Total Annual Figures for Compromise Agreements, etc.

Paul Cardin made this Freedom of Information request to Wycombe District 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 successful.

Dear Wycombe District Council,

Please supply Annual totals for the following:

As far as records go back, the annual figures for the total
of current employees / ex-employees (including teaching staff) of the Council who have signed compromise agreements directly related to the resolving of dispute(s) / grievance(s) / internal and external investigation(s) / whistleblowing incident(s).

In addition to this, annual figures for the number of current employees / ex-employees (including teaching staff) who have agreed, following the matter being raised and made conditional as part of a compromise agreement drawn up by the body acting as the Council's legal team, to sign and forgo their right to approach the council in the future with Freedom of Information and/or DPA Subject Access requests under the relevant Acts.

Please provide the figures in the following format e.g. 2006 - 2; 2007 - 4; 2008 - 1; 2010 - 6; etc.

Please note that I do not seek or require any personal information such as names and addresses – only the total figures for each subject area.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Linda Woznicki, Wycombe District Council

1 Attachment

Good morning,

Please find attached our response to your recent Freedom of Information
request regarding Compromise Agreements.


Linda Woznicki

Human Resources

Wycombe District Council ■ Queen Victoria Road, ■ High Wycombe ■
Bucks ■ HP11 1BB

****** DISCLAIMER *****

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and are not
necessarily those of Wycombe District Council.
This email and any files transmitted within it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email you must not copy, distribute or use the
communication in any other way. If you do receive this email in error please
contact the sender as soon as possible and
delete the email and any attachments. Wycombe District Council may monitor the
contents of email sent and received
via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its policies and

Wycombe District Council has scanned this email and attachments for viruses but
does not accept any responsibilities
for viruses once this email has been transmitted. The recipient is responsible
for scanning emails and any attachments for viruses themselves.

This message has been scanned for viruses by [1]MailControl, a service from
[2]BlackSpider Technologies.


Visible links

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council were one of the quickest respondents of the 345 councils asked, taking 8 days to respond positively and in full.

Please link here to read about the further aspects of this request:

...including councils who have attempted to prevent individuals from exercising their statutory FOI / DP querying rights.

There is a growing trend for the use of compromise agreements, not just in the area of disputes or whistleblowing, but also in general redundancy or equal pay claims. Some councils have yet to answer this query - although to date, 65 working days have elapsed.

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Here’s a piece of legal opinion from Senior Counsel Hugh Tomlinson QC, which appears to make more likely the prospect of public sector employers opting for Freedom of Information and Data Protection “gagging clauses” within compromise agreements; and thereby aiming to remove persons’ statutory rights to make data and information requests.

It has been an effective reputation management tactic, and a way of concealing the historical malpractice engaged in by employers when targetting whistleblowers or getting rid of people who’ve lodged grievances. The ruse has been deployed in the past by two councils; Cheshire West & Chester, and Brent.

The ICO are powerless to prevent it as the HT opinion implies that contract law takes precedence over a person’s statutory rights – which it appears can be surrendered. The ICO could only act if the recipient of any “ban” were to breach it and make an FoI or DP request of the relevant data controller – which is unlikely to occur because there’s always a “club over the head” of the signatory to the compromise agreement i.e. the threat of any monetary pay off being clawed back through the courts.