€¦ · Web viewI have tried to copy the request word for word, but have paraphrased the replies...

Review of Freedom of Information requests from Mr D Perrin

I have been asked to undertake a review to ascertain if Mr Perrin’s requests for information have been answered satisfactorily and in accordance of the Freedom of Information Act. For simplicity I have listed the requests made and annotated if or when the reply has answered the question. I have tried to copy the request word for word, but have paraphrased the replies to determine the crux of the answer. I have also annotated in red what I feel is the appropriate action or if I believe that the request has been satisfied.

The very last request from Mr Perrin asks for this review. I have therefore concluded my thoughts against that request.

Date Request Was the question answered? Date7th Jan 2013 Dear East of England Ambulance Service NHS

Trust,

At a time when the East of England Ambulance Service (EEAS) keepsacknowledging the need to save £50million, please advise on thefollowing:

1. What is the daily cost to the EEAS of the recently introduced "private" single paramedic response car to cover the South East Herts area?

2. What will be the cost for the projected month I understand this arrangement is due to last?

The answer was that this was commercially sensitive and a section 43 exemption was claimed. This is appropriate in such cases where a commercial arrangement has been negotiated

The information is not available as the numbers of shifts are variable. This feels like a timing issue, in that all of the information was not available at the time of answer. This could be answered subsequently.

7th Feb 2013

7th Feb 2013

of 40

3. The number of incidents this car actually arrives "on scene" at on a daily basis?

4. Information on whether this is being duplicated in other areas of EEAS and if so, what are the projected costs for that?

5. The name of the company providing this service and whether any of those who own the company or are employed by them havepreviously worked for EEAS or one of the Trusts that now make up our service?

6. What are the specific arrangements in place to accurately record claimed response times for any such vehicles?

This information is still being collated. Again I think this is a timing issue and this should now be available. (See also 19th March response which now answers this question)

The service is being used to backfill resources that are uncovered. Reference to Q2 in respect of cost. I think a simple “Yes” or “No” for the first question would have sufficed. In respect of costs, again I think this is a timing issue.

A list of companies was provided and an explanation that in respect of employees this information was not known. I think this is answered in full.

There was an explanation of the PDA and CAD reporting and that audit work was being carried out. I think this is answered in full.

7th Feb 2013

7th Feb 2013

22nd Feb 2013 Thank you for your response although it clearly does not addressmost of the queries I raised and there also seems to be someconfusion over the actual information I was seeking.

Your response to my point 1 seems to have been largely copied and pasted from a

The Trust reiterated its desire to claim the exemption on the basis that to divulge the price

19th Mar 2013

of 40

response you gave to another (and still outstanding) request I made.

As you are no doubt aware, guidance around Section 43 states: “Clearly the bias is in favour of disclosure” and “Generally speaking, the public interest is served where access to theinformation would facilitate accountability and transparency in the spending of public money”.

My request is around the spending of public money on services provided for, not by, the Trust and as such, I believe your refusalto be incorrect. I would therefore respectfully ask that you reconsider and providethe information requested.

My point 2 does not appear to have been answered correctly. I wanted to know the monthly cost for the single, private paramedicresponse vehicle the Trust had employed for the South East area.

With regard to my point 4. I was not seeking a complete list of all the private companies this Trust seems to use but the name of the specific company providing the vehicle I referred to above.

would put the company at a disadvantage over other bidders. This remains fair. In a competitive bidding situation any prices are commercially confidential. The publication of these prices could make the tendering process invalid. I do not think it is in the public interest to potentially invalidate a legal procurement process which could have been extremely costly to repeat, or to legally defend.

Please see above

The name of the company and the number of responses they have done was supplied. I think this is answered in full. This also answers point 3 of the original letter.

19th Mar 2013

19th Mar 2013

19 Mar 2013 It seems incredible that The Trust would not want to reveal the hourly rate they are willing to pay a company in case someone actually offers them better value for money but there

This question had actually been answered in that it is commercially sensitive and that a completive tendering exercised had been undertaking to ensure value for money.

of 40

you go.

With regard to the number of responses UK SAS made i.e. 248, can you confirm whether they actually arrived "at scene" to all of those and also, how many hours of cover did the Trust pay out for this particular service?

I think this requires an answer.

28 Nov 2013 This Trust commissioned an independent investigation in March 2011 which took some 15 months to complete and appears to have cost anywhere in the region of £24,000 - £38,000 (the Trust won’t say exactly how much).

In his final report, the investigator also noted that a number of employees from this Trust had sent what he described as, “inappropriate emails”. In relation to one of those from a very senior member of the Trust, the investigator commented that “This response gives littleconfidence that ** truly appreciates the consequences of his action in respect of an email which, by any measure, was totallyinappropriate and unprofessional”.

That investigation was completed in June 2012 yet it is clear from a letter I received from the interim Chief Executive, Andrew Morganon 7th October 2013, that he hadn’t even got round to “speaking to those people who sent inappropriate emails”.

of 40

Can you therefore confirm:

1. When does Andrew Morgan intend to get round to “speaking to” those he acknowledges sent “inappropriate emails”?

2. How many members of staff and senior managers were identified as having sent “inappropriate emails”?

3. Can Mr Morgan confirm that he is certain the Code of Conduct for NHS Managers was not breached by any of those involved?

