WBC - DASS - Ombudsman Report 2010 Wirral £30,000 compensation

Pete Sheffield made this Freedom of Information request to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

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

The request was partially successful.

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please see the following link to the Local Governments Ombudsman's Annual Review:

http://www.lgo.org.uk/documents/annualre...

It details complaints of which the following is an excerpt:

The most serious of these involved a failure over four years to provide proper services for the complainant’s disabled son. The Council apologised to the complainant and paid £30,000 compensation.

Please provide the correspondence / report from the ombudsman sent to WBC DASS outlining the outcome and recommendations of his report.

Please disclose the officer(s) names and posts responsible for this failure.

Please disclose the actions taken following the complaint being upheld by the ombudsman.

It is presumed that to go to the ombudsman that the complaint was not upheld by WBC, or when it was appealed. Please disclose the officer(s) dealing with the complaint and also the officer(s) dealing with the appeal.

Please disclose any disciplinary action taken from the outcome of the complaint.

Please disclose the officer(s) who was the line manager of any officers responsible for £30,000 of compensation being paid due to the officer(s) or departments failures.

Please disclose any lessons learned around failure to provide 'proper services'.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

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 'WBC - DASS - Ombudsman Report 2010 Wirral £30,000 compensation'.

This request is late.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

I have passed this to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please acknowledge this request and provide a timescale of which it will be answered.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

john hardaker left an annotation ()

There is nothing I look forward to more than the what do they Know email landing in my inbox to see what WBC are failing to do.
These people in Brighton Street are public servants paid for by us yet they seem to be unaccountable to ratepayers & hide behind Data protection rules which do not apply & a series of cloak & dagger replies or is that smoke & mirrors I dont know which yet ovoid the truth in all its aspects. The sooner commissioners are appointed & the council & its senior managers are shown up for what they are the better & we stop paying their wages expensive pensions & payoffs behind closed doors the better, Keep on pluging away the truth is out there somewhere.

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

Please acknowledge this request from the 21st March 2012.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

This request is still outstanding.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

This request is now a year overdue.

Yours faithfully,

Pete Sheffield

Corrin, Jane, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

 

From: Corrin, Jane
Sent: 17 June 2013 19:19
To: '[FOI #110664 email]'
Cc: InfoMgr, FinDMT
Subject: 627825 Freedom of Information request - WBC - DASS - Ombudsman
Report 2010 Wirral £30,000 compensat ion

 

Good Afternoon,

You have asked the Council for an internal review of this request for
information and our response is below.  Apologies for the length of
delay in responding to you.

 

 I consider that the information you are seeking is personal data. Data
which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that
data. (Section 1 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998).   I have taken in
account the ICO Guidance Requests for personal data about public
authority employees Version 1.1 (20121025) and the individual/s
concerned would have an expectation that details relating to them, as
requested below, would not be released into the public domain.

 

I consider that your request for information is exempt information under
Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act in that you are asking
for information which would enable you to identify individuals.  I
further 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 do not consider that any of the conditions in Schedule 2
would be met. 

 

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 have considered whether there is a
legitimate public interest in disclosure and balanced this against the
rights of the employee.  This is an absolute exemption and not subject
to the public interest test.

 

I am therefore refusing your request for information under Section 17
(1) of Freedom of Information Act 2000, relying on the exemption
contained in Section 40 (2) of the Act.

 

In regard to your question about “lessons learned”, please see attached
documents which I hope you find of use.

 

Kind Regards

Jane Corrin

Information Manager

Transformation and Resources

Wirral Council

 

 

show quoted sections

Corrin, Jane, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

3 Attachments

Apologies for not including attachments.

 

Good Afternoon,

You have asked the Council for an internal review of this request for
information and our response is below.  Apologies for the length of delay
in responding to you.

 

 I consider that the information you are seeking is personal data. Data
which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that data.
(Section 1 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998).   I have taken in account
the ICO Guidance Requests for personal data about public authority
employees Version 1.1 (20121025) and the individual/s concerned would have
an expectation that details relating to them, as requested below, would
not be released into the public domain.

 

I consider that your request for information is exempt information under
Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act in that you are asking
for information which would enable you to identify individuals.  I further
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 do not
consider that any of the conditions in Schedule 2 would be met. 

 

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 have considered whether there is a legitimate
public interest in disclosure and balanced this against the rights of the
employee.  This is an absolute exemption and not subject to the public
interest test.

