A local council, frequently labelled elsewhere as ‘the most corrupt in the country’, has, yet again, resorted to legal impropriety to avoid answering awkward questions.
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council was exposed late last year by Neil Wilby Media as breaking the law almost every single day (read more here) but has, on publicly available evidence, not sought to mend its ways.
The latest example follows a freedom of information (FOI) request submitted by a resident in the Borough, Susan Lund, on 16th December, 2023.
The subject matter is another huge embarrassment for this local authority as it concerns Full Council meetings that routinely descend into chaos in one form or another.
This is the text of Ms Lund’s FOI request drawn from the WhatDoTheyKnow website:
Heading: Oldham Council Meeting (shambles)
“The council public meeting on 13 December 2023.
“Why was 2 people in the public gallery, allowed in intimidating members of the public with Palestinian flags.
“Councillors asked to have them removed, it got like a battle field and very unsafe.
The Mayor and the leader Arooj Shah, said it wasn’t illegal to bring the flags into the meeting.
“This meeting was an absolute shambles, the flag holders kept moving and sitting next to members of the public to intimidate them until they got removed.
“We want some answers from the council, why this was allowed to happen.
“The Standards Committee need to look into this, and the Leader and the Mayor to go in front of the standards committee.”
It was acknowledged two days later by the Council and allocated a reference number by them, FOI 19247.
This appears to be the only FOI request that Susan Lund has made and, with full respect to her, it would not be ideally framed under the relevant Act. An experienced information rights practitioner might have presented the request in this way and she may find this helpful as her request progresses:
“I am writing to you under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information regarding an incident that occurred during the Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council public meeting on 13th December 2023.
“I seek specific information regarding the incident where two individuals in the public gallery were allowed to display Palestinian flags, leading to allegations of intimidation towards members of the public and a subsequent disruption during the meeting. It has been reported that councillors requested their removal, and the situation escalated, causing concerns about safety.
“I am particularly interested in obtaining information on the following:
-
The council’s official policy or guidelines regarding the display of flags or banners during public meetings.
-
The rationale behind the decision to permit the display of Palestinian flags during the meeting, considering the reported allegations of intimidation and the subsequent disruption.
-
Any communication or directives issued by the Mayor and the Leader, Cllr Arooj Shah, during the meeting concerning the display of flags and the alleged intimidation.
-
Actions taken by the council or its representatives to address the reported disruption and ensure the safety of attendees.
-
Any documents, including minutes or reports, related to discussions or decisions made by the Standards Committee, Senior Leadership Team or Executive Management Team concerning this incident.
-
Information on any measures or procedures being implemented to prevent a recurrence of such incidents in future council meetings.
“Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council claims to be committed to transparency and accountability, and I believe that providing this information will contribute to the public’s understanding of the events surrounding this incident.
“I look forward to your prompt response within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. If you require any clarification or further information, please do not hesitate to contact me via the details provided above.”
Whilst public authorities have a legal duty to assist individuals making FOI requests, this does not necessarily extend to distilling poorly worded requests. The duty to assist primarily involves providing guidance and support to requesters in a way that helps them identify the information they are seeking and formulate requests effectively.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, Section 16 places a duty on public authorities to provide assistance to individuals making requests for information. This assistance may include:
1. Clarification of the Request:
If a request is unclear or too broad, the public authority should seek clarification from the requester to ensure that the request can be properly understood.
2. Advising on Scope:
If a request is very broad or complex, the public authority may provide advice on how the request could be refined to make it more manageable.
Providing Information on Availability:
The public authority may inform the requester about the types of information it holds and how it can be accessed.
3. Assisting with Formulation:
Authorities may help individuals in formulating their requests more effectively.
However, there is no strict legal obligation to distil poorly worded requests into a more polished form. The onus is generally on the requester to make a clear and specific request for information. Public authorities are not required to rephrase or interpret poorly worded requests beyond providing reasonable assistance.
It’s important for individuals making FOI requests to try to be as clear and specific as possible in their wording to ensure that the information they are seeking is understood by the public authority. Seeking guidance on how to formulate requests effectively can also be beneficial for requesters, especially those who are less experienced in making such requests.
In this particular instance, FOI 19247 has simply been ignored by Oldham Council since the acknowledgement on 18th December, 2023 – and they have chosen not only to break the law, yet again, they have treated the applicant with contempt.
One of the reasons the request is, very likely, sitting in a tray marked ‘Too Difficult’ is that during the subject council meeting, councillors and members of the public were repeatedly told, by the Mayor and the Council Leader, that ‘no law was being broken’ by displaying a Palestinian flag (or any other flag).
Which is wrong, both on the facts and in law: If members of the public feel intimidated (or threatened) by the actions of others, particularly in a confined space, then, at the very least, there is a suspicion of a Section 4 offence being committed under the Public Order Act, 1986 and the police should have been called to deal with the incident.
There is also the ancillary issue that Susan Lund’s freedom of information request has to be also interpreted as a Standards complaint against the Mayor, Cllr Zahid Chauhan OBE, and Cllr Shah – and recorded as such. The problem being is that the person charged with the duty of logging the complaints, and assessing them at first instance, is the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Paul Entwistle. Whom, it is understood, gave the advice during the meeting that no law was being broken and, in any event, is set to belatedly leave Oldham Council this year (read more here).
As is Dr Chauhan, who is retiring from local politics in May, 2024.
That might give two further clues, at least, as to why the clock is being run down on this particular freedom of information request, despite the Council’s legal obligations to provide a response being flouted.
UPDATE: As if by magic, and within a few short hours of this article appearing, Oldham Council decided to produce a belated response, albeit woefully weak, to Susan Lund’s FOI request:
“In response to your request the Council would say that the chair at the
meeting in question was mindful of the position, it is not illegal for an
individual to have a flag on their person or in the council chamber.
“If you wish to make a standards complaint for this issue to be considered
further a form is enclosed for completion and return to the Council’s
monitoring officer.”
Incredibly, this response came from one of the eighteen lawyers employed in the Council’s Legal Services Department. It is absent of any apology or explanation for the delay – presumably because most people by now expect OMBC to break the law – and is of such poor quality and in further breach of the Act, at Section 16, that the officer responsible should face internal disciplinary proceedings and be obliged to attend learning on how to respond to FOI requests correctly.
It is hoped that Ms Lund will challenge the Council’s response by way of an internal review and, if necessary, a complaint to the Information Commissioner. She would be almost certain to succeed via the latter course of action.
Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.
Page last updated: Friday 2nd February, 2024 at 0755 hours
Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Picture credit: OMBC
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment