Michael Read
Via email
/ Housing and Adult Social Services Information Services
Islington Council 4th Floor,
7 Newington Barrow Way,
N7 7EP
0207 527 8292

24 November 2015
Dear Mr Read
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REF No: 489963
Thank you for your information request, received on 28 October 2015.
You requested the following information:
In the early part of this year ( 2015 ), I attended what was billed as a "Question Time" meeting involving councillor Richard Watts, the leader of the council, and two other councillors, Claudia Webb and Paul Convery. The meeting was chaired by the chief executive of the Cripplegate Foundation, a charity. The meeting took place in the south of the borough in Finsbury.
At that meeting, I put several quesions to Cllr Watts about continuing the pfi contract with Partners. Partners could be fairly described as having established itself as a delinquent, incompetent and, on occasion, fraudulent, contractor to the authority. (A note: the adjective "fraudulent" is not here used gratuitously but is specifically referenced in the 2011 PWC report which mentions the dismissal of two directors of Partners as well as the discharge of several contractors; so too "incompetent", as referenced in a previous report, released under an FoI request, on "decoration"; ditto delinquent, as revealed in yet another report, released again under an FoI request, and prepared by the council's own planning conservation department )
In his reply, Cllr Watts mentioned that the authority had looked at ending the contract but that the costs would have emperilled the finances of the housing operation. However, he told me, explicitly, that he would look at releasing the report subject to some redactions.
It is this report, prepared I asssume by a barrister, and an accountant, which I am requesting.
Our response is:
The information requested is exempt under Section 42 – legal professional privilege for items 1 and 2.Section 42 applies to information that would be subject to legal professional privilege if litigation were in progress. Legal professional privilege covers confidential communications between lawyers and clients and certain other information that is created for the purposes of litigation. The public interest test for this request is as follows:
Factors in favour of disclosure:
  • The council should be transparent with clear accountability to further public debate
Factors in favour of withholding:
  • To ensure the supply of frank and information between lawyer and client is supported which goes to serve the wider administration of justice
  • Disclosurecould prejudice the supply of frank and candid information in the future
  • Disclosure could act as a deterrent to the local authority’s ability to gather more related information.
We are also not able to disclose the entire report from Islington council as this information is commercially sensitive. The information if disclosed, could compromise Islington Council's negotiating position with Partners for Islington or other contractors now or in the future.
Under Section 43 (2) of the act information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person. Generally this will mean considering whether it is unfair to release the information and balancing the necessary public interest in disclosure against the interests of the individuals under the first principle.
The factors we have considered that favour disclosure in the public interest are:
  • That disclosure may enable people to assess performance indicators for Partners for Islington.
  • The council should be transparent about how public money is spent
The factors we have considered which favour maintaining the exemption are:
  • The need for Islington council to negotiate with our contractors to review arrangements and get the most competitive prices.
  • The disclosure of the information could curtail current work to compile the agreement and frustrate current reporting on related matters.
  • The disclosure could compromise Islington Council's sub-contractors negotiating position with other providers now or in the future.
The council believes that in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
In accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in relation to your request.
We have redacted all legally privileged and commercially sensitive information in the report below;

This information has been provided as part of our responsibility under Section 16 of the Act, this is a duty to provide advice and assistance.
You are free to use the information provided for your own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication, requires the permission of the copyright holder. Detailed advice about the Reuse of Public Sector Information Regulations (PSI) 2005 is available from the Office of Public Sector Information at:
If you have any queries or concerns then please contact us using the above details
If you are not satisfied with the way in which your request has been handled or the outcome, you may request an internal review within two calendar months of the date of this response by contacting: Information Complaints, Digital Services, Room G17, Town Hall, Upper Street, London N1 2UD. Email:
Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner's Office, at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone: 0303 123 1113. Web:
Yours sincerely,
Yemi Tiamiyu
Information Governance Officer
Housing and Adult Social Services
Islington Council