Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Freedom of Information - Editor (9th Nov 2009 - 09:13:35) From the www.ico.gov.uk website. On the 22 August 2007 the following request for information was made. Confirmation or denial of any decision being made by Council concerning ex-gratia payments made to Parish Council employees since 1st April 2007. If confirmed, the amount decided and When such a decision was made The Commissioner has now made the following decision: Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council Summary: The complainant requested information about whether ex gratia payments had been made by the public authority and if so when the decision was made and how much for. The public authority initially neither confirmed nor denied that it held the information, claiming that the information was personal data. The authority later wrote to the complainant confirming an ex gratia payment had been made but refused to give details of date or amount. The Commissioner found that the information was not personal data and ordered the release of the information. The full request and decision can be read here www.ico.gov.uk/... It appears that our Parish Council have 2 more days in which the requested information is released into the public domain, unless of course they have decided to spend our money to appeal. I guess we would then need to ask why the information needs to be kept secret from us. Watch this space.

Re: Freedom of Information - Dawn Hoskins (9th Nov 2009 - 12:15:20) This raises more questions than it gives answers!! From a quick scan of the documents: • an employee has been given cash • out of Parish funds = TAX PAYERS money • In secret Seeing as the Parish Council have been fighting the release, one can only presume that this is another ‘behind closed doors’ decision that we were not supposed to find out about!! I would like to know who authorised tax payer’s money to be spent on extra wages. Don’t the staff get paid adequately? Was this ‘bung’ given with the consent of the whole council or was it kept secret from them as well? This tax payer’s money should have been spent on improving the village – not bumping up someone’s salary – I wonder what project got refused in order for these funds to be diverted in this way! I'm definitely going to the next full council meeting to get some answers about this outrageous behaviour.

Re: Freedom of Information - Editor (9th Nov 2009 - 13:29:30) The minutes of the Parish Council from January 2007 onwards, have some little snippets in, which I suspect may be relevent to the case. Scan through the "items classified as exempt" at the end of each of them. www.bramshottandliphook-pc.gov.uk/Council.htm Hopefully it will all become plain in a few days time.

Re: Freedom of Information - Dawn Hoskins (9th Nov 2009 - 13:40:11) OMG! There's hundreds of them!

Re: Freedom of Information - Barry Hope (9th Nov 2009 - 17:35:49) Hi I want to let you all know that I requested the information mentioned after I left the council on 1st May 2007 at the time of the local elections. It took until the 3rd of November 2009 to be issued with the information I requested around September 2007. I was appalled at the initial replies sent to me by the PC which demonstrated that they were prepared to clutch at any excuse not to give the information to me. The decision was made on the 1st May 2007 and the payment made was £2,500. I was Chairman of the council up to 1st May when the elections took place. I did not stand again because I was unhappy with the unhealthy way the council was working internally as were other councillors at the time who also decided not to re-stand. It is my understanding that half the councillors were unhappy with the prospect of paying out any sum of money from public funds and I made it quite clear that as Chairman I would not support it. The decision being made on the 1st May meant that it was too late to inform me of it having been made and as I was no longer Chairman or Councillor on 2nd May I was no longer officially entitled to be informed. This was very convenient for the remaining council as it meant that it was kept in exempt without being debated by full council. The decision I believe was made by a small working party, I am not sure that it was then ratified by full council as I was no longer associated with council and therefore out of the loop. I still disagree with the fact that a payment was made, I consider it wrong and inappropriate for it to have been made and am furious that a) I was not consulted as Chairman and b) that any payment was agreed at all. It had all the hallmarks of a cover up and I felt very uncomfortable ever since, hence my attempt to uncover the truth. If you read the Information Commissioners decision on their web site (given above) you will see just how many conditions of the FOI act that Bramshott and Liphook Council breached, even with apparently receiving Legal Advice. It also demonstrates how easy it is for the council to be ill-advised and make doubtful decisions after legal advice being sort and that they should not just take any advice given at face value. Perhaps some councillors should wake up and ensure they are comfortable with decisions, taking their own advice if necessary.

Re: Freedom of Information - Editor (9th Nov 2009 - 17:45:12) Hi Barry Do you think they will actually tell us how much of our money was spent on inaccurate legal advice, and if they are now going to recover our money from the 'expert' that offered them the advice ? Or will we need another FOI request to get that ! I guess, it has not been revealed why an ex-gratia payment was made ? Alan

Re: Freedom of Information - Alan Baker (9th Nov 2009 - 17:55:37) December 2007 "48/07 PARISH COUNCIL PRECEPT & BUDGET 2008/9 The Chairman advised that a reduction in the budget would be required to enable the Parish Council increase to remain at 2.5%. Following discussion members agreed to reduce the budget by £4,000." So, this reduction was partially required to fund the £2,500 ex-gratia payment made in May 2007 ?

