Have you ever complained about a government department?

Dot, I agree about the time local authorities, government departments and quangos say they may take to answer an email. There is no excuse for taking 14 days, let alone 28 days. There should be a mandatory maximum of 5 working days for an initial, and helpful, response. Then we might believe they take complaints seriously, rather than hoping we will go away. Perhaps Julie Mellor would like to comment on whether this problem is one she will address.

There are times when I am grateful that our public bodies are cautious and economical in responding to FOI requests. Nevertheless, they have to have good reasons for not addressing requests within the statutory timescale and if they are pleading excessive cost as an impediment this should be properly substantiated. They know, of course, that challenging their actions in the courts is prohibitively expensive and that the relevant Obudsman process is unduly protracted and unpredictable thus deterring the citizen from exercising their rights.

John, I think public bodies should be transparent about their actions as they are entrusted with spending our money. Otherwise they can so easily conceal misdemeanours and incompetence. FOI is often the only way to get to the bottom of an issue. There is a difficulty in the time it might take (and the cost involved) to produce some information but an attempt to answer the request helpfully is surely to be expected? The same should go for “commercial confidentiality” – sometimes used to prevent information being made public. Perhaps someone could tell me good instances of when it is applicable – I’m sure there are. When we tendered for local authority businesss the tender results (prices) were usually published after the contract had been awarded; this was a condition of tendering and I don’t think anyone was disadvantaged because of it – if you lost it made you think harder the next time about your pricing, or whether it was worth tendering.

I agree with you Malcolm, and I would go further: I think authorities should be obliged to publish a monthly list of the requests they have received so that the public can see what concerns are being raised. Public bodies have an escape route in the form of an exemption from dealing with frivolous, vexatious and otiose complaints [after all, some citizens have set themselves up as Public Nuisance No.1 and would like to grind their personal axes on the stone of democracy ad infinitum]. I fully support the FOI Act but one unreported consequence of its introduction is that some public authorities [at least, their officials] now assume that unless a request for information is submitted under the label of the Act they do not need to deal with it; if you do quote FOI when asking for a bit of information on something quite ordinary they turn it into an administrative steeplechase and you wished you’d never bothered.

On tendering, local authorities used to be good at reporting the outcomes in their committee minutes and they would also explain why they had awarded a contract to a tenderer other than the lowest [there could be perfectly good reasons]. Now it is all cloaked in secrecy as more and more business is done outside the formalities of committees either by a small cabinet panel of members or directly by the officers after discussion with an “executive member”. This creates an unhealthy climate and some officers are so afraid of putting a foot wrong and “embarrassing” their authority that they will not engage in ordinary dialogue or correspondence pleading a manufactured pretence of confidentiality.

Vixi, if you want an informed view on government, public institutions, local authority and commercial companies activities that you might find interesting, take out a subscription to Private Eye. Sorry if the moderators don’t like a plug – I’ve no links to PE but do find its take on things that matter to us illuminating (and very worrying). Where has integrity, responsibility, honesty and lack of self interest gone? It was probably never there in the first place.

I couldn’t agree more, malcolm r, and appreciate all that Private Eye does to shine lights in dark corners. In fact, I am preparing 2 dossiers that I think will be of interest to them and I am a subscriber.

But what remains frustrating is that, for all their splendid efforts (Ian H please note), there remains the public service (an oxymoron, with the emphasis on moron, if I ever heard one) passive culture of ‘duck-and-stay-down-until-they-go-away’ when faced with justifiable complaints. The active culture is deny-lie-and-destroy.

But as they only follow the moral examples set by our politicians, there is little hope of any change in the foreseeable future, as even after the UKIP wipeout, the main parties seem to think that the only thing they need to change is the content of the hype and burbling they utter in what they see as the three key areas… hatred, hatred and hatred. They still don’t get it… THEY ARE THE PROBLEM, no matter what issues from their verbals.

This correspondence strikes many chords with me. I live in the London Borough of Enfield where an Environment Agency led and supposedly Enfield Council monitored flood alleviation project estimated to cost £15.3m, has been in implementation for more than a year with an uncertain time still to run to completion. I won’t bore you with chapter and verse about the varied ways in which the EA and its subcontractors have abused the local environment and local residents (who have their own blog to record abuses) because that really is not the point here.

There is also the factor of the studied failure of Enfield Council to ensure compliance with its own planning conditions by the EA and its subcontractor. The Council’s abrogation of its supervisory responsibilities is so complete that its involvement actually smells more like collusion than supervision. When residents complain to or question the Council on this they are either ignored or met by obfuscation and prevarication. This is also the fate of Freedom of Information requests.

This reflects on Which? because the recently re-elected Leader of Enfield Council is Doug Taylor who is employed by Which? This information is on Doug Taylor’s register of interests and has been confirmed to me by Which? I cannot believe that it is appropriate per se for senior political figures to be employed by Which? I was concerned about the potential for conflicts of interest and have already voiced these concerns to Which? The circumstances I describe here now leave me in no doubt that it is entirely inappropriate for Which? to employ a senior political figure who is evidentially not only unsupportive of the major Making Complaints Count campaign but is enthusiastically pursuing the practices that the campaign seeks to eradicate. Doug Taylor is in a position of power and authority such that the success or failure of the campaign as it relates to Enfield Council turns on his attitude. Doug Taylor has been directly involved by residents and local ward councillors in the complaints about Enfield Council’s lack of appetite for enforcing its project planning conditions and his attitude entirely mirrors that of Enfield Council as a whole i.e. complaints are either ignored or met by obfuscation and prevarication.

That is the reverse of the more likely sequence that Doug Taylor, as second term Leader of Enfield Council, has determined that Enfield Council will follow a policy of ignoring inconvenient complaints and questions, and if pressed to respond, using obfuscation and prevarication to play the issues long to infinity. This is not an uncommon political tactic to deal with any inconveniences but one which I believe Which? should have no truck with. Senior political activists have no place in Which?