And the Discretionary Housing Payments and Freedom of Information Saga Goes On...(Part 2)

A bit later than I indicated but here's the second part of my story on the battles with Freedom of Information and Discretionary Housing Payments.

I should say from the outset that this is as much a story of total ineptitude by the Information Commissioner's Office as anything else. 

You may remember I questioned Information Governance's claim that they hadn't had a decision made against them by the Information Commissioner in the last two years. I pointed out that this was partly because the Information Commissioner's office is, well, a bit shit. At the time, despite promising me a decision notice last October it still hadn't been delivered.

Finally, after quite a lot of badgering and impolite emails, it's here now.

Now the ICO upheld NCC's decision to refuse to provide all of the information I requested on cost grounds, despite the fact that NCC actually provided me with the info once the ICO had become involved. Weird huh? The decision deserves a closer look.

NCC's original decision stated the following -

“As Nottingham City Council only records successful applicants, an Officer would need to manually check the imaging system and paper records for each year to work out the total number of applicants for the scheme. There are 174 cases caught by the time period and each case would take approximately 45 minutes to check." (para 3)

Now, remember here that the bit of info they were refusing to provide was the TOTAL NUMBER of applications to the DHP scheme. Yet despite this they state that there are 174 cases to check. This number turned out to be bollocks but surely, if there are 174 cases to check, there are 174 applications? Apparently not quite. We'll get back to this.

Anyway, wheels turned, cogs made grinding noises and the ICO eventually became involved. Further information emerged -

"[NCC] also stated that there were not 174 cases as previously quoted, but in fact 3533 cases from August 2001 until 9 September 2009." (para 12)

Eh? But that's what I wanted to know! What's the problem here? NCC went on to explain the growth in the number of cases -

"The public authority said that it had provided the information which it held at the time of the request. The public authority had kept details of unsuccessful applications on an Excel spreadsheet for 07/08 and 08/09, there were 100 unsuccessful applications in 07/08 and there had been 74 unsuccessful applications during 08/09 at the time of the request." (para 13)

Hang on a minute. Didn't they originally say they only kept records of SUCCESSFUL cases? Yet now they are saying they have a spreadsheet recording only UNSUCCESSFUL cases? Does anybody out there run a training course detailing the distinguishing features of the arse and the elbow?

This passed the ICO caseworker by. Instead s/he asked NCC whether they could break the 3533 cases down into constituent years and NCC said that they could, using the magic of computers, and it would take under an hour. However, the information was qualified in the following manner -

"[NCC] stated that this amounted to an estimate because it was possible that the totals included documents that may have been misidentified as applications and it would not necessarily have identified where an applicant submitted more than one application. It maintained that the only way to locate and retrieve the information that had actually been requested, i.e. the total number of applications actually received (as opposed to an estimate) was to conduct a search of manual and electronic files to check how many applications each applicant had submitted and to eliminate any documents that the search query had picked up in error and that this would exceed the appropriate limit." (para 16)


Well I mean come on. Surely any management information system is only as good as the information input and that's implicit in any request. Does anybody think that human beings manually checking 3533 paper files will produce a 100% accurate answer?

And the idea that the possibility of multiple applications per 'case' sounds a bit desperate. Yes it's possible but how likely is it to happen within a given year? Surely, most people who are refused would challenge the decision via the review process. And why wouldn't this be picked up in a query for 'applications' anyway?

So essentially, what I'm saying here is that the information NCC provided was an acceptable answer to my request but it only happened once the ICO had become involved. Open and shut case of finding against NCC then? Read on.

After my chivvying them on a bit the ICO finally remembered in May this year that it had agreed to provide a decision notice. This was 14 months after I'd sent them my complaint. They were still convinced that in order to provide the answer that I needed it was necessary to check every single case file. However, they didn't go along with everything NCC claimed -

"[NCC] stated that the target time for the public authority staff to process each application is 40 minutes per case which in its opinion added further strength to the public authority’s application of section 12." (para 22)

So NCC claimed that it would take longer to check a file of an application than it would have done to process the application itself. Bear in mind, all they're looking for is the possibility of there being more than one application in there and DHP claims require fairly in-depth analysis of income and expenditure and qualitative judgment of a claimant's circumstances. It's a small mercy but the ICO wasn't having any of that -

"Having reviewed the representative sample of manual files the Commissioner found that it took an average of approximately 3 minutes per file to locate the information relevant to the request." (para 23)


Quite a difference between 45 minutes and 3 isn't it?

The ICO then went on to conclude that, even with this lower estimate of the time taken to check the files, 3533 cases at 3 minutes each would still be greater than the limit above which charges could be made and, if you accept the premise that all the files needed checking individually you have to accept that's fair enough. Ergo, after all that, the ICO decided that NCC was correct to refuse my request on cost grounds. Look out for Information Governance claiming that as a full vindication at a committee meeting near you soon.

The ICO did however find that NCC failed to provide adequate advice and assistance although s/he wasn't very clear in explaining this. At a push I can see an argument for saying that NCC could have explained at the outset that I could have their 'estimate' figure instead of the absolutely accurate figure they were saying would be too much work but the ICO just says that NCC could have offered the information for a shorter time frame. Bizarre.

To be fair, none of this is the Information Governance staff's fault. They are not specialists in Discretionary Housing Payments and have to ask the Housing Benefits service for the information. When they are sold a bullshit like "oh we have to check every file, costs a fortune" they have no alternative but to accept that. The people to blame are the Housing Benefits staff who did the selling, at the least we are talking major cock-up in not having the imagination to first look into pulling info off the database and such a lack of imagination is quite believable, especially at the top. However, given the inconsistent rubbish that's been spouted at various stages by ways of explanation and given that the information finally gleaned painted a very poor picture of the Housing Benefits service's ability to administer the DHP scheme, the possibility of conspiracy cannot be entirely discounted.

In an interesting footnote to the decision, The ICO criticises NCC for taking 40 days to respond to my initial request for a review. This in a decision which took them 15 months to provide including 7 months of sitting on its arse doing nothing in response to my demand for a formal decision notice. I think NCC is entitled to accuse the ICO of rank hypocrisy on that one.

And the Discretionary Housing Payments and Freedom of Information Saga Goes On...(Part 1)

A story of two parts here. Firstly, you may wish to take a look back to the last installment in the tale for a catch up.

Back? Ok, well first we'll take a look at the table DHP spending which I've updated from the latest FoIA response I got on the subject -

First the good news. For the first time in the history of the DHP scheme NCC has actually spent some of its own money on DHP payments. The bad news of course is that part of the reason for this is the year on year reduction in government grant and subsequent overall spending limit caused by relentless underspend in the past (a feature of the DHP scheme is that if you don't spend your allocation your grant is reduced the next year). Another problem of course is that they've finally dipped in their own pockets just as those pockets have been significantly reduced in size and we have the unknown of a Tory government.

The second piece of good news is that in 2009/10 there was a major increase in applicants accompanied by, you guessed it, a big drop in the success rate. Still, that resulted in an extra £15k or so going into tenants' pockets so something has gone right. Obviously I'd like to flatter myself that I might have played a small part in causing that to happen. I bloody hope so, I've written enough about it.

Oh by the way, the FoIA response claimed that the various working groups promised were internal so weren't minuted. That's bollocks, I'm not believing that for a second.

Part 2 of this ongoing saga, which is more a tale of the ineptness of the Freedom of Information machinary than DHPs per se, will probably arrive some time tomorrow. But don't bank on it.

Addendum - Back in September 2006 the Task and Finish Panel on Debt Collection were given a report on DHPs. According to the minutes they asked for a further report on the very high refusal rates for DHPs.

The Panel's final report included the following recommendation -

"The panel recommends that the government grant for Discretionary Housing Payments is fully utilised for the benefit of citizens by adopting a more rigorous approach to its allocation and management, to include:

• undertaking benchmarking with other authorities to establish more consistent decision making;

• improving quality assurance processes for consistent and fair decision making;

• undertaking joint working with NCH and with advice providers in the city to maximise access to DHPs."

At the time of the September 2006 meeting (i.e. part way through the year) the panel was asking why 59% of applications were refused. By the end of that year the refusal rate had climbed to nearly 68%. It did drop for the next two years but increased again in 2010.

Those Fixed Penalty Notices Again - More Info

We've had a response to our Freedom of Info request regarding the enforcement of fixed penalty notices which I blogged about at the back end of June. It's quite interesting so allow me to tell you about it.

It seems that the only policy in place for deciding which FPNs to enforce is an over arching NCC wide 'Enforcement Policy Statement'. Not that they actually gave me the link mind, the unhelpful buggers just told me it was on the website and left me to find it for myself. At least this time the site's search facility worked.

Anyway, this document is predictably vague and makes lots of soft claims about being courteous and proportionate and the like. As far as I can tell it contains nothing about situations where there aren't enough resources to enforce all cases and which ones are priorities (or perhaps 'priority driven prioritisations' in NCC corporate wankspeak). There's stuff about taking into account the 'history of the party concerned' which might seem to imply that someone who regularly picks tickets up or doesn't pay them would warrant closer attention next time but that's about it. Pretty poor, should do better IMHO.

Onto the numbers then cos they're quite juicy.

I asked about hoe many people had managed to evade enforcement for more than two FPNs due to the six month time limit and apparently there have been eleven since June 2006. Of these two people have managed to avoid enforcement on seven FPNs and this the record so far apparently. Seven! Wonder how they managed to get away with that? It's difficult to see why they don't prosecute if they know who it is, which they clearly do as they've kept track of the numbers. Doesn't seem to be consistent with the bit about taking the person's history into account. Strange.

I think this pretty much confirms my original suspicions that enforcement is pretty random. While I understand the thinking behind having an overall policy FPNs are a bit of a special case due to the numbers involved. As I said before, once you face a situation where not all cases will be enforced you need to decide how to prioritise cases fairly.

If you've been issued with a FPN and paid up you might feel a bit sick about all that.

Labour Smacks Down Tory Motion to Help Rehabilitate Offenders. Yes It Really is That Way Round...

Slightly odd news coming through about the last full council meeting via the 'Post'.

In one of those strange surreal moments that politics sometimes throws up at us Tory Group Leader Cllr Andrew Price (and there's someone who looks more like his own reflection in a spoon than he should do) has gone all Ken Clarke on us and proposed a hippy drippy (nay, frankly liberal by George!) motion asking that NCC reserves guaranteed jobs and interviews for ex-offenders. There's some other more mainstream stuff in there like increased use of 'Community Payback' but I reckon Norman Tebbit must be turning in his grave*, whatever happened to hang 'em and flog 'em?

Obviously it wasn't passed. It was, after all, an opposition motion and that will never do. JoCo puffed his chest out and said they couldn't go reserving jobs for bad'uns and ne're-do-wells when the not so hippy-drippy wing of the ConDem party in Whitehall is planning on making the entire public sector redundant.

"All our focus will be on the people we currently employ and don't want to leave us."

he chirruped.

Hmmm. So, Collins believes that the Council's first duty is to keep current employees in work when redundancies are threatened does he? Thinks it's wrong for councils to give disadvantaged groups a bit of a leg-up in the jobs market eh? That needs looking at doesn't it?

First of all let's have a look at NCC's record at re-employing those it makes redundant, with a bit of help from a FoIA response I had lying around (not one of mine, personal details redacted for privacy).

In 2007/8 NCC made 103 people redundant and retired 40 on health grounds. Of those, 56 found their way onto the redeployment register, 35 of whom were found another job. So that's around 24% kept on the books.

Things got a bit grimmer in 2008/9. 168 people made redundant, 45 retired on health grounds and only 30 qualifying for redeployment, 13 of whom were found new jobs. I make that a success rate of about 6%.

This is hardly painting a picture of an organisation striving to keep its workers in jobs and things do appear to be getting worse. Remember, this was well into the economic crisis but before NCC started announcing its own large scale redundancies (although 'announcing' and 'planning' are obviously not the same thing).

Next up let's look at whether JoCo really does believe it's a bad idea to help disadvantaged groups with guaranteed interviews or other help.

Well, if he's being consistent he will want to withdraw NCC support and assistance to groups like PATRA who provide traineeships for people from BME communities. He might also want to have a look at the apprenticeship program which, according to the March 2010 'One Nottingham' minutes (see p4) was providing 16 placements for at least one vulnerable group, erm, ex-offenders. Surely, if JoCo's logic expressed at full Council is to be followed, these traineeships and apprenticeships should first be offered to those NCC employees facing redundancy no?

Of course these schemes will remain supported and rightly so. It remains to be seen what efforts NCC will make to re-employ redundant staff but for the time being the priority seems to be to smack down an opposition motion, even though it isn't very far off what NCC are doing already.

Cllr Price's motion may not have been perfect (not sure about the guaranteed jobs bit personally) but we let an opportunity for cross-party support for measures for rehabilitating offenders slip through our fingers at our peril, the consequences will be there to bite us back long into the future.

*Yeah I know you can still see him walking about and that but I reckon a grave is where he sleeps. He doesn't look like he sees much light anyroad.

That Chocolate Teapot I mentioned? It Just Melted

An update of the post I wrote a few weeks back on one of my Freedom of Information forays.

I was asking about the system where NCC or one of its committees decides to delegate specific powers to an individual officer. Nothing wrong with the basic idea, after all arranging a council or committee meeting is time consuming and it's inefficient to have to do so for every itty bitty little thing.

However it's a process that needs to be applied carefully and appropriately and you need to keep track of it, otherwise you could get any idiot making decisions without anybody knowing about it (stop sniggering at the back...)

Anyway, last time we looked NCC had sent me a register of officers with delegated powers, it's just that it was from 1998. This seemed a bit inadequate to me so I asked for a review.

I have now had a response to that request and it is pretty much as I suspected. That really is the most up to date record that they have. That is really fucking shocking.

There are two things that strike me about this response. The first concerns the manner in which Information Governance has confused the provision of a specific document, an up to date register which they say doesn't exist, with the provision of information. The information that I asked for clearly does exist, no council officer is given 'A' delegated powers unless it is agreed by full council or one of its committees. So details of such officers are contained in the minutes of those committees' meetings. The fact that nobody could be arsed to keep track of them in a central register is neither here nor there.

