotation ()

Application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, appealing First-tier Tribunal's Decision (Information Rights).

https://www.scribd.com/document/35309378...

Closing In left an annotation ()

Tribunal judge's decision on an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal:

https://www.scribd.com/document/36937421...

Closing In left an annotation ()

Application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal (First-tier Tribunal refused permission).

1 February 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37053068...

Closing In left an annotation ()

Acknowledgement of application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal:

8 February 2018
https://www.scribd.com/document/37120119...

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org