The scrolling images above are of board members , directors and senior managers of SABP and MCCH Society Ltd. These images are already available online on SABP's and MCCH's own websites. Click on images for details of who these people are.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

SABP's Delays & Evasiveness in Dealing with FOIA Requests

After Jill Goble was forced to remind Surrey and Borders partnership MHS Trust to respond to outstanding Freedom of Information requests I got a long delayed and completely evasive response from the Trust .

The following picks up where we are now.

from Jo Young
to Des Curley
cc Wilhelmina Cox ,Jill Goble
date Nov 13, 2006 3:14 PM
subject RE: FOIA request ~ Work Service's Review

Dear Des

I write to acknowledge receipt of your e mail as requested.

My response to your FOIA request was not intended to be evasive ~ and I will look at this again and provide you with a response.

I am uncertain why you think it would be appropriate for you to invoice the Trust as you suggest and would appreciate further clarification in that regard.

Thank you
~ Jo

Jo Young (Director PLD)
T: 01276 605 555 M: 07770 876028




Ms Young,

The Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust's attitude to answering FOIA requests has not only been evasive , the requirement to respond to requests within the timeframe set out in the FOIA legislation has simply been viewed as optional, most notably by you.

My written FOIA request was submitted in late September 2006 and I have now waited almost two months for a simple answer Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Trust's Chief Executive Fiona Edwards probably already knew when I discussed the question, and my reasons for asking it , with her in front of the Trust Board and you at the Board meeting on 28th September 2006.

Following this discussion , your fellow Trust Board member Roshan Bailey also made it clear to the Chief Executive that she thought it was very important for the Trust to answer my question precisely because it related to the Trust's own record as an Equal Opportunities Employer and , potentially, Barriers to Employment and Employer Discrimination.

Your failure to apply and adhere to the FOIA procedures in your handling of my FOIA request - and there appears to be a pattern of this - imposed work on and cost me time and money so rather than wasting more of my time assuming that you have some right to demand I explain myself to you, would you kindly provide the address of whichever department deals with invoices please because if I am forced to waste more time going around you to find out , I'll invoice for the Trust for this as well. In the meantime, would you please answer my question.

I trust this clarifies matters.

Please acknowledge receipt

Desmond Curley

posted by simply human @ 12:40 pm   Listen to this article Listen to this article 1 comments

1 Comments:

At 6:51 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Following this I have now sent Jo Young the following mail in reply to her mail to me of 10th November. Have to see if this gets any clearer a response? We can live in hope...

Dear Jo Young and colleagues,

Thank you for your mail of November 10th below. I am afraid that there seems to be some confusion concerning the questions I have asked.

To clarify I will also summarise the questions that remain a problem.

First of all there seems to be a discrepancy of 20 people who have had their £3 a day payments reinstated in the 159 people you write about compared to the 179 disabled people Peter Kinsey stated were working in the Priority Enterprises in June. Could you please tell me what has happened to the other 20 people and their payments?

Secondly our question was not about the number of disabled people employed at the Priority Enterprises which as you see above was already answered by Peter Kinsey before he left. No our question referred to the number of disabled service users SABPT employs across the trust and in what positions? This is important for us to see what kind of an equal opportunity employer SABPT is and this is especially relevant given that the Richmond Fellowship which will provide no new jobs for service users has now been awarded a 5 year contract. I believe Des Curley has already written to you complaining we have received no answer to this question and our time is being wasted with the endless delays in receiving straightforward answers from SABPT.

Secondly I am also tired of not being given a straight answer concerning the Old Moat Enterprises accounts and sales figures. Before he left Peter Kinsey did tell me that the Old Moat makes a £150,000 loss but he did not give me the accounts or the sales figures or say how these figures were arrived at. I want to know the specific details of sales figures and staff costs etc so we can work out what alternative plans for the centre are in the disabled workers best interests. This is especially important considering MCCH Ltd are producing a report in December concerning their plans for the Old Moat. I do not see how this information can be kept from us on the grounds that it is commercially sensitive as we already know that the Old Moat makes a £150,000 loss. I just want more detailed information about the accounts which all commercial businesses have to make public knowledge anyway. Why should SABPT hide information from us on these grounds and why do you not know the information by now considering I originally asked the question months ago? Please let me have the accounts and sales figures without anymore delaying tactics.

As far as arranging a meeting with you is concerned I do not think this would be productive until we have answers to these outstanding questions and have also seen the MCCH Ltd report on the Old Moat which is not due until December.

Please can you answer our questions without further delays.

Yours Sincerely

Jill Goble






JY/ame
10th November 2006



Ms. Jill Goble.
jill@goblej.freeserve.co.uk



Dear Jill,

I am pleased that you would be willing to meet to discuss your outstanding issues and concerns with me and will attempt to provide you with the responses you are requesting under the Freedom of Information Act.

For ease of reference I have summarised your questions in the order set out in your email of 07th November:

1. Question at the Board in September about the numbers of people who use services employed by Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Trust?

I hope I am interpreting this question correctly. At the Board it was asked how many people were using the work services and were affected by the discontinuation of ‘payments’.

I can tell you that as of the 28th September 2006 we wrote to 159 people who attended Netherne Print, Assembly Matters, Art and Crafts Matters, Old Moat Garden Centre and Queens Park Garden Centre. All of these people were previously receiving “therapeutic payments” for their attendance. All of these people have had these payments re-instated.

None of these individuals are employed by Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust.

2. Contract for Priority Enterprise with Richmond Fellowship and your discussions with the Surrey Primary Care Trust.

I note your comments and assume you are waiting for information from the Primary Care Trust in this regard. I would however like to reassure you that the Richmond Fellowship have a wealth of experience in providing employment advice, training, work experience and support into employment for people who use services. I expect therefore that their expertise will bring new opportunities for people with disabilities to attain real work, paid at minimum wage at least - so you should not give up hope.

3. Information with regards the Old Moat Garden Centre sales figures and running costs?

The assignment I have been asked to lead following the Trust Board decision on 28th September – the ‘Payments Project’ (as I am now calling it) will be working towards ensuring the Trust’s treatment of people who use the work and day services is compliant with benefits regulations, national minimum wage act and employment law.

The Payments Project will require the Trust to review the activity being undertaken in our work and day services and the £3 payments being made, as they are not compliant with these regulations and laws.

I will therefore be taking a further paper to Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust Board in due course setting out the project proposal. This project plan will be available to share with you once I have Trust Board support to proceed and will include seeking answers to the questions relating to the income sources of the Old Moat Garden Centre. I do not have this information available at present and the sensitive nature of this commercial information may need to be preserved and not disclosed. I am seeking further advice in this regard.

The ‘Payments Project’ does not change the decision already made by the commissioners of services to transfer work services to independent and voluntary sector providers over the coming months and years.

4. Separate FOIA requests?

I am responding directly to other requests for information and apologise for the delays there has been in providing these responses.

I hope this provides you with some of the information you are seeking. I will ask Vicky Wattridge, Personal Assistant, to arrange for us to meet. I would appreciate if you could indicate in advance the days and times that are best for you and your colleague campaigns so that she is able to review my diary and find a convenient time for us all.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,





Jo Young
Director of Services for People with Learning Disabilities

c.c. Wilhelmina Cox, PA to Fiona Edwards, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

toolbar powered by Conduit