4. The Trust has stated that “Unacceptable behaviours will be challenged and no member of staff, however senior, will be allowedto get away with poor behaviour”. In light of this commitment, can the Trust confirm if any of

Andrew Morgan wrote to you on 7th & 29th November. I have not been party to these letters, and Andrew Morgan has left the organisation. It is difficult to say if or when he may have spoken to the individuals.

The reply refers to section 12 of the “Selwood report”. I understand that this is a confidential investigation that Mr Selwood was commissioned to undertake on behalf of the Trust. As this was confidential, only Mr Perrin can determine if this answers the question.

The reply states that this would be Mr Morgan’s opinion rather than a statement of fact therefore this cannot be answered. Again this is unclear. The FoI act is concerned with the request and publication of information, not opinion or conjecture. I therefore think this is actually impossible to answer.

There have been no substantive promotions; however one individual is in an acting role. I think this is answered in full.

20 Dec 2013

20 Dec 2013

20 Dec 2013

20 Dec 2013

of 40

those found to have sent these “inappropriate emails” has been promoted since Mr Morgan’s letter was sent?

I require this information so that it can be forwarded to the Care Quality Commission. As such, I would appreciate a full and completeresponse to each point made.

4 Dec 2013 At the outset of a previous hearing conducted by this Trust that eventually saw me reported to my professional body, my union representative asked if all the evidence that had been sought during the investigation had been produced.

He was given an assurance that it had but it soon transpired that a member of the Human Resources Dept had withheld a statement she had been given.

After a later release of information to us, it became apparent that the investigating officer had also sought another statement but hadchosen not to declare that.

Can the Trust therefore please confirm:

1. When was the interim Chief Executive, Andrew Morgan, or any other member of the Trust board first aware of this?

The reply to this request was that this was not an FoI question but asked for opinion.

I feel there are actually two questions here but only one has been answered directly.

This is not a problem of applying the act, this is the need for correspondence to be clear that the FoI act does not cover either of the questions asked.

20 Dec 2013

of 40

2. Can Mr Morgan confirm that he does not think the Code of Conduct for NHS Managers would have been breached by any such action?

Please note that the code requires managers to "be honest and act with integrity" and "I will be honest and will act with integrityand probity at all times. I will not make, permit or knowingly allow to be made, any untrue or misleading statement relating to my own duties or the functions of my employer."

Offers to give this and much more evidence to the Trust, have so far been ignored.

It would appear that the Trust has now started writing to me directly but I would appreciate your full and detailed response viathis forum only.

I do not believe that this question was answered in the reply of 20th December 2013, however this was not asking for information, but an opinion.

As with previous questions this is asking for an opinion which is not what the FoI act is there for. I therefore think that this part of the question was answered.

23 Dec 2013 I have sent the following email:

Dear Francesca Okosi, Andrew Morgan and Dr Geoffrey Harris OBE, JP

Please see the link below to my recent Freedom of Informationrequest regarding "Withholding evidence".

You will be aware that I have been seeking information to give to the Care Quality Commission about various serious events that

I can find no reply to this letter, but there are no real questions to answer, as Mr Perrin is highlighting his dissatisfaction with the processes so far and that nothing has been done.

In effect, this review goes partly to answer the points Mr Perrin has made about his questions not being answered.

of 40

took place over a number of years regarding this Trust. Without proper investigation, these may still be happening as far as anyone knows.

Mr Morgan advised that I could use the FOI Act in order to seek that information but it is clear from the responses I have received recently, that answers will not be forthcoming via that route.

I am therefore contacting you directly to ask for your answers to all the points I have raised.

No previous correspondence you have sent me has answered the specific points I have made in my official requests as these relateto events that weren’t investigated by the independent investigator appointed by the Trust.

Mr Morgan has said he doesn’t intend to “revisit” previous events but as I’m sure you all appreciate, you can not revisit somethingyou were apparently unaware of in the first place. Attempts to bring any of the documented evidence I have to your attention, have been repeatedly ignored to date.

I shall be attaching your responses to the individual FOI requests as I feel it is important there is a public record of the actual

of 40

commitment of the most senior members of this Trust to fully investigating and eradicating the bullying you have acknowledgedstaff have complained of and as an organisation, you have claimedyou will deal with.

28 Nov 2013 Last month I informed the Trust’s interim Chairman, Dr Harris, about a series of emails I had been given, which show a senior manager from this Trust had wanted to know “is there anything we can do to prevent attendance?” in relation to another manager who had been told to appear before a hearing at the Health Professions Council (now the HCPC).

This was regarding a case the Trust themselves had reported to the HPC.It is evident from the content of the emails that the manager in question had been made the subject of a witness order, compelling him to attend. That order had been granted at a previous hearing before the HPC.

The email trail shows that the senior manager contacted the then Head of Human Resources about this but instead of being discouraged, was told “Am on the case ***!”(I have left out the senior manager’s name but please contact me should you be unsure who it is).

As a slight aside, several months later, the

of 40

then Head of HR claims to have written to the HPC just before the hearing but unfortunately despite a supposed thorough search by the Trust, his letter couldn’t be located.It is possible though that it’s contained within the several thousand other documents the firm Deloittes later found which should also have been passed onto me and my union official, but weren’t.

Unfortunately, Dr Harris failed to respond to my two emails.

Will the Trust therefore please confirm:

1. Did Dr Harris receive my emails?

2. When was either the interim Chairman or interim Chief Executive, Andrew Morgan, first aware about these series of emails? It shouldbe noted that previous offers from last year onwards to supply this and much more evidence I had been given access to, to the Trust were ignored.

