Author Topic: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?  (Read 239885 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mart

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5249
  • Where's my cow?
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1120 on: February 19, 2013, 08:02:20 PM »
But Rod said it was a shrewd investment that paved the way to a land of untold riches, car parks and a school in every garden.

He's never been wrong yet has he?

We've just failed to grasp the vision.
Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don’t know what your rights are, or who the person is you’re talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4023
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1121 on: February 20, 2013, 09:49:34 AM »
I cannot remember if I have mentioned it before but on the 29th of January 2013, Digital City (UK) filed a "First Gazette" with Companies House.

Normally this is followed three month later by a "Second Gazette" and then the company is dissolved.

It looks like Digital City will be dissolved without the further cost of the 2012 accounts being another financial burden on the Swindon taxpayer. Small mercy but as it hasn't been trading (ever!) it should be no problem.

This means that at the end of April 2013, Digital City (UK) will no longer exist and it will no longer owe anyone any money.

What happens to the Fines for late Filing now standing @ £2250.00 plus the cost for late 2011? 

Are they cancelled or do they have be paid by the Directors i.e. US?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1122 on: March 03, 2013, 09:22:58 AM »
The total absurdity to the answer given to 'makethem99' is that on 11 January 2013 I received a Notice of Refusal signed by Stephen Taylor in relation to my request to make the PWC report public.

The refusal was based on Mr Taylor's opinion that the 'public interest in witholding the information is not outweighed by the public interest in releasing it" and covered the same three areas to which Sharon Druett refers.

I think Mr Taylor is mistaken in thinking he knows the mind of the 'public' - the reality is that the report is critical of the administration and officers, particularly the failure of officers to secure the debt aganst the assets of the company by way of a legal charge.

For those who can suffer a review of the saga, you will recall the Council and Coun Perkins maintained they had secured the loan by way of a charge, this regrettably turned out to be untrue.

But why Sharon Druett would require 'further time' to research or prepare an answer is a mystery as she has already done the work. All she had to do was copy the answer from Mr Taylor. In writing the response she did, sadly she confirmed three points. The first that the right hand does not know what the left is doing; second, the practise of stalling is endemic within the Council and third, the attitude of the Council is naything but honest and transparent.

For the record here are the reasons given by SBC for not making public the £10,100 taxpayer funded report.

1. Commercial Interest The Council argues that ‘The report contains information relating to entities other than SBC including the financial information of Digital City UK Limited and the shareholdings of Avidity and aQovia. The conclusion of this argument is that the release of the report would prejudice the commercial interests of all the parties concerned, including the Council.

The fact is that Digital City is not trading and according to the Annual Accounts of the company, is not a ‘going concern’.

The accounts of Digital City are a matter of public record as is the shareholding of Avidity and aQovia. 

It is also the case that Avidity Consulting has ceased trading and has been wound up by Companies House.

I submit it is extremely difficult to argue how the release of the PWC report could prejudice any of the parties referred to.

2. Public Interest The Council agrees that the default position should always be ‘to disclose’ and agrees with the view of the Information Commissioner that the presumption running through the Freedom Of Information Act is that openness is, in itself to be regarded as something that is in the public interest. 

The Council has obviously considered the fact that openness and transparency will enable the public to gain a better understanding of the relationship between Digital City and the Council. It dismisses this positive position by citing issues which may or may not arise in the writing and commissioning of further reports. However, such a view ignores the fact that the report was commissioned in 2011 at a point when Digital City was already in default with its interest payments, and when it was abundantly clear that the company could not fulfil the terms of its contract which was to provide a Borough wide Wi-Fi system. 

The Public Interest is compelling, not simply as a prurient exercise but to gain a greater knowledge of what appears to be a commercial decision based on half truths and inaccurate information which resulted in the Council loaning £400,000 of taxpayer money to what can only be described as a dodgy venture.

3. Information Provided in Confidence The Council claims that the content report is the ‘property’ of PWC even though the Council paid £10,100 for the report. The Council also claim they signed a contract which gives PWC ultimate control of who sees the report and whether any part or parts can be disclosed. It is quite amazing that the Council has agreed to such a clause.

4. Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs  The Council argues the report was prepared for the exclusive use of SBC and Digital City. It also argues that if the participants had known the content was to be made public they may have been less frank in the views and comments expressed. 

The Council acknowledges that the publication of the report might inhibit open discussion in future reports; while an interesting argument it has no basis in fact but is merely a supposition commonly used to suppress the release of information which might ‘embarrass’ the administration or officials within the administration. Section 36 was not meant to provide a ‘get out of jail’ card and protect the egos of officers or councillors. The Council’s attempt to hide behind this clause demonstrates exactly why the document should be made public.

The Council has released a large number of documents in to the public arena. However, it also still refuses to answer questions on the project. 

The Council claims this document was commissioned to assist the Council ‘on its future options in relation to Digital City’. The Council has never previously suggested this report was a joint venture with Digital City and has never claimed the PWC report was for the use of Digital City.

5. Personal Data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act  The Council argues that the report contains data relating to third parties who are not Council employees.  I suspect this all embracing catch all clause refers in a large part to the companies already referred to, Digital City and aQovia.


Offline makethem99

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1123 on: March 03, 2013, 10:29:26 AM »
Des - looks like they are just toying with us. After another delay(see S Druett email) my friend responded:-

Dear Ms Druett
I have to say that although I was half expecting this further delay it still comes as a shock to me that SBC employees can behave in such a manner. Having waited till 1740 on the original deadline date to inform me of a delay it is almost incredible that you have the audacity to delay matters again!!

I have just emailed the ICO telling them what SBC are up to on this matter. Just to recap I asked for a copy of a document that you readily have to hand. It is a "five minute" exercise to produce a copy for any member of the public as laid down by legislation.

You have delayed suppling this information for no legitimate reason as far as I can see. Let's see what the ICO have to say.

Charles


Dear Mr Lyon,

FW: FOI101000381394 Freedom of Information request - WiFi and Digital City

I need to update you on our progress with your request. Unfortunately, we will need some more time before we reach a conclusion and will endeavour to get back to you no later than 8th March, 2013.

If you have any queries about this matter please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in all future communications.

Yours sincerely,
Sharon Druett

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1124 on: March 03, 2013, 10:04:42 PM »
Sadly it is symptomatic of the way in which the Council as a corporate and political body views the public.

It demeans the Council that they should attempt to procrastinate on a matter for which they have already concocted an answer and yes it is also common practise for them to draw out matters to the latest time possible.

I hope the ICO takes action and i hope councillors who read this will feel ashamed to be part of a system which treats the public with such contempt.

I know some officers also read TS and to them i suggest they revisit their processes and offer a fulsome apology for the crass way in which they have handled the latest request.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1125 on: March 03, 2013, 11:15:58 PM »

With every passing day and every new refusal it looks more and more like an orchestrated conspiracy to conceal.

If only they were so so organised at making the right decisions and getting things right the first time round....

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4023
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1126 on: March 04, 2013, 07:59:33 AM »
For the record here are the reasons given by SBC for not making public the £10,100 taxpayer funded report.

3. Information Provided in Confidence The Council claims that the content report is the ‘property’ of PWC even though the Council paid £10,100 for the report. The Council also claim they signed a contract which gives PWC ultimate control of who sees the report and whether any part or parts can be disclosed. It is quite amazing that the Council has agreed to such a clause.

Has the thought occurred to anyone that they could have 'cleverly' required this clause to be included in the contract with PWC to cover their own position. 

It would appear that this 'story' is worthy of a Hollywood movie it has so many twists and turns

but

They must take us for fools if they think we are 'done' as they say in the States!
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

ph1lc

  • Guest
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1127 on: March 04, 2013, 12:27:57 PM »
It depends on exactly who commissioned the report Richard.

If Digital City commissioned the report, even though SBC were going to pay, confidentiality would be standard requirement for anyone apart from Digital City.

If SBC commissioned it, which they would as major shareholder be fully entitled to, then it would be unusual in my experience.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4023
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1128 on: March 04, 2013, 12:36:57 PM »
It depends on exactly who commissioned the report Richard.

If Digital City commissioned the report, even though SBC were going to pay, confidentiality would be standard requirement for anyone apart from Digital City.

If SBC commissioned it, which they would as major shareholder be fully entitled to, then it would be unusual in my experience.

Maybe someone should ask the question via Freedom of Information, which one?, ph
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4023
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1129 on: March 04, 2013, 05:35:49 PM »
I have just received the following email from Steve Jones the Scrutiny Committee Officer in respect of questions asked in January.  I am away from home presently and do not know when I will be back in town so  I cannot share the hard copy with you.

Hello Mr Symonds. Regarding your questions to Scrutiny Committee in January and February. I received the following information from Councillor Garry Perkins last week. Sorry for the delay in getting it to you but I have been absent from the office for a few days.
 
Question: Can you please advise if the 2011 Accounts were filed by 31st December 2012 and, if not, what is the latest cumulative cost of late filing, including the existing figure of £2250? (we had previously advised that penalties in respect of the late submission of the 2010 accounts would be £1500 with a further penalty of £750 if the 2011 accounts were made by 31 December 2012.)
 
Answer: The 2011 accounts are being worked on by Digital City’s auditors with a view to having them circulated to the Directors for approval in 2013.
 
Question: Have the Directors of the company met and what decision did they take as to the paying of these fines? (we had previously advised that the Directors had yet to meet to make this determination) 
 
Answer: I (Councillor Perkins) have proposed to the director nominated by aQovia UK Ltd, the other shareholder in Digital City, that the fines be paid by the shareholders.
 
 
I’ve put a hard copy in the post to you.


Unfortunately Garry has yet to answer the first question, not unexpected

and

unless aQovia can be persuaded to contribute it would appear the people of Swindon will be picking up the tab for the lot!!

Why do they want to or for that matter need to continue with this farce as the company is bust isn't it?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2700
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1130 on: March 04, 2013, 05:59:49 PM »
can the shareholders put it to Coun Perkins and the other one, to get stuffed...... :wink: :wink:

ph1lc

  • Guest
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1131 on: March 04, 2013, 08:17:45 PM »
K - of course they can.

The fines as far as DC are concerned are unlikely to be pursued by Companies House, and if they are they are only payable by the Company if it has funds. Companies house can't pursue them elsewhere.

As far as the directors are concerned, there is a fair chance that Companies House will not pursue them

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1132 on: March 05, 2013, 07:55:01 AM »
Quote
It depends on exactly who commissioned the report .

SBC commisssioned the report.

Quote
As far as the directors are concerned, there is a fair chance that Companies House will not pursue them

Why not? The directors are liable - jointly and severally.


Quote
I (Councillor Perkins) have proposed to the director nominated by aQovia UK Ltd, the other shareholder in Digital City, that the fines be paid by the shareholders.


Odd, as the liability to file accounts lies entirely with the directors and NOT the shareholders.

Quote
The 2011 accounts are being worked on by Digital City’s auditors with a view to having them circulated to the Directors for approval in 2013

Being worked on - but as can be seen from the previous accounts there was no activity - indeed the conclusion of the directors as at 31 December 2010 was that the company was 'not a going concern'.  So what is there to work on - no income, no sales, no activity. the

ph1lc

  • Guest
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1133 on: March 05, 2013, 10:19:42 AM »
Des

If SBC actually commissioned the report, I find the supposed confidentiality report strange.

There are two Companies House penalties - one on the Legal entity Digital City. This will not be pursued, as DC have no funds.

The Directors are as you sayy personally liable to penalty for failure to file. My experience of similar situations is that CH rarely bother to try to collect.




Offline makethem99

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1134 on: March 05, 2013, 05:17:32 PM »
Latest insulting email!! Clearly Ms Druett is saying that it will be a waste of time contacting ICO because the full complaints procedure has not been undertaken!! I will probably be dead when we finally get the information which is readily available. Public servants are a total disgrace. Don't you think?