 

I am therefore refusing your request for information under Section 17 (1)
of Freedom of Information Act 2000, relying on the exemption contained in
Section 40 (2) of the Act.

 

In regard to your question about “lessons learned”, please see attached
documents which I hope you find of use.

 

Kind Regards

Jane Corrin

Information Manager

Transformation and Resources

Wirral Council

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Corrin, Jane,

Thank you for your two replies on the same day. Thank you for your apology.

I will refer this back to the ICO as I consider this a blunt application of the exemption rather than considering each point in detail.

I will also refer this back as the response and the internal review has been conducted by the same officer when there is an expectation that a more senior officer will consider the issues when there has been a complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Pete Sheffield

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Good Morning

 

Further to your freedom of information request of the 21^st March 2012, we
have received a request from the ICO to revisit this matter and this
represents our response in the light of that request . We have notified
the ICO accordingly .

 

Please refer to revised response below:

 

Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,

    

Please see the following link to the Local Governments Ombudsman's Annual
Review:

    

[1]http://www.lgo.org.uk/documents/annualre...

    

It details complaints of which the following is an excerpt:

    

The most serious of these involved a failure over four years to provide
proper services for the complainant’s disabled son. The Council apologised
to the complainant and paid £30,000 compensation.

    

Please provide the correspondence / report from the ombudsman sent to WBC
DASS outlining the outcome and recommendations of his report.

 

RESPONSE:

Letter from the Ombudsman attached – redacted to protect personal
information. There was no formal report from the Ombudsman

 

 

Please disclose the officer(s) names and posts responsible for this
failure.

 

RESPONSE: 

The request for names is a request for personal data and the request for
posts may lead to personal data i.e the name of a person being
disclosed .The Council therefore needs to consider the question of data
protection. Under s41 of the Freedom of Information Act the Council may
withhold such information if its disclosure would contravene Data
Protection principles . In this case the Council considers that disclosure
would be unfair and therefore contrary to the First Data Protection
Principle .    The Council have considered whether any of the Data
Protection Principles set out in Schedule 2 which are necessary for the
first Data Protection Principle to be satisfied are met ( notwithstanding
the Council's view that such processing is unfair in any event) and do not
consider that any of these are met.  The information is therefore exempt 
from disclosure under s 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 . This
is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply  

 

 

Please disclose the actions taken following the complaint being upheld by
the ombudsman.

 

RESPONSE:

Please see the letter from the Ombudsman redacted. The action referred to
was taken by the Council i.e. the payment was made.

Please see attached

 

 

It is presumed that to go to the ombudsman that the complaint was not
upheld by WBC, or when it was appealed. Please disclose the officer(s)
dealing with the complaint and also the officer(s) dealing with the
appeal. 

 

 RESPONSE:

It is not clear what your question is. You make a presumption and then ask
a number of question based on that. Please see the Ombudsman letter to the
Council   . 

 

 

Please disclose any disciplinary action taken from the outcome of the
complaint.

 

RESPONSE:

No disciplinary action was taken

 

 

Please disclose the officer(s) who was the line manager of any officers
responsible for £30,000 of compensation being paid due to the officer(s)
or departments failures.

 

RESPONSE:

John Webb, Director of Adult Social Services was the line Manager  . 
Details of officers below that are not provided. The identity of Mr Webb
as Director at this time is already in the public domain. In respect of
the identity of line managers below that this is personal data .The
Council therefore needs to consider the question of data protection. Under
s40  of the Freedom of Information Act the Council may withhold such
information if its disclosure would contravene Data Protection principles
. In this case the Council considers that disclosure would be unfair and
therefore contrary to the First Data Protection Principle .    The Council
have considered whether any of the Data Protection Principles set out in
Schedule 2 which are necessary for the first Data Protection Principle to
be satisfied are met ( notwithstanding the Council's view that such
processing is unfair in any event) and do not consider that any of these
are met.  The information is therefore exempt under s 40 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.   This is an absolute exemption and the public
interest test does not apply     

 

 

Please disclose any lessons learned around failure to provide 'proper
services'.

 

Response:

This is not considered to be a request for information ? Please indicate
what specific information you request. The Council by way of its duty to
advise and assist advises that a  dedicated Transitions Team bridging
Children’s and Adults Services was created to substantially reduce the
risk of repetition of any failings identified by the Ombudsman .

 

Kind regards

Sent on behalf of

Anne Quirk

Senior Solicitor

Department of Transformation and Resources

Wirral Borough Council

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lgo.org.uk/documents/annualre...