Re: Freedom of Information - Barry Hope (9th Nov 2009 - 18:07:14) Hi Alan I doubt if that info will be offered freely. Questions can be asked at the PC meeting as it is now public domain. Maybe someone can ask it and other appropriate questions as they see fit, everyone has a right to know. No it did not disclose the recipient but that is not what I wanted. I was more concerned with the fact that the decision was made and that publicly funded money was involved and spent by councillors who ought to have been more aware of the consequences. So I had no desire to identify the receiver and haven't. If the name comes out it won't be due to me. Regards Barry

Re: Freedom of Information - Sue (9th Nov 2009 - 18:52:00) Barry, For you this must be a relief. You have held onto this issue for 2 years and not let it drop. Even your fight about this was Herald News - and people slated you for it too. Not to mention some Councillor at the time on here also! I am surprised that no-one asked for the council to investigate it properly, even a self examining investigation?

Re: Freedom of Information - Dawn Hoskins (9th Nov 2009 - 21:06:16) Can I get this straight? Barry, you were the Chairman of the PC. • You said no money can be given out of public funds • You were Chairman right up to the 1st of May 2007 • The decision was made on the 1st of May 2007. • Money you said could not be dished out – was! Surely for the decision to have been made against your instructions, those Councillors responsible would have been plotting to make this decision before hand – during your Chairmanship. I realise from what you have said that on the 2nd of May you were no longer entitled to question them about it – but shouldn’t there have been some sort of procedure for Councillors acting in direct contravention of instructions? Who became the Chairman after you left, and did he know that this suspicious payment had been given? How secret was it? Also that raises another question – this is a very large sum of money, don’t all councillors have to agree to a motion being passed regarding something like this? If they don’t – then they should do – how else can there be any safeguards over tax payer’s money. I mean a couple of councillors could get together and decide to fund any ridiculous idea – and get away with it if there are no checks and balances. I am very confused because I was sure that all 12 councillors had to vote on these things. I read through the other posts (links below), and that helped me to get to grips with the detail – but I still think there must be something fundamentally wrong with the management of the council if this sort of thing can be allowed to happen. Now that it has been discovered, can a claim be put in for this sum of money to be repaid? Our MP’s are having to pay back all their erroneous expense claims so I don’t see why this should be any different!! Could go a long way to putting the playground at the Rec’ back together……… www.liphook.co.uk/thread 1186... www.liphook.co.uk/thread 1443...

Re: Freedom of Information - Barry (9th Nov 2009 - 23:23:12) Dawn Yes I was Chairman of the PC up to midnight May 1st 2007 At various meetings leading up to 1st May where the possibility of a payment was discussed I stated that I would not support such a decision as I considered it beyond the council’s remit, authority and that spending public funds in this way was not acceptable or morally correct. I did not have the task of making the decision as Chairman, this was passed by full Parish Council to a councillor who was delegated the task to conclude the investigation and draw a conclusion to the process, including recommendation for any payment. I assumed that this would have to be finally ratified by council vote. As I have said the timing of the decision and the whether it was finally agreed by council conspired against me so I was not informed and had no opportunity to be involved after 2nd May 2007. I am certain there was some careful timing on the part of councillors involved to avoid my involvement as it was stated that all I had to do was ask that evening, but I was not made aware of the meeting that took place to make the decision that night. John Tough became Chairman after I left and apparently he knew and did not object. All the other points you raised could be put to the council as questions to test their commitment to open replies. Barry

Re: Freedom of Information - graeme (10th Nov 2009 - 08:32:39) Barry, so you left the council before a Tough call and then rejoined to put pressure on councillors who had to make that call and now report it on this website NICE hope you have not upset your Rising Sun drinking buddies roll on the elections

Re: Freedom of Information - barbara easton (10th Nov 2009 - 11:28:12) dear reg or should I say Bill Mouland on a fishing expedition? You obviously have been given paperwork relating to various matters, and trying to entrap people this way is underhanded, possibly with matters which are sub judice.

