LAMBETHWATCH: FOI QUESTIONS UNANSWERED PART TWO*

CRESSINGHAM GARDENS – RENTAL INCOME

Tom Keene 5 January 2018

Dear HM FOI, Can you please explain why this FOI request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c…

States that for Cressingham Gardens in financial year 2012/2013:
Rental income = £1,196,818
Service Charge income = £57,915.40

Yet this (1060969) FOI request states that for 2012/13:
Rental income = £443,295
Service charge income = £63,731

The discrepancy appears to be:
Additional rental income of £753,523 in the previous request.
Less service charge income of £5,816 in the previous request.

Yours sincerely,
Tom Keene

Financial
Year Rent   Service Charge Total per Year

2011/12 445,477.57            86,100.01         531,577.58

2012/13 443,295.69                63,731.05         507,026.74

2013/14 469,987.34                69,833.81         539,821.15

2014/15 507,530.90             108,749.65         616,280.55

2015/16 521,545.39                85,332.27         606,877.66

2016/17 511,111.95             126,439.10         637,551.05

Total 2,898,948.84             540,185.89     3,439,134.73

Lambeth’s response (very abbreviated): I can confirm that we have reviewed your request but consider that to comply with the request would exceed the cost/time limit specified by s12 FOIA. (Freedom of Information Act)

____________________________________________________________________________

STAFF PAID MORE THAN £80,000 A YEAR

Giovanni Bianco 27 March 2018

Delivered

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

I would like to make a request for the following:-

“The draft accounts for 2016/17 show that another 40 staff were paid over £80,000 p.a., compared to the previous year. Please could you supply the job description for each of these persons.”

Mr Bianco was following up an FOI request by Indar Picton-Howell dated  13 February 2018 who was told:

I can confirm that we have reviewed your request but consider that to  comply with the request would exceed the cost/time limit specified by s12  FOIA.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/j… made by Indar Picton-Howell 13 February 2018

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

The draft accounts for 2016/17 show that another 40 staff were paid over £80,000 p.a., compared to the previous year. Please could you supply the job description for each of these persons.

Yours faithfully, Indar Picton-Howell)

Mr Bianco has told Lambeth:

For your information, if you intend to rely on s12, I will appeal internally and then to the ICO. (Information Commissioners Office)

I do not accept that the information would take 34 hours to determine if the information is held. How can the council pay over 80,000 pounds and the post holders not possess a Job Description. This would be a truly epic lack of HR (Human Resources) governance.

I trust you will respond to my request accordingly.

If you wish to rely on the s12 exception (which will be appealed), please provide in the first instance the job titles, which you will be able to extract from your payroll / HR system easily.

Yours faithfully,

Giovanni Bianco

Lambeth have told Mr Bianco:

Section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit)

12. — (1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit…….

The Appropriate Limit is currently set at £450 which is the equivalent to 18 hours of work at £25 per hour.

There are 68 staff members falling within this category whose individual files would need to be interrogated; information would also need to be extracted from files stored in various systems.

A preliminary investigation estimates that it would take 30 minutes per individual file; 30 x 68 giving a total of approximately 34 hours.

Should you wish to redefine or shorten your request then please resubmit another request to us and we will consider if we can respond.
__________________________________________________________________

LIVING WAGE PICTUREHOUSE CINEMAS

Mr Elliott made this Freedom of Information request to Lambeth Borough Council

We’re waiting for Mr Elliott to read a recent response and update the status.

Mr Elliott 30 March 2018

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

Lambeth Council claims to be a London living wage employer, however Picturehouse Cinemas are not and consequently have been in dispute with their workers at the Ritzy in Brixton for a number of years now. At the same time Lambeth Council has also been in discussions and then in a partnership with Picturehouse for up to seven years, particularly in relation to the West Norwood Nettlefold Hall site which was originally expected to be opening as a cinema and library by Picturehouse and the council during 2017.

Please can you let me know of any examples of evidence where Lambeth council officials or Lambeth councillors have requested or lobbied Picturehouse Cinemas to pay the living wage in the West Norwood cinema?

Evidence could be, but is not limited to, emails, letters, contracts, or minutes of meetings between Picturehouse and Lambeth Councillors or staff.

Finally if it is known could you please give me the date both for the opening of the cinema, and the library that will be on the same site.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Elliott

______________________________________________________________

LAMBETH CHILDREN’S REDRESS SCHEME

Beecholme Graeme 25 May 2018

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,
Can you please advise how many claims have been received for the Lambeth Redress Scheme and how many have been successful.Also can you advise current average payout.

Yours faithfully,

Beecholme Graeme

__________________________________________________________________

RIGHT TO BUY SALES ON COUNCIL ESTATES

We’re waiting for Rana Khazbak to read recent responses and update the status.

Rana Khazbak 1 June 2018

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

Please can you provide percentage of units/homes that were ever sold via Right to Buy within each council-owned housing estate in the Borough of Lambeth. Please note that I would like the units ever sold via Right to Buy as percentage of total units within each housing estate. Kindly provide in Excel sheet a column for name of estate and a column for units sold via Right to Buy as percentage of units within each estate.

Yours faithfully,

Rana Khazbak

We are unable to respond to your request at this time. This is because we estimate that compliance with your request would exceed the appropriate time/costs limit under section 12 of the Freedom of information Act 2000. This is currently 18 hours /£450.

__________________________________________________________________

LAMBETH COUNTRY SHOW 2017 DEBRIEFING MEETING

Jason Cobb 12 June 2018

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

I would like to request an internal review of this Freedom of Information request. A similar request in previous years led to the council making available in the public domain the minutes for the de-briefing meeting:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2…

A precedent has been established.

Please can you either provide me with a copy of the minutes for 2017, or publish them elsewhere.

Thank you

Yours faithfully, Jason Cobb

After two follow-up requests Mr Cobb is now asking:

20 July 2018

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

Please can you update me with the outcome of the Internal Review. This request is now long overdue and is legally due a response. Would it be cynical to suggest that you are waiting until the Country Show is over for 2018?

N.B.Lambeth’s response on June 12 2018 before Mr Cobb wrote back was as follows:

I can confirm that Lambeth council holds the information you have requested.  However, it is not possible to meet your request.  The information is being withheld because we believe the following exemption applies: Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) &(g)

31.—(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,

(g) the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2)

Section 31 is a qualified exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which means that consideration must also be given to whether in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favouring disclosure is greater than the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(a)(b)(c) & (g) are –

(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,

(b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,

(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,

(d) the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on,

(e) the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident,

(i) the purpose of securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, and

(j) the purpose of protecting persons other than persons at work against risk to health or safety arising out of or in connection with actions of persons at work.

As this exemption is qualified and prejudice-based, we are obliged to outline the harm in disclosure and explain why we consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Harm in Disclosure

Disclosure would reveal sensitive security and health and safety information;

Disclosure of discussions between the council, associated public authorities and contractors may adversely affect the role and work of each organisation in management of the Show;

Disclosure close undermine the council’s future function in implementing and enforcing regulations.

Public Interest in Disclosure

The council’s commitment to openness and transparency.

Disclosure would improve public knowledge and debate on the organisation and management of the Lambeth Country Show.

It is not in the public interest to provide sensitive information if it would mean that the council and its partners cannot effectively carry out its functions.  The public interest means what is in the best interests of the public not what is of interest to the public.

The council has considered the public interest test in withholding the requested information outweighs the public interest test in disclosure of the requested information.  In accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this correspondence acts as a Refusal Notice.

(Source: WhatDoTheyKnow website)

*Some questions may have been answered but the results not yet shown on WhatDoTheyKnow – Ed.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.