Dr Harris wrote to you on 4th December. I believe that this letter did acknowledge that the emails had been received. Therefore this question was answered.

The answer to this question stated that this was asking what somebody knows and therefore falls outside of FoI. Unless there is some form of correspondence or minute, the question asks for an opinion of two individuals. This does fall outside of the act. What is clear from a number of these questions is that the significant changes that have occurred at both Chair and CEO level, it is difficult to ascertain who knew what, and also when. Looking at this sometime later it is

20 Dec 2013

of 40

3. I seem to recall that Dr Harris might also be a Justice of the Peace but even if he isn’t, is he or Mr Morgan, aware that the failure of a person who was the subject of a witness order to attend a hearing would be a “criminal offence” (this was made clear in the emails) and render them liable to a fine of up to £5000?

4. Can the interim Chair and interim Chief Executive confirm that they do not believe any possible breaches of the Code of Conductfor NHS Managers took place in regard to this matter?

5. The Trust’s turnaround plan states "It is clear that some of our behaviours in the past have been unacceptable and unprofessional.Some staff have talked of being bullied. This approach or behaviour has no place in this Trust" and "Unacceptable behaviours will bechallenged and no member of staff, however senior, will be allowed to get away with poor behaviour". With this in mind, can the Trust confirm whether or not anyone involved in this matter (and who was also said to have sent other “inappropriate emails”) has recently been promoted?

impossible to determine a complete answer to this question even if it was part of the act.

Again, The answer to this question stated that this was asking what somebody knows and therefore falls outside of FoI. Again, Mr Perrin is asking for an opinion, or asking what an individual knows. As the answer says, this is outside of the act.

As above

The answer to this question was There have been no substantive promotions; however one individual is in an acting role. This had already been answered in previous correspondence

of 40

Please note that I require this information to give to the Care Quality Commission and hope that the Trust will respond quickly andprovide all the requested information.

15 Oct 2013 A senior manager from this Trust was tasked with carrying out an investigation into my alleged conduct by the then Director ofOperations.

Two versions of his report were eventually discovered. The first recommended that no further action be taken but the one served on me had had its complete findings and recommendations altered so I was in effect found "guilty".

Initially the manager told the independent investigator who was asked to look into this matter, that "He could not remember whocontacted him to say this first report was not acceptable". Some two and a half years later however I was informed via the Interim Chief Executive that the manager now "recalls receiving a telephone call from xx telling him that the wording of his report was unacceptable and that it would be revised".I have omitted the name of that person but I understand they held a very senior position in the Trust's HR Dept.

The agreed ToRs for the independent investigation were that Deloittes would "carry

of 40

out a detailed forensic assessment of all ITsystems and hardware" and to "include the forensic check on all service laptops and desktops in use or in use at the time whichdo/did belong to those who were involved in this case".

Unfortunately that does not appear to have been carried out.

The manager in question did tell the investigator that he somehow had a 3rd version of this report and this was obviously a surprise as it was never shown up during any of the searches.

That particular version had been amended by someone as yet unidentified. The investigator failed to ask the manager how he came to have this amended version in his possession particularly after it was claimed that "He felt he had not been allowed to know what was going on", "He felt he knew nothing further" and "He never knew what happened".

In order to help clear up how this 3rd version of the report came to be in the possession of the manager (and in light of the failureto adhere to the agreed ToRs) I would be grateful if you could clarify the following:

1. Who did this manager share his original The name of the person and their position was 12 Nov 2103

of 40

report with and how was this done i.e. was it printed off to show them, was it forwarded aspart of an email attachment or did someone sit down with him and look at it while the report was on his computer?

2. Were the amendments to his original report carried out on his own computer?

3. If so, by whom?

4. If not, how did he come to have this 3rd version, dated 29th June 2006?

5. Who gave him the 3rd version of his report?

6. How did he store this version, or had he kept just a hard copy all these years.

These are all questions I would expect any investigator to have asked but they weren't.

I sincerely hope that the Trust will simply provide this information rather than seek to use claimed exemptions from the FOI act or employ delaying tactics. I would like this information so that I may give the Care QualityCommission as full a picture as possible of what went on at this Trust.

Should you need clarification of those involved

given in the reply. It was stated that the Trust did not know how this was done. I think this is answered in full.

It was stated that the Trust did not know. It is fair that if there is no written record of this, then no answer could be given.

As above

As above

As above

As above

It is clear that the questions raised here are not really subject to FoI. It appears that this set of questions should have been part of the confidential independent investigation. I believe that the Trust should answer these questions by way of a formal request to the investigator. However, it should be remembered that the individual is not subject to the FoI Act so it would be within his rights to decline.

This review is to determine if the bona fide

of 40

then I will be happy to provide names. FoI questions were answered. These are not part of a bona fide FoI request and therefore I can only state if the FoI reply was fair, which I believe it was.

22 Nov 2013 Firstly I would be grateful if you give me the names of everyone you have consulted with before sending your response.

Secondly, I note you refer to the very expensive investigation, that was only completed last year.

That investigation, which appears to have cost anywhere in the region of £24,000 to £38,000 (the Trust won't say how much), involved over 30 hours of interviews with some 13 members of this Trust. During those interviews, the investigator failed to ask the manager involved how he came to have a "3rd copy" of a report that two previous supposed detailed forensic examinations had failed to find.