I did wonder if they would claim that the information existed but that it could only be provided at disproportionate cost. This is the one they initially tried it on with my attempts at getting info about Discretionary Housing Payments. It's a useful way for councils to dodge providing information and usually involves claiming that a search of eleventy thousand documents will be required (in reality usually a few hundred) and that each document will take 45 minutes to examine (in reality about 5. They always say 45 minutes though in order to look like they've thought about it, 'about an hour' sounds just too throwaway). They then tell you that this work will cost you £25/hour to do (in reality it's done by an admin worker on about £8/hour) and present you with an estimate for the total cost which is slightly more than the budget for their entire libraries service.

It's a win/win situation. Either they get out of putting embarrassing information into the public domain or, if you're daft enough to cough up they get a piece of work done that they should have been doing anyway and make a tidy profit to boot.

The second, and most important, aspect is that the full implication of this decision is that NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO IS GOING ABOUT THE PLACE EXERCISING EXECUTIVE POWERS ON ITS BEHALF.

Make no mistake this is profound. Everything that any NCC council officer does in the course of her/his job is done in the name of Nottingham City Council which in corporate terms means the councillors. Delegation of powers cuts to the heart of local government, it couldn't function otherwise and there are very long and detailed documents in the council's constitution which set out how powers must be delegated. With no up-to-date record how do we know that powers have been delegated appropriately and legally?

On a personal level, this will have an impact on my 'Gardengate' case. A significant part of my defence is that the Development Control Committee alone has the power to decide on enforcement actions as determined by the constitution adopted by full council in May 2003. NCC claims that officers involved have delegated authority to do so and have cited a committee decision made prior to the adoption of the new constitution as evidence.

To my mind this development is another nail in their argument's coffin. If we assume, safely in my view, that delegated powers can be removed as well as awarded how can NCC prove that their officers have the relevant delegated powers if no record has been kept of the comings and goings of delegation decisions since 1998?

Technically True But...

At the 17 June meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Information Governance gave a presentation on their recent performance.

There were some slightly amusing claims such as -

"...it was known nationally that journalists were using the legislation to have their research done for them by local authorities..."

I think they're confusing themselves with Wikipedia there but more interestingly, there was this -

"...during the last two years, no decision notices, other than one in respect of a case dating back to 2005, had been issued by the Information Commissioner against the Council..."

Ignoring the fact that that does mean that there WAS a decision issued against them within the last two years, this ignores the fact that the ICO is trying to move away from formal decision notices to informal resolution. So the fact that they haven't had any formal decision notices against them is a form of sophistry designed to hide the fact that complainants have successfully taken cases to the Information Commissioner but the ICO has persuaded the council to back down at the last minute, on the basis that a formal decision against them often offends.

Take this example. Last year I put quite a lot of effort into chasing up the appalling success record of applications for Discretionary Housing Payments. This included Freedom of Information requests, appeals and the case going to the ICO. I eventually got the info but only after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and it appears to have been via an informal resolution.

Now I wasn't happy about this so I demanded that the ICO issued a formal decision because I am of the firm belief that councils and other large organisations do not learn unless they are named and shamed (hence the existence of this blog). This they agreed to do last October.

However, this obviously involves doing some work so I am still waiting. In the meantime as a result of this and presumably a number of other similar cases Information Governance can go and claim a pristine record to councillors.

Fixed Penalty Notice Lottery

This found its way to me via fellow Nottingham blogger Benjamin Barton who has been having a bit of a busy time with the old Freedom of Information requests to our dear old council.

Ben asked a few pertinent questions about the issuing of fixed penalty notices for littering and the like, what NCC likes to dub 'enviro-crime', and got himself an interesting response.

The council disclosed that, at the time of writing, they had 1898 fixed penalty notices outstanding, by which they mean that the fine is unpaid and over 21 days old. After stating that there is no 'average time' for a summons to be issued (clearly not true, there will be an average time, they just haven't bothered to calculate it but I digress) it gets really interesting, saying that -

"... however there is a statutory bar at six months [for issuing a summons], meaning that if a summons has not been issued within six months of the date of the fine, it is not pursued. It is not unusual for the backlog to push the outstanding fine over the six month bar, in which case no summons is issued."

So, I thought, don't pay your fine and you have a chance that you might get away with it if your case falls off the back end of the shelf. Not a good situation for anybody I don't think. Whatever your view of fixed penalty notices you'd at least want the system to be operated as fairly as possible.

You see, once it becomes inevitable that not all FPNs are recovered, then someone has to decide which ones are allowed to lapse. This could be done by individual officers 'using their discretion' on the fly, which, and I want to make this absolutely clear, obviously does NOT mean dumping their mates' FPNs down the recycling chute or maybe backing off when the local hard man's name pops up a bit too regularly, then using the time freed up to pick on easy to trace types such as disabled and mentally ill owner occupiers. Or it can be governed by a policy, in order to ensure some fairness.