Re: Freedom of Information - Dawn Hoskins (10th Nov 2009 - 12:31:03) Yes Barry – how dare you schedule yourself in to get cancer like that! Everyone will be able to see through that. How thoughtless of you . . . . . . . . .LOL Graeme - can't you read? If you would like me to sit with you and read the FoIA report out loud - or perhaps go through the statements on the threads listed above - I'd be happy to help you out. He DID MAKE THE DECISION!!! The decision was ............... No money can come out of parish funds for this ex-gratia payment. Full stop. He was Chairman and he made the decision. I don't think it was even a tough call. The that fact that people conspired against that decision to make the payment (on the day he left) whilst keeping the matter secret is what he has been fighting to get to the bottom of ever since. I do not understand why there is even ‘side taking’ in this. The Parish Council have been judged and found wanting. They did not comply with the law as they should have done. They refused to release documents which they should have done and they have made a very large payment from tax payers money to a member of staff - despite being told outright before hand that to do so would be an immoral use of public funds. Don’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the message.

Re: Freedom of Information - barbara easton (10th Nov 2009 - 13:51:54) I have just been telephoned by Bill Mouland who assures me he has not gone on this site under a different name, I merely posed the question as Reg and Graeme seem to have a lot of information. I accept his word that Reg is not him.

Re: Freedom of Information - Barry Hope (10th Nov 2009 - 18:49:30) Hi Dawn, Like the comment. I just want to absolutely clarify, I did not make the decision. I simply made my view very strongly that the payment should not be made for the reasons I have given elswhere on the two threads currently running on this site. All the council knew by my statements made in PC meetings that I would have objected very hard if it came to the decision to pay an amount. As it was, I and others were not given that opportunity as the decision to pay was made by a small delegated working party on the night of 1st May. By the following morning I was excluded from anything to do with the situation and the rest is history as they say.

Re: Freedom of Information - Bill Ratcliffe (10th Nov 2009 - 20:58:49) I can support Barry Hope in his statements. One of the reasons that I left the Parish Council and did not stand for election again was this issue. It was clear that some members of the Parish Council were keen to follow a path which in my view would have (and apparantly did) lead to an dubious payment being made out of Parish funds to an employee of the council. It was my view that there was no justification of the payment.

Re: Freedom of Information - Barry Hope (10th Nov 2009 - 22:20:02) Hi Bill Many thanks for your comments, I know other ex councillors share the same view and left for the same reasons. It would be good if more gave their views to this site so that it doesn't continue to appear that a small minority is "moaning"??

Re: Freedom of Information - Mike G (11th Nov 2009 - 00:04:13) The only bit missing now, realistically, is "what was this payment for?" Presumably, it was compensation for something that someone or some persons said or did. If that is the case, then how can it be that the people of Bramshott and Liphook (and Passfield) are held to be collectively responsible? Maybe an individual or group of individulas are really culpable We need to know what this was for and I, for one, would like my £1 back as I paid it in good faith, as we all did, for Parish services.

Re: Freedom of Information - Editor (11th Nov 2009 - 15:12:08) Just a note for Bill Mouland, please feel free to use any of the information in this thread to further the article you must be writing. As a professional reporter, the local community are expecting you to be asking serious questions of the council to find out who the money was given to and exactly why it was given. We wouldn't want you to fail in this respect Bill. Alan

Re: Freedom of Information - Editor (13th Nov 2009 - 08:53:50) The following area of the Parish web site produces some interesting information - I suspect the council will pull these pages once they realise they are open to the public - www.bramshottandliphook-pc.gov.uk/Publication Scheme It would be very interesting to see copies of the "Receipts & Payments" for the months from April 2007 to Feb 2009; March 2009 can be seen by clicking here. These are not available on line for some reason and should clearly show payments for any legal fees - for example £1,104, £126.50 and £632.50 in March 2009 alone and a further £1,098 in June 2009.

Re: Freedom of Information - barbara easton (13th Nov 2009 - 16:41:51) I think you can request to see copies of most of what is not held on line. I am sure a set of accounts for 2007 could be supplied if you visit the parish office. I am glad to see the public are corncerned about where the money is spent, and Mike, your share is considerably more than £1!