That "3rd copy" shows the report was amended much earlier than anyone previously thought yet he also failed to ask anyone else he interviewed whether they had actually altered that version. That is simply staggering

As with previous correspondence, this appears to be the continuation of Mr Perrin’s dissatisfaction with the confidential independent investigation.

As a review of the FoI aspects, I cannot see that any part of this letter is subject to the act as there are no requests to provide information.

of 40

and inexcusable given the amount of time andmoney spent on this investigation.

It should be remembered that the agreed terms of reference that the investigator refers to in his final report, states that Deloittes, under the guidance of the current Head of IT, would "carry out a detailed forensic assessment of all IT systems and hardware" and to "include the forensic check on all service laptops and desktops in use or in use at the time which do/did belong to those who wereinvolved in this case".

It is quite evident from information the Trust have separately released to me that the latter never took place. This information could and should have been sought but apparently wasn't. That would make the investigator's report not only incomplete but alsomisleading.

The manager at interview told the investigator he "confirmed that he too wanted an honest and open discussion and that he would behonest". He also went on to say "He could not remember who contacted him to say this first report was not acceptable".

However, over two years later, he was suddenly able to recall the name of the person who told him his report would be amended.

of 40

He also recently claimed that he did not receive a copy of his statement from his interview. I was then able to produce an emaildated 7th July 2011 which clearly demonstrated that he did. My email about this was copied into the interim Chief Executive, the interim Chairman and the current head of HR.

Clearly these inconsistent responses are a cause of great concern to me and makes it difficult to fully rely on the evidence previously given. Hopefully senior members of the Trust also share these concerns.

The manager is on record as saying he would be "happy to talk to the appropriate persons" and I'm sure that answers to the 5 outstanding points could be given by him in a matter of minutes.

The interim Chief Executive, Andrew Morgan, has asked me not to contact anyone within the Trust about this matter, hence my official request under the FOI act.

Andrew Morgan's turnaround plan states: "It is clear that some of our behaviours in the past have been unacceptable and unprofessional. Some staff have talked of being bullied. This approach or behaviour has no place in this

of 40

Trust" and "Unacceptable behaviours will be challenged and no member of staff, however senior, will be allowed to get away with poor behaviour".

Without providing the last few remaining pieces of information, the Trust will be unable to tell exactly what went on previously, nor be able to give any guarantees at all that such behaviours are not currently continuing. Clearly, finally establishing the full facts might prove uncomfortable reading for the Heads of some departments within the Trust but that is not a major concern of mine.

I have read with great interest, recent reaction to the Francis report. I wish to be able to give as much information as possible to the CQC and would not expect the Trust to seek ways to try and obstruct that.

Your response mentions "4610 documents" yet my union colleague and I were only ever given access to about a 1/3 of those. Pleaseconfirm that you will be forwarding the remainder to me without further delay.

Lastly Laila, I understand that some of those involved in this matter are seeking redundancy terms from the Trust. I hope that any further delays in responding fully will not resultin them leaving before giving the information

of 40

that could and should have been provided.23 Dec 2012 I would be grateful if you could supply

information and datarelating to the following matters:

In early 2006, our (then) Director of Operations, Mr Oskan Edwardson, requested that a formal investigation be carried outinto myself regarding the alleged accessing of confidential information after I had sought evidence to substantiate the concerns I had raised about the conduct and performance of acolleague.

This followed on from a hearing he chaired in 2005 when I was subjected to disciplinary action and he duly referred me to the Health Professions Council (HPC). They dismissed the case when they heard it in 2008.

A Mr PK (who is currently employed as a Clinical General Manager by this Trust) was asked to carry out the investigation and in September 2006, a report bearing his name was served on me and I was in effect, found “guilty” and subjected to further action bythe Trust.

Sometime after this, our (then) Chief Executive, Mr Hayden Newton, agreed to the disclosure of information the Trust held regarding me and as a result of this, two

of 40

different versions of PK’s report were found.

It then transpired that PK’s original report from April 2006 did not recommend that action be taken against me and actually calledinto question the Trust’s procedures.

The 2nd report dated September 2006 had had its complete “findings and recommendations” altered and this version was apparently savedand last “modified” on the computer of a member of HR who was previously found to have withheld evidence in the case the Trustbrought against me in 2005.

During the course of 2011 -2012 and at the request of Mr Newton, an independent investigation was carried out to try and establish why two different versions of PK’s report existed.

A Mr Selwood, who was previously a Chief Superintendent with The Metropolitan Police, was appointed to conduct the investigation and10 managers and members of HR were interviewed by him. Unfortunately, it would appear that no one was asked directly ifthey were responsible for actually altering the original version of PK’s report.

The investigation and report took some 15 months to complete and no doubt cost the

of 40

Trust (and the taxpayer) a substantial sum of money.

Would you therefore please confirm:

1. What was the cost to the East of England Ambulance Service (EEAS) of the independent investigation carried out by Mr Selwood?

2. What was the cost to EEAS of the forensic analysis of the Trust’s computer systems by the firm Deloitte’s?

3. The terms of reference agreed with Mr Newton and the actual terms of reference subsequently supplied to Deloitte’s by ClareChambers, Head of IT at EEAS.

4. Whether PK has been involved in any further investigations and / or taken part in any disciplinary hearings since concerns wereraised with Mr Newton about this matter in

A Section 43 exemption was claimed for this information.Further clarification that it is confidential for Mr SelwoodThis transaction was a commercial arrangement between Mr Selwood’s company and the Trust. It is not unreasonable that this transaction should be kept commercially sensitive.