I think it would be useful to find out which approach NCC uses so I've submitted a follow up FoIA request. You can see it here and I'll post again when I get a response. Which of course, as a matter of principle, will be an absolute minimum of 20 working days.

And the Chocolate Teapot Award Goes To...

Another day, another Freedom of Information request.

This time I wanted to know which NCC officers had been formally delegated powers to act on behalf of the council on their own initiative, referred to in the Constitution as 'A Delegated Powers' (see p27 of Appendix 6(d)).

I now have a response, including the list of delegated powers here. Have a look and see if you can work out what's wrong with it. The clue's on the front cover. At the bottom, small writing. Got it?

"Issue Date: October 1998"

So the document they have sent me is 12 years out of date. Clearly it was prepared when NCC got unitary status and hasn't been looked at since. Hardly any of the committees and departments even exist any more and within that time frame NCC has given itself an entirely new constitution. For all I know, some of the functions listed may not even be the responsibility of NCC anymore. And, most importantly, what of delegations that have been made since? Or been modified or removed and placed back with a committee or the Executive? How does anybody at NCC know who's supposed to do what?

This is really rather shabby and of course I've requested a review. However I wonder if they will be able to provide anything else? It really wouldn't surprise me if they haven't kept it up to date. I shall let you know what happens.

Harold Tinworth - An Update

Had a further response to my FoIA request about the decision to commission services from Harold Tinworth's company 'Regional and Local Associates'.

As you can see, NCC are saying that they have no further info regarding the decision to spend over £25k pa on a consultant to provide unspecified services. That's not good.

Apparently the Audit Commission is investigating this one and I'll hopefully be able to update you further on that fairly soon.

Harold Tinworth-gate

Everything's got to be a 'gate' these days so who am I to spoil the party?

So. Harold Tinworth. Who he? I hear you clamour.

Surprise surprise he's another consultant who's made quite a packet from NCC. £111k over four years according to the 'Post', which was where I first heard of him. I blogged about this briefly at the time.

Anyway, publicly at least, the Tories' angle seemed to be that JoCo needed a 'personal mentor' ner ner ne ner ner whereas Collins' defence was basically that no he didn't, not like some of those wimpy Chief Execs he'd got rid of in the past.

But that seemed to me to miss the point which is that there is a distinct lack of a paper trail for approving over £25k pa expenditure on behalf of NCC and as such, there's a bit of a stinky fish.

So I stuck in a Freedom of Info request and I've just got something back. While quite interesting, it doesn't get us much further forward on this most important point.

The interesting bit is the copy of the memo they sent me which seems to reflect a certain amount of discomfort that existed at the sort of work HT was doing. The official drafting the memo says, with some very classy understatement -

"Perhaps it is the fact that certain Executive Member/Senior Officer working relationships are not as close as in previous regimes, which brings this issue into spotlight?"

This was all around the time covered by the Hardmoor Associates report that famously described NCC as dysfunctional.

But the thing is, that's all this document is, a memo. It's not a Portfolio Holder's decision which it should be at the very least, considering the level of expenditure. So NCC have failed to provide the most important document that would get JoCo off the hook. Now, why do you think that could be?

Well, I'm chasing it up with NCC via the FoI process so hopefully we'll soon find out. Or not so soon more likely. Due to their failure to respond within the time limit it's already at the review stage so I've given them until the time limit for that to run out to get any further stuff to me. That runs out (I think) on 21 May.

In the meantime, marvel at the fact that Mr Tinworth's fees went from £600/day in December 2005 to £680/day by July 2008, an increase of over 13% in little more than 2 1/2 years. Compare and contrast with the sort of settlements local government employees have had over the same time period. After October 2008 NCC goes all secretive blaming 'commercial interests' which suggests to me there was another price rise after that.

As we say often around here, nice work if you can get it.

The Employment Tribunal Investigations Unit; You Couldn't make it Up (although it seems someone did)

I know I haven't mentioned it much but last year I was involved in an Employment Tribunal case with Nottingham City Council. Modesty prevents me from mentioning the fact that I won obviously.

So you can imagine my interest being awakened when I saw a mention of an 'Employment Tribunal Investigations Unit' mentioned in the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting of 18 December last year. So I stuck in a Freedom of Information request to find out a bit more about it.

Here's the reply I got.

"I have investigated your request and the answer to your questions is that there is no 'Employment Tribunal Investigations Unit' and the mention of such within the minutes of the meeting you speak of was a clerical error."

I mean, what would your first reaction be? Why would someone randomly ask about a fictitious 'Employment Tribunal Investigation Unit' at a meeting? Why not 'Paperclip Accountability Commission'? Or 'Robot Kitten Recovery Squad'?