Re: Freedom of Information - Steve Read (14th Nov 2009 - 11:26:03) [Editor - I have copied Steve's post from the 'Parish Clerk' thread to here, as it has clear relevance to both] Rarely vist anymore, but nothing changes. I see after catching up this week that yet again Liphook pushes the self destruct button in this present debacle involving the Parish Council. How pathetic this whole saga appears, this council continues to operate under the disillusionment of grandeur, a misplaced sense of self importance and the fact that some members have their heads wedged firmly up where the sun don't shine just to get Cllr in front of their names. It is not the MI5 or the CIA, you collect a bit of money, you dish it out, turn down the odd planning application, usually get rail roaded into passing more, keep the odd footpath open and sit around at meetings spending most of the evening discussing the minutes from the last meeting. Come clean about all of this mess, someone have the balls to stand up and tell us what the hell is going on. Either put up, shut up or get out. Get people in who can sort out the facilities up the Rec for the kiddies,have a bit more backbone when it comes to the continuing development in Liphook, get working alongside the business community to encourage more people to visit and use Liphook and attempt to resolve the continuing traffic problems attributed to the local schools. I am sure there are genuine individuals who became elected to hopefully better or attempt to better this village, but with this recent comical display of ineptitude, allegations and inuendo these individuals will have become fully immersed into this alleged scandal. Sort it out, come clean, get out or get on with what you were elected to do in the first place. Simple!

Re: Freedom of Information - Mike Grimes (14th Nov 2009 - 21:13:49) Yes, if there is a whole raft of legal fees associated with this case then my share will be more than £1. Quick sums reveal that for every £2530 the PC spends I contribute £1. But wait, how much do I contribute via the Scouts and Guides?

Re: Freedom of Information - Dawn Hoskins (17th Nov 2009 - 21:18:56) I went to the EHDC Community Forum tonight. I asked whether there was an obligation upon EHDC to provide legal advice to Parish Councils having ‘problems’ and whether upon receipt of that advice the Parish Councils concerned should accept or (if not) then be able to go outside EHDC to receive outside legal advice. I asked this question with regard to the statement in the Freedom of Information Act Report in which Liphook and Bramshott Parish Council state that they acted on advice of the EHDC. Considering the verdict of the Information Commissioner was that they breached pretty much every available section in the Act – I find it a bit worrying. I also find worrying the fact that such a huge amount of Parish money has been spent on this so called ‘Legal Advice’ (which was absolutely incorrect) when there are free EHDC solicitors at Penns Place to do the job without spending precept money. As a provider of services, I would like the solicitors’ office identified that has given this shockingly bad advice (which as a tax payer I have funded), I think it appropriate under the circumstances for the fees to be waived and the Parish Council reimbursed. The Community Forum will get back to me with an answer to my question. Probably at the next Forum.

Re: Freedom of Information - Barry Hope (18th Nov 2009 - 17:23:13) I just wanted to pose the question, why hasn't the Herald reporter picked this story up and reported it? They know that a decision has been made by the FOIO Commissioner and yet they remain silent. With a story of such importance, I think it is absolutely incredulous that the reporter, Gabriel Pike, has not instantly put pen to paper to go to town on the PC behaviour regarding the flawed legal advice they received and blindly followed as well as the costs of that advice to the parishioners they have incurred. I have very good reason to believe that the reporter is making judgments in her own right and is possibly working closely with the some of the PC to try and prevent it from being reported, I'm afraid this seems to be the case. I hope I am wrong as this would be evidence of total bias and corruption and show the real reason behind some of the totally inaccurate and untrue statements made in the Herald over the last few weeks regarding certain issues. Regards Barry

Re: Freedom of Information - Paul Robinson (18th Nov 2009 - 20:55:32) Barry, You have single handedly succeeded in getting a difinitive ruling from the FOIO. You must be aware that the Herald Group gets much of their information from this site. You know when the payment was made, you know how much was paid, you know who it was paid to and the reason it was paid. You also know which councillors approved the payment so why not post it on this site and help the Herald Group in compiling their story. As the Duke of Wellington said 'publish and be damned' Paul Robinson

Re: Freedom of Information - Barry Hope (18th Nov 2009 - 21:51:45) Paul I think your missing the point I was trying to make here. Yes, I know the answers to those questions. The point is, the Herald reporter has already had access to that information and I believe it was before it was released to me. I cannot add any more info for her. Just to remind you 1. The decision was made 2. The decision was made on the 1st May 2007 3. The amount was £2,500 I do know who it was made to but that is not what I wanted to disclose, I made that clear 2 years ago. The whole point was that I wanted to expose the lack of regard by most of the PC to spending public money in that way and the fact that they fought very hard to disguise it. The Herald reporter has enough info due to working so close with the PC and has had ample opportunity to approach me to ask questions but I have seen no sign of her. Sorry Paul I am not going start doing her job for her.

Re: Freedom of Information - Dawn Hoskins (21st Dec 2009 - 17:16:40) I wonder if Ms Pike will be at tonight's meeting?

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home