A Section 43 exemption was claimed for this informationFurther information giving the cost. I believe that this second letter does answer the question

A holding position was given.

A copy of the terms of reference was attached.

The individual would be expected to undertake investigations as part of their role

This was repeated in the second letter I believe

24 Jan 2013

22 Feb 2013

24 Jan 2013

22 Feb 2013

24 Jan 2013

22 Feb 2013

24 Jan 2013

22 Feb 2013

of 40

January 2011?

5. If so, how many times and in what capacity?

6. What were the management and legal costs to the Trust (and the taxpayer) of defending an action brought by a Mr Paul Holmes afterhe claimed to have been victimized by two senior managers?

7. Who paid the expenses of Mr Newton when he appeared at a hearing as a witness for the above managers, one of whom was subsequently suspended by the HPC and the other the subject of a 5 year caution?

that the question has been answered in full

A section 40 exemption was claimed

The number of times the individual has been involved with investigations was given I believe that the question has been answered in full


The fees were disclosed. given I believe that the question has been answered in full


I can confirm that they have never claimed any expenses for attending court. I believe that the question has been answered in full

It is clear that the Trust changed its view between the letters of 24 Jan and 22 Feb about the release of some of the data, and I acknowledge that this is probably due to subsequent letters from Mr Perrin on 25 Jan and 30 Jan. I feel that it is fair that a holding response was given for some items, especially as subsequently these were answered in full. I believe that the Trust should have released items 2 & 5 after the original letter.

24 Jan 2013

22 Feb 2013

24 Jan 2013

22 Feb 2013

24 Jan 2013

22 Feb 2013

of 40

22 Feb 2013 Clearly there has now been a significant delay in responding fully to my request.

Please would you list the names of all those members of staff from the EEAST who have been involved in any discussions surrounding the release of this information?

Could you also confirm, who within the Trust has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the Freedom of Information Act is complied with?

A section 40 exemption was applied to this. I believe that the exemption was properly used in that the question was too broad to answer in any other way. The Act does allow those junior members of staff who are undertaking such duties as FoI to remain unnamed, however it is not unreasonable for senior members of staff to be named as has been done in this case.

Confirmation that the Director of Strategy & Business Development was responsible

22 Feb 2013

22 Feb 2013 Thank you for your response.

Firstly I note that the Trust is now seeking to use different sections of the Freedom of Information Act in order to decline to release information relating to the spending of public money.

I fail to see how simply releasing the amount of money the tax payer had to pay for a report can in anyway be described as "suchsensitive and personal information". This was (I assume) a contract entered into for the

It was confirmed that the Trust took advice on this subject and that a section 40 exemption was applicable. I agree that the Section 40 exemption was appropriate.

19 Mar 2013

of 40

provision of a specific service.

Again I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your stance.

I find it incredible and concerning that a firm such as Deloitte's would simply take on a large amount of detailed and complicated work based on a verbal conversation. It would appear to me that the work carried out does not match the original terms of reference andtherefore a large sum of public money has in effect been possibly wasted.

Can you please confirm if it is normal policy for this Trust to enter into arrangements with other organisations that involve a significant amount of public funds, based simply on a telephonecall?

With regards to my point 7, I asked specifically about the costs for Mr Newton, not the two managers who appeared there.

Clarification was given that the terms of reference was drawn up following a discussion at a meeting with Deloittes Further clarification is useful but Mr Perrin is asking for an opinion which is not covered under the act.

The answer given on 22 Feb was reaffirmed. I believe that this question was answered on 22 Feb

19 Mar 2013

19 Mar 2013

20 Mar 2013And chasing letter of13 May 2013

Re: point 1 - Please can you tell me who the Trust took "advice" from?

Point 3 - Please supply the terms of reference

Clarification was given that the advice came from the Information Commissioner’s office. Whilst this information closes the request, this could have been made clear in the letter of 19 March. Also the use of abbreviations was not useful here as it provoked further requests and responses

More information is provided, with clarification

22 May 201331 May 2013

22 May 2013

of 40

Deloittes drew up so it can be seen if they match those that had been agreed betweenourselves and Mr Newton.

This really is becoming a rather protracted process and I would hope you won't wait until the very end of another 20 day periodbefore providing the information requested.

that the terms of reference were put together by Deloittes. Purely from an FoI point of view, this does appear to satisfy the request as the terms of reference have been supplied.

There follows a set of letters of 31 May 2013, 3 June 2103, 12 June 2013,

and replies of 12 June 2013 and 5 July 2013

Purely from an FoI point of view there is little that can be assumed to look to see if the Act has been followed. It appears that replies, attaching information were given in good faith, however Mr Perrin’s knowledge of this information has led to his queries. The contents of the terms of reference are not a FoI question and therefore not covered in this review.

5 Sep 2013 and subsequent letter of7 Oct 2013

Thank you for your reply and please accept my apologies for not following this up sooner but I have been unable to, due to circumstances beyond my control.

Firstly, it is apparent that the Terms of Reference agreed between Hayden Newton, the investigator and ourselves (see your response dated 22nd February 2013) do not match those communicated by your Head of IT and as set out by Deloittes in the response you gave on 5th July 2013).

Please confirm who was responsible for failing to communicate fully, the work Deloittes were

A section 21 exemption was claimed and no further information was supplied.