Then I had a thought and rushed off to check the minutes of the meeting again and yes, you've guessed it, they've amended them. Now, the mention of 'Employment Tribunal Investigation Unit' has been changed to "the Council's approach to dealing with Employment Tribunals". (see minute 54(2))

Hmmm, something smells a bit like fish. I suppose it's feasible that the minute taker misunderstood what was said and conflated a request to look into the approach to employment tribunals as meaning a full blown 'investigations unit' but it's also just possible that NCC would be embarrassed about having such a thing, as that would imply that NCC is subject to quite a lot of employment tribunals, suggesting that they weren't the most sympathetic of employers, and that would never do.

I can't be bothered asking for review, I'll just wait for the minutes of the meeting where it's being discussed.

What's the betting that that they pull the shutters down and claim a public interest exclusion?

Update 14 Feb; I have received reliable info that the 'Employment Tribunal Investigation Unit' WAS mentioned at the December 09 meeting but that at the next meeting it was announced that there was in fact no such thing. In other words it doesn't seem to be the fault of the minute taker.

Cost of the 'Arrow'

Blimey heck, a Freedom of Info request has revealed that the cost of the 'Arrow', NCC's glossy propaganda rag, has shot up by a factor of nearly 9 times in 5 years.

In 2004/05, it cost £47,968 but this had risen to £417,810 by 2008/09. The big jump seems to have been between 2005/06 and 2006/07 when the cost shot up from £80,299 to £258,106.

But you've got to admit, it's a page turner and no mistake and I'm sure we all agree it's worth every penny.

Update; apparently they've increased the frequency of publication, thanks Cllr Foster

It's Just Numbers...

Been meaning to write about this for a while but was somewhat overtaken by real world events (see Tales from the Tribunal).

You might remember some stuff over the summer about the Sustainable Communities Act? It's supposed to allow local authorities the chance to order up specific local legislation for local conditions and lots of other things involving the word local. NCC did a consultation on it and the conclusions they have drawn from it are here.

The part of the consultation exercise that you are most likely to have seen was the website consultation questionnaire but that wasn't all there was. There were separate consultations with area committees, the Crime and Drugs Partnership's 'Independent Advisory Group', a number of community groups, a business breakfast and others. The collated results are in this MSExcel document.

Not sure what use the 'business breakfast' was, apparently there was "no opportunity for collective discussion and collation of views", presumably too busy stuffing their faces with Full English paid for by the taxpayer. I'm also confused as to how the IAG managed to provide 210 responses to each question seeing as it only has 14 members. Presumably close family and friends were included. This latter point takes on extra significance when you see how differently the various camps responded. The second biggest group of respondees came from the web consultation.

So lets have a look at how the different groups felt about some of the proposals then.

The first suggestion was that drivers should be held liable for littering from cars unless they name the person responsible. It's not clear if respondents were asked how they would deal with the not totally unpredictable scenario where the named driver denies it and blames the driver in return and I won't consider what would happen when your Community Warden is faced with a full MPV. The IAG agreed with this proposal 206-3 (presume one abstained) whereas the web consultation wasn't quite as positive at 118-59. The Equalities Forum was foursquare behind it but the Youth Council disagreed 6-11. Note that implies the YC has 17 members, more than the IAG's 14 but they don't appear to have been given the opportunity to drag up extra votes like the IAG did. NCC decided to go ahead with this proposal.

Next, let's have a look at the proposal to speed up the process of dealing with 'grotty' privately owned houses, giving removing rubbish from gardens and sorting out derelict properties as examples of what this means. NCC suggests that the 28 days allowed to carry out works is too long and should be reduced. The IAG wasn't quite so supportive on this one, only 203 members supported the measure while 7 disagreed. However, the web consultation was split down the middle 90-92. The Youth Council was against it at 2-15 as was NCVS at 3-10. The Equalities Forum was in favour 7-1 but with 4 abstentions. So, considerable disquiet on this one, happily NCC is going ahead with it anyway.

Noise problems next. When there's a noise complaint NCC wants to be able to barge in and confiscate equipment first and ask questions (including asking for clearance from the courts) later. The IAG agreed with this 208-1 with 1 'not sure'. In the web consultation it was 101-73. Hmm, anybody noticing a pattern emerging here? The Youth Council was split 7-7, NCVS was in favour with 9 votes (not sure if the rest were against or abstentions), and the Equalities Forum voted 9 in favour with 3 abstentions but rather hit the nail on the head that reasonable evidence should be obtained to avoid malicious accusations. Hard to see how that could be included but I'm sure NCC will think of something because they're pursuing this one too.