Dear Mr Lyon,
FW: FOI101000381394 Freedom of Information request - WiFi and Digital City

As previously advised in my email dated 11th February, 2013, the reason for the delay is that the Council is currently considering the information under the following exemptions:
Section 36: Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
Section 41 Information Provided in Confidence
Section 43 (2) Commercial Interest

Therefore it is not just a matter of locating the document itself.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request or wish us to review our decision you should contact:

 

Customer Services

Civic Offices

Euclid Street

Swindon

Website: www.customerservices@swindon.gov.uk

 

You may also apply direct to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision before contacting the Council. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the Council's own complaints procedure first.


Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1135 on: March 05, 2013, 06:58:57 PM »
I am not surprised at the response you have received - although given that I have already received a refusal based on the very conditions to which Ms Druett refers, I am amazed that she requires time to consider any thing. As for her contention that "the reason for the delay is that the Council is currently considering the information under the following exemptions"
that is simply poppycock. The Council has already considered releasing the information under the stated exemptions and has adjudicated on the matter.

I have written to Justin Tomlinson on this matter and he has passed my concerns to Coun Bluh.

I am sure you will recall the request I made to SBC on the 7 November 2012 requesting the release of the report prepared by PWC for which Swindon council tax payers paid £10,100.

You made it quite clear that, in your view the report should have been published and I gather it has been submitted to members of the Wi-Fi enquiry.

My request ref FOI 101000369490 was acknowledged and a response date of 3 December 2012 advised.

With 52 minutes of the response date outstanding, I received an email advising that the Council required a further 10 days to consider their response and a date of 17 December was advised.

It came as no surprise that on the 17 December at 17.16 hrs I received a further email advising the Council needed more time to consider their response with dates of 4 January 2013 being advised for a response. I did indeed receive an email dated 4 January and timed at 16.43 asking for yet another extension until the 11 January and an email dated 11 January timed at 18.14 hrs, the latter with an notice of refusal.
 

I have appealed the decision as per advice given by the FOI Officer. My appeal was sent directly to the chief executive on the 19 January 2013 a reminder on 11 February 2013 and yet another reminder on 3 March 2013. I have not yet been advised whether my appeal has been considered and adjudicated on.

However, of greater concern to me is the discovery that another FOI request along the same lines was made by another Swindon resident under Ref: FOI101000381394. I assure you that I am not a party to this request and I am not connected to the person making the request.

This request was made on 12 January 2013 and the FOI Officer confirmed that the request had to be answered within 20 days or by the 11 February 2013.

At 17.40 hrs on the 11 February the FOI Officer responded with an extension to the required time, now setting a date of 1 March 2013, this has subsequently been extended to 8 March 2013. 

I am sure you will be in tune with my train of thought. I received a notice from the FOI Officer dated 11 January 2013 with a notice of refusal, the Council having my request before them since 7 November 2012.

The second request was made on the 12 January 2013 a full day after I had been advised that the Council had refused my application for disclosure.

It is therefore my contention that the procrastination practised by the Council in respect of the second application was a clear abuse of process and a crude attempt to answer a residents legitimate query within the time set out in the Freedom Of Information Act.

I also believe the Council is acting in a manner which goes against the spirit of the Act by delaying their responses to queries until the last moment possible under the Act.

With regard to my appeal, it is a matter for regret that the Council simply ignores letters and emails on the subject.

I would request that you use your good offices to obtain a response from SBC with regard to my claim they are abusing the FOI answering process and my appeal to their decision to withhold publication of the report.

I would also appreciate it if you would bring my concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4023
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1136 on: March 11, 2013, 02:17:09 PM »
The subject of the working party has gone remarkably quiet, hasn't it?

Although I was told that Des Moffatt was appointed Chairman I hear persistent rumours that Scrutiny Chairman Small is involved!!

Although I have been told that Peter Heaton Jones replaced Richard Hurley as he couldn't make a single meeting, well now that PHJ has other interests as the Prospective Conservative Candidate for North Devon has he also been substituted?

Has Rod Bluh been interviewed and when he is officially replaced will the Committee be 'out of time' to do so?

So many questions and so few answers!!

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the last Scrutiny Meeting as I was out of town, so was this subject even discussed?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline makethem99

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1137 on: March 12, 2013, 11:22:02 AM »
And so the cover up continues apace - In 2011 the Council commissioned a report from a very expensive firm of consultants, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) to assist them making a decision on it future options in relation to Digital City UK Limited; as the Director of Finance so succinctly made clear.