In hindsight and with the knowledge of subsequent letters, (see letter of 15 Jan 2014) and the separate information supplied by Clare Chambers at the end of September 2013 this was in effect closed and should not have needed subsequent correspondence.

of 40

supposed to carry out. If it was decided to ask them not to carry out certain works, who took that decision as it was never communicated to me or my union representative?

Secondly, I note in your response on 22nd February 2013, you state that "The total cost of the forensic search, including tape indexing, search and final report was £7473.43".

I understand the cost quoted to the Trust for stage 1 alone was over £7000(inc VAT).

The cost of the other two stages would have been in the region of at least an extra £14,700(inc VAT) making a total of nearly£22,000.

Would you therefore confirm in that case whether the Trust only paid for stage 1 (and if so, why) or if all three stages were undertaken, why does the figure you quoted bear little resemblance to the apparent total cost?

If the Trust did pay for the final report, please produce it as it is necessary to establish why certain emails between a Director of this Trust and a member of HR were apparently "missed" or "lost" during the original search, when they met all the required criteria? Some of these were later "found" by Deloittes but we donot know how.

of 40

2 Dec 2013And chasing letters of17 Dec 20138 Jan 201410 Jan 2014

The interim Chief Executive, Andrew Morgan, has written to me asking me not to contact anyone directly from the Trust so my requests for clarification around the documentation the Head of IT, Clare Chambers (now Head of Telecommunications and Technology), recently sent shall have to be done using the FOI act.

Firstly, the original terms of reference (ToRs) make it clear that Deloittes, under the guidance of Clare Chambers, would "carry out a detailed forensic assessment of all IT systems and hardware" and to "include the forensic check on all service laptops and desktops in use or in use at the time which do/did belong to those who were involved in this case".

It is now evident from the documentation supplied that when Hayden Newton first queried the original estimate from Deloittes in March 2011 of approximately £33600, that work had not even been included. No evidence has been produced to show that responsibility for suggesting this element of the work should be omitted was done at the request of Hayden Newton.

1. Please tell me who was responsible for failing to communicate to Deloittes what they were supposed to do regarding “the forensiccheck on all service laptops and desktops in

The Trust confirmed that all written documentation in respect of this item had been supplied. I think taking all the replies in to consideration this request has been satisfied

15 Jan 2014

of 40

use or in use at the time which do/did belong to those who were involved in this case"?

2. As Deloittes clearly didn’t do that work, can Clare Chambers confirm whether she actually carried it out or instructed anyoneelse to do it?

In your response dated 22nd February 2013, you stated there “are no written terms of reference for us to release to you”.Clare Chambers has since provided a document dated 03/03/2011 which she refers to as “Initial Deloittes TOR”. Two subsequent revised documents from Deloittes are all described by her as being “TOR”.

3. Please can you tell me the name of the person who gave what appears to be a misleading answer in relation to a request under the FOI act?

It is now apparent that 4610 documents and emails were found after a second forensic search by Deloittes yet the Trust’s original

as far as the act is concerned

The Trust confirmed that all written documentation in respect of this item had been supplied As above

The actual terms of reference agreed with Deloittes have already been supplied and therefore the request of information was satisfied. This reply does not answer the specific question 3, but does answer the pre-amble to it. I would have expected the Trust to apply a section 40 exemption to answer the specific question, as the FoI team are only able to answer with the information available to them.

of 40

search only made 1155 of these available to myself and my union representative.

Apparently all these extra documents were given to Clare Chambers.

4. Please confirm that these too will be made available to myself.

Clare Chambers’s “ICT feedback” report shows that the date range covered was from “6/11/2006 – 18/08/2008”. The period between the investigation report being started and the altered copy being given to me was actually April – Sept 2006.

5. Please explain why the incorrect dates were looked at and who was responsible for this?

In June 2011, Clare Chambers has listed an email as “Final terms of reference which were agreed by all parties” The estimated cost forthis agreed work was approximately £22,000 yet your response on 22nd February 2013 states that the final invoice was for only£7473.43.

Mr Perrin was referred to the investigator who is not an employee of the Trust. I think this reply is only compliant if the Trust (Clare Chambers) does not hold the information. Either the Trust needs to clarify that this information is not held, or supply the information.

It was confirmed that these were the dates given to the EEAST technician for the search, however the Deloittes search was more comprehensive. I think that the reply does satisfy the request in a technical sense; however more detail would have perhaps been useful to explain the disparity of the dates.

of 40

The 2 invoices Clare Chambers has supplied add up to just £6996.68.

6. Why is there such a large discrepancy between what was agreed in June 2011 and the supposed final figure?

7. Why doesn’t the figure you gave even equal the total of the invoices supplied?

I wish to be able to give this information to the Care Quality Commission and as such, would appreciate your full and detailed responses without further delay.

Mr Perrin was referred to the investigator who is not an employee of the Trust

Mr Perrin was referred to the investigator who is not an employee of the Trust

I do not think that the reply satisfies the Act. Information has been supplied to Mr Perrin but it is conflicting between different answers. The Trust needs to be definitive about the value of the invoices. A further response is required here.

22 Nov 2013 In late 2011, a senior union official made me aware of the existence of a taped conversation, purportedly between a managerfrom this Trust and a member of the HR department, in which a conversation appeared to take place on ways in which emails might somehow be removed from the Trust’s servers.

Can you confirm whether or not anyone from the Trust was also made aware of this tape?