I could go on but there is a very clear pattern of the IAG+friends voting overwhelmingly in favour of all the proposals whereas the other constituencies were far more ambivalent. This includes the 'Community Safety Zones' suggestion where concerns were raised about affecting the right to protest and the fact that buskers add 'colour' and were therefore a good thing. NCC has even responded to some of the concerns by removing any mention of protests, still the IAG voted 200-10 in favour of the measure including protests compared to the web consultation voting against 56-128.

You are left wondering what this consultation exercise would have looked like without the IAG, and also what kind of 'hang em and flog em' type people are members. The difference in voting is so stark as to be reasonably arguable that it has skewed the results. Now I'm SURE that wasn't NCC's intention, why that would be ridiculous but NCC would have had a hard time arguing that the consultation supported many of the proposals without them.

So it seems the war on hedges and swearing in the park is to go up a gear via another wave of populist authoritarianism. Very 'New Labour'. Still, keep the masses at each other's throats over their scruffy gardens and they won't pay too much attention to councillors failing to declare business interests or helping their 'grandson' jump the housing queue.

Some Thoughts on Passive Aggression

I was talking to a friend the other day and we were laughing about how NCC people who have just shafted you in one way or another suddenly come over all victim mode when you complain and their non-arguments dissolve before their very eyes.

The letter from NCC giving me the further info in response to my FoIA request is quite a good example so let's take the piss out of it for a laugh.

Initially my request was refused on the basis that it would have been necessary to manually look at each and every application for 45 minutes in order to find out how many there were because they apparently had no system to count them in as they arrived.

The trouble with peddling such self evident nonsense is that eventually you have to admit that you were talking bollocks or find some ingenious way of arguing that no, what they were saying was right but they've found a new way of looking at it and have DONE A LOT OF WORK especially for you. At which point I presume you're supposed to feel special and a little bit guilty about putting them to so much trouble.

So the figures for the total number off applications to the DHP scheme was "...information [that] has been generated specifically at the request of the Information Commissioners Office..." and in no way whatsoever was "...information that was readily available or previously held (in this format) by the Council..." and that was why they couldn't tell me before without lots of costly looking through files. Nothing at all to do with embarrassment over the piss-poor success rate of applications from poor people who have probably since been evicted despite a massive underspend of the available budget. Oh no.

But, in a heroic attempt to make me feel better "...a piece of computer program was written..." and amazingly they could get me the info after all.

I kid you not. They really said "...a piece of computer program was written...". You just know that whoever wrote that letter is a real hit with the IT helpdesk with constant calls about how they've saved a document but don't know where and wondering why their computer doesn't work when in fact they've just forgotten to switch the monitor on.

Look, I'm no techie myself but I'm willing to hazaed a guess that the 'piece of computer program' was an enquiry for the database, probably MS Access. A woman I used to work with could sort one of those in a few minutes especially if it was a simple one like 'how many applications have we had'.

And then they go on to explain at some length how the numbers relate only to the number of application forms received which isn't the same as the number of applications because "...some individuals may have need to submit more than one application, therefore some forms received may relate to the same person...". Well, yeah but as far as I can see the only reason why anybody would have to apply more than once is if they were refused the first time and didn't bother asking for a review or their time-limited award ran out. In such cases it's valid to count them as separate applications, I'm not particularly bothered about some being from the same applicant. It also doesn't account for 'human error' either apparently. Of which, being Nottingham City Council, there is probably a lot.

Apparently this is why they initially applied the cost exemption because they thought I wanted an absolutely accurate count and the 'piece of computer program' could only give me an approximate one.

What rot.

A Reminder...

A while back I set up a petition in the following terms -

"We believe that Nottingham City Council should publish all Freedom of Information requests it receives along with the responses on its website. We therefore call on Nottingham City Council to implement this simple act in the interests of openness and accountability."

Just a little reminder to please, please sign it here, I really do think it would be a positive step towards greater openness in local government.

Please be aware that, being a free petition site it tries to get you to donate money. It's not compulsory, the way through is to sign as requested, click 'sign', and then you get taken to a 'please donate' screen with no apparent bypass route. However, if you click the 'next' button you get taken to a Paypal site but instead of putting any of your details in, look down the bottom left where there is a small link giving you the possibility of 'going back to ipetitions'. Pick this one, your signature will still work and it won't have cost you a penny.

Please tell me of any problems you have signing the petition, including if you don't feel able to sign it due to the admittedly stupid arrangements.

Freedom of Information...Will be Along in a While (reprise)

I love this site, it could pretty much write the blog for me, although you'd miss my rapier like wit and repartee.

No, you would.

Anyway, we talked a little while ago about NCC's seeming inability to respond to Freedom of Information requests in a timely fashion and I mentioned that someone had made a FoI request about this.

Well NCC has responded, although by my reckoning, a day late. They could have put a bit of effort into presenting the data as well.

The questioner has helpfully added an annotation with the percentages of responses made in time by year -

2005 - 53%
2006 - 34%
2007 - 40%
2008 - 26%*
2009 - 37% so far

Overall, they have responded to FoI requests on time in 31% of cases. Not particularly good in my opinion.

There's quite a bit of other interesting data about other issues such as the number of occasions where data wasn't held and stuff.

On a related note, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that NCC is quietly sitting on information that it has stated it would routinely publish on its website. I'm talking of the decision to install CCTV in Forest Fields which has still to find its way into the 'Portfolio Decisions' section of their website. It is mentioned in a 'Local Issues' report to the next Area 4 Committee meeting but all it says is that the matter has been referred to JoCo to make a decision, which is a bit out of date.

I'm also wondering what has happened to the Standards Committee, no minutes for the last meeting on 21 April and no agenda published for the next meeting due on 20 July, less than a week away. The Standards Committee is of course looking into Cllr Grocock's 'alleged' part in the housing scandal. Funny how they should go off the radar at such a time.

* NCC would probably want us to point out that 2008 included an exceptionally large number of requests due to lots of staff writing in to find out how their terms and conditions would be affected by single status. Some might suggest that the information should have been handed over at the start of the process. I'm just saying.

Gobbledegook

This has got to be the all time most confused and garbled explanation for refusing a Freedom of Info request on grounds of commercial sensitivity of all time.

Can anyone make head or tail of this bit?

"In considering how the release of this information may prejudice commercial interests we have taken into account any harm that would likely to be caused to this authority. It has been confirmed to me by the relevant department that the bus shelter adverts, CIP adverts, A-Z directory adverts and Arrow adverts are conducted at a preferential rate specifically for the council. Whilst the council produces these publications internally, it does receive funding from external companies, whose commercial interests need to be considered. Releasing details of the preferential rates given to service providers could result in other service providers attempting to “undercut” the current providers, which could effectively damage their business both financially and for future contracts. This would ultimately affect this local authority negatively, as we could lose a service which is for the benefit of the public."

As far as I can tell they are saying that telling us the cost of advertising their 'service' in their own publication would result in upsetting some private company or other. WTF?

As for the public interest case, how can other suppliers offering lower prices harm Nottingham City Council?

And lolz at the "...service which is for the benefit of the public" bit. The 'service' they're talking about was advertising a crackdown on benefit 'cheats'.

Any better understandings of this to the usual address please.

Note; found this giving rates for the 'Arrow'. Implies an opportunity cost of £3000 at least.

Press Releases

You might have read in the 'Post' yesterday that NCC are hoping to bring back the death penalty for littering and having the wrong colour paint on your windows.

What's weird is that this didn't appear in their press releases (which we feed to over there -->) yet today NCC feels obliged to tell us that a document shredding company has moved to Nottingham.

Perhaps it's a metaphor for their attitude to Freedom of Information...

What's NOT weird is that NCC have jumped in for yet more populist authoritarian measures which are most likely to affect vulnerable poor people the most. That, unfortunately is par for the course.

Btw, we sent a press release to the Post about the petition, not seen sight nor sound of it yet.

A Note About Freedom of Information

As you can see there's been a bit of a flurry of stories originating from Freedom of Information requests.

The important thing to note here is that I would not have known about any of them were it not for the 'What Do They Know' website.

As I mentioned before the site is building into a handy database for FoI data concerning Nottingham City Council but the rub is they only include requests made via their website. My own earlier FoI request about about Discretionary Housing Payments has disappeared into the ether as far as everyone except me is concerned, for example.

So how much better would it be if there was a central point where ALL FoI data on NCC could be accessed in one handy place online? That's what we're asking for in our petition which says -

"We believe that Nottingham City Council should publish all Freedom of Information requests it receives along with the responses on its website. We therefore call on Nottingham City Council to implement this simple act in the interests of openness and accountability."

You can sign it here. Please do so if you haven't already and what's more, please tell everyone you know about it, link to it on your own blogs, Tweet it, Myspace it whatever.

Thanks to those who have signed it and/or publicised it in some way already, lets keep it up.

The Lawyers Get Rich...

More from the Freedom of Information goldmine.

Nottingham City Council has been spending nearly £100,000 per year on private sector lawyers, purely in disputes with its own former employees.

A Freedom of Information request via the 'What Do They Know' website revealed that during the financial years 2007/8 and 2008/9 NCC spent £195,064* on external lawyers for help preparing for and being represented at Employment Tribunals.

The bulk of this, £131,536* was spent on external representation at Tribunal hearings, despite only 5 cases going as far as a full hearing during this period, averaging around £26,000 per hearing.

All this despite the council having its own legal department, although they couldn't tell us how much was spent on internal lawyers working on employment cases because they apparently do other things as well.

Update 1 July - The 'Post' is reporting that NCC overspent by £3.4m last year. Clearly their lawyers' benevolence fund won't have helped.

*including VAT natch