If so:

1. Would any such attempt have been a

Explanation that the Trust was aware and that an MP3 player was used. I think this answers the question

20 Dec 2013

of 40

breach of any recognised law and if so, which one(s)?

2. What would the potential penalties have been for any such attempt?

3. Would any penalties have applied to just those involved or also to the Trust?

4. Who was the tape passed to within the Trust and who else was then made aware of it?

5. When was the tape passed to the Trust?

6. What approximate date did the conversation refer to?

7. Please confirm the date the previous CEO, Hayden Newton, agreed to the release of emails and documents relating to myself?

8. Was an official investigation launched into this matter and if so, who conducted it?

9. Can you please reassure me that neither of those apparently recorded were later found to have emails that couldn’t be traced despite supposed detailed forensic searches?

I would like to give any information supplied to

The Trust explains that Mr Perrin is asking for a legal opinion which is not part of the FoI act. I think the response is correct as the act is in respect of supply of information, not opinion.

The trust explains who received it. I believe that this answers the question

The trust explains this. I believe that this answers the question



The trust explains why there was not an investigation. I believe that this answers the question

The trust gives an explanation of what occurred. I believe that this answers the question

of 40

the Care Quality Commission and would appreciate your response at the earliestopportunity.

24 Dec 2013And3 Feb 2014

Firstly, I will be emailing Francesca Okosi, Andrew Morgan and Dr Geoffrey Harris OBE, JP to ask them to give answers (or to seekthat information from the various specialists within the Trust) to my points 1, 2 & 3. Upon receiving their response, I will post thereply on here so there is a public record.

I note the claim that no one from the Trust (including your IT Dept) was supposedly able to open the link provided.My knowledge of computers is very limited but I found it surprisingly easy to do open and was able to hear the detailed conversation take place.

As you are also well aware, any grievance process had ended because the employee concerned had finished his employment with the Trust.

My understanding is that details surrounding the accidentally recorded conversation were passed to the Trust so that investigation around this serious matter could take place.

I also note the various dates you have given and they do indeed seem very significant.

of 40

Would you kindly provide information to the following:

A. What specific steps were taken to contact the employee or the senior union official when the Trust found themselves supposedlyunable to listen to the link that had been provided?

B. How is the Trust able to state what period “the conversation” relates to, if as you claim, no one within the organisation couldhear it?

C. If no one from the Trust was supposedly able to hear the conversation, why did the previous CEO, Hayden Newton then agree tofurther investigation around emails that had gone “missing” in my case?

The Trust explained what happened next. I believe that this answers the question.

The Trust explains how they got this information. I believe that this answers the question.

The trust explains that Mr Perrin is asking for Mr Newton’s thoughts rather than information. I agree that this question is outside of the act.

4 Feb 2014

10 Jan 2014 I have been given a copy of a letter dated 4th October 2006, from a Mr Bob Durbin to a member of staff, informing them that they havebeen given a sanction under the Trust's disciplinary policy.

The letter states " The findings of the investigation suggest strongly that ** has, on occasion, manipulated her journey times in order to delay booking available. Such behaviour is considered serious by the Trust because it could cause the delay of an emergency vehicle responding to a call. In

of 40

addition, **'s perfomance has not improved (and has actually deteriorated) since the issuing of a letter by management warning that turnaround times across the station need improving."

It goes on to state: "In context of mitigation (sic) circumstances outlined above, it is felt that formal disciplinary proceedings are not appropriate; although, the findings of this report cannot be disregarded".

Having read the letter several times, it is apparent that no mitigating factors are mentioned.

Mr Durbin's letter was also c.c.d to "Human Resources".

Can you please tell me:

1. What mitigating factors is Bob Durbin referring to in his letter?

2. Did Bob Durbin refer this matter to the Health Professions Council (HPC) as would be expected? If not, who did?

3. Who in the Human Resources Dept would have been aware that a sanction had been given?

The Trust explains that this information is confidential in respect of a specific employee and therefore subject to the data protection act. A Section 40 exemption is applied. The release of this information would have been unlawful and the exemption is correctly applied.

A full explanation is given by the Trust. The Trust has replied with a general answer rather than the specifics that are requested. However, given the nature of the subject and

7 Feb 2014

of 40

I wish to give this information to the Care Quality Commission and would appreciate your full and detailed response at the earliestopportunity

its confidentiality, this is not unreasonable.

3 Jan 2014 A recognised union representative has contacted the 3 above-named individuals about the following matters on 16th December 2013.

Follow up emails were sent on 20th & 31st December but no responses whatsoever have been received to date.

Even copying Francesca Okosi, Andrew Morgan and Dr Geoffrey Harris OBE, JP, into the last email has made no difference, hence my official request for information under the FOI Act.

A Mr Oskan Edwardson, who is still employed by this Trust, contacted 4 senior members of the Trust i.e. Rob Ashford, Seamus Elliott, Neil Storey and Tracey Leghorn on 18th May 2008 stating “we need to consider options to remove him from the service, can you advise us of the Trusts options in these circumstances” whenreferring to me.

of 40

This was less than 4 weeks after my governing body, the HPC, had dismissed a case after Mr Edwardson had reported me to them.

Seamus Elliot, who was the Director of HR at the time, emailed Tracey Leghorn the next day saying “It seems to me that UNISON are supportive of this chap so we need to watch implications. Can you please give this priority attention and let me know what is happening and what is planned – if you can push this on towards resolution then please do!”

An email sent on 21st May 2008 from Dawn Allen and copied into Karen Barry stated that “Tracey has asked me to chase up the DavePerrin report” and “She is keen for this to go to hearing in June if possible and has already asked Brenda / Karen B to start arranging dates.”

It certainly wasn’t a grievance case being Chaired by Rob Ashford as he dismissed my grievance. At about this time, Karen Barry emailed Rob Ashford with the comment “Angelina has found the full Dave Perrin?!!! Dead or alive?!!!” Rob Ashford replied “Meant the full Dave Perrin report, however dead sounds good”.

Mr Ashford left the Trust shortly afterwards to become the Director of Operations in the West

of 40

Midlands before eventually returning to this Trust where he currently holds a similar, "interim" position.

My union representative has also asked when Tracey Leghorn and Karen Barry were first aware that a member of staff had been givena sanction by the Trust dating back to October 2006.This is particularly relevant as the member of staff concerned claimed on oath at my hearing on 21st April 2008, that she hadn’t.

Please note that I have now been given a copy of the sanction letter that member of staff received from a Mr Bob Durbin, dated 4th October 2006.

I did make a Mr Catalanotto aware of what had been said at the end of the first day of my hearing and he acknowledged in an email thenext day to Karen Barry and Tracey Leghorn, “This is delicate”.

So in summary, I would like to know:

1. What “hearing” is being referred to in the email dated 21st May 2008?

2. When were Tracey Leghorn and Karen Barry first aware that the member of staff in question had been given a sanction by the

The Trust replied with a general statement where it was pointed out that Mr Perrin was not asking for information as per the act, but was asking for opinion and knowledge which is outside of the act.

15 Jan 2014

of 40

8 Jan 2014

10 Jan 2014

Trust?

3. Please supply the names of everyone you have consulted with before sending your response.

I am requesting this information so that it can be passed to the Care Quality Commission.Unfortunately to date, the Trust has repeatedly failed to provide full and timely responses to the requests I have made under the FOIAct.

Before you respond, I would like to add a fourth question:

4. Did all three members of HR mentioned, decide separately not to respond to the union representative's enquiries or were they instructed not to do so? If so, was it by the Head of HR, Francesca Okosi or someone else?

To add: Tracey Leghorn (HR) has finally acknowledged receipt of the3 emails.

None of the information requested by a recognised union representative has been provided. It also appeared that there wasno intention to provide this information either.

There is also a statement suggesting that the number of FoIs and their content can be construed as vexatious under section 14 of the act.

It is clear that many of the items referred to here have already been aired. Whilst I believe that the requests are not vexatious, many are outside of the act, and it appears that subsequent questions merely repeat the same question, even though they have already been answered.

However: I believe that the Question 1 should be answered by the Trust if it refers to Mr Perrin. If it does not refer to Mr Perrin, the reply should state this is the case.

All other questions are not asking for the release of written information and therefore fall outside of the act.

of 40

The four most senior members of the Trust including the new Chief Executive, Anthony Marsh, were copied into her reply.

15 Jan 20143 Feb 2014

5 Feb 2014

Please tell me the name of the "FOI Officer" who wrote this reply and indicate if the wording was solely theirs. If it wasn't, please tell me who else helped write it.

As per my request above: "Please tell me the name of the "FOI Officer" who wrote this reply and indicate if the wording was solely theirs. If it wasn't, please tell me who else helped writeit."

I asked for the name of the person who wrote the reply on behalf of the Trust on 15th January 2014.Please supply that information without any further delay

Or if it was more than one person from the "team", the names of those involved

The Trust answered this request by stating that the “FoI Officer” was a generic term and did not refer to one individual. This answers the question raised

The Trust replied by stating that it does not release the names of junior staff and claimed exemption under section 40. This is an appropriate use of section 40.

4 Feb 2014

6 Feb 2014

17 Feb 2014 Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Re: Tracey Leghorn, Karen Barry and Dawn Allen'.

This report is a review of all of the request received from Mr Perrin as requested in this correspondence.

In respect of each request I have annotated if I believe that the request for information has been satisfied, or if further information needs to be supplied.

In respect of the specific FoI request that

of 40

If an individual within your organisation is going to take full and sole responsibility for declining to answer an official FOI request and then throw words such as "vexatious" around and make other accusations, I think it is entirely reasonable that this person be named. Please do so and then I can advance my request.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

was replied to on 15 Jan 2014 with a general answer, I have stated my view of what the Trust should do, and where these items fall outside of the act in my opinion.

In respect of vexatious, this is a term that is used in the act, but means annoying, irritating, aggravating or distressing. My opinion is that in terms of the act, the multiple requests are not vexatious (however I am sure that legal opinion may argue otherwise), however, given the number, repetition, and Mr Perrin’s lack of acceptance of replies, I can see how these can be seen as vexatious in terms of them being aggravating, irritating etc. I would also say that some of this has been fuelled by the Trust in that clear and better explained answers may have satisfied Mr Perrin earlier and would have probably stopped some of the repetition.

It is also clear that the root of these many requests is a dispute that Mr Perrin has with the Trust, that he feels has not been fully concluded. Many of these items are well outside of the remit of the act, and are probably best served using a different vehicle than an FoI request.

of 40

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

€¦ · Web viewI have tried to copy the request word for word, but have paraphrased the replies...

Documents

Transcript of €¦ · Web viewI have tried to copy the request word for word, but have paraphrased the replies...