This decision could hardly be the most difficult or intellectually demanding after all the Council was only a minority shareholder and its alleged involvement was only to loan the company £400,000. A sum considered trivial in the totality of the Council's budget spend and made on the basis of sound advice from officers who had the benefit of reviewing DCs business plans numbers one and two.

It was also the case that by the end of 2010 everyone, including the much deluded members who lacked the courage to speak out against the decision, knew the game was up. Even the directors of Digital City had conceded the business was not viable as a 'going concern' and declared as much in the forward to the accounts dated 31 December 2010.

The report cost £10,100 - some may say this is trivial compared to the Council's budget. Others may say its 50% of the grant they are proposing cutting from Threshold Housing. 

The Council now seeks to restrict the release of the report arguing a number of points to support its decision.

1. Commercial Interest The Council argues that ‘The report contains information relating to entities other than SBC including the financial information of Digital City UK Limited and the shareholdings of Avidity and aQovia. The conclusion of this argument is that the release of the report would prejudice the commercial interests of all the parties concerned, including the Council.

The fact is that Digital City is not trading and according to the Annual Accounts of the company, is not a ‘going concern’.

The accounts of Digital City are a matter of public record as is the shareholding of Avidity and aQovia. 

It is also the case that Avidity Consulting has ceased trading and has been wound up by Companies House.

I submit it is extremely difficult to argue how the release of the PWC report could prejudice any of the parties referred to.

2. Public Interest The Council agrees that the default position should always be ‘to disclose’ and agrees with the view of the Information Commissioner that the presumption running through the Freedom Of Information Act is that openness is, in itself to be regarded as something that is in the public interest. 

The Council has obviously considered the fact that openness and transparency will enable the public to gain a better understanding of the relationship between Digital City and the Council. It dismisses this positive position by citing issues which may or may not arise in the writing and commissioning of further reports. However, such a view ignores the fact that the report was commissioned in 2011 at a point when Digital City was already in default with its interest payments, and when it was abundantly clear that the company could not fulfil the terms of its contract which was to provide a Borough wide Wi-Fi system. 

The Public Interest is compelling, not simply as a prurient exercise but to gain a greater knowledge of what appears to be a commercial decision based on half truths and inaccurate information which resulted in the Council loaning £400,000 of taxpayer money to what can only be described as a dodgy venture.

3. Information Provided in Confidence The Council claims that the content report is the ‘property’ of PWC even though the Council paid £10,100 for the report. The Council also claim they signed a contract which gives PWC ultimate control of who sees the report and whether any part or parts can be disclosed. It is quite amazing that the Council has agreed to such a clause.

4. Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs  The Council argues the report was prepared for the exclusive use of SBC and Digital City. It also argues that if the participants had known the content was to be made public they may have been less frank in the views and comments expressed. 

The Council acknowledges that the publication of the report might inhibit open discussion in future reports; while an interesting argument it has no basis in fact but is merely a supposition commonly used to suppress the release of information which might ‘embarrass’ the administration or officials within the administration. Section 36 was not meant to provide a ‘get out of jail’ card and protect the egos of officers or councillors. The Council’s attempt to hide behind this clause demonstrates exactly why the document should be made public.

The Council has released a large number of documents in to the public arena. However, it also still refuses to answer questions on the project. 

The Council claims this document was commissioned to assist the Council ‘on its future options in relation to Digital City’. The Council has never previously suggested this report was a joint venture with Digital City and has never claimed the PWC report was for the use of Digital City.

5. Personal Data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act  The Council argues that the report contains data relating to third parties who are not Council employees.  I suspect this all embracing catch all clause refers in a large part to the companies already referred to, Digital City and aQovia.

All in all, the Council is displaying the defensive mindset of a party which has been found out and is now wriggling furiously in an attempt to avoid facing the unpalatable truth. I suspect the PWC report contains some less than complementary opinions on the business rationale to forge a relationship with Digital City UK Limited; I also suspect it may have some scathing comments about the role of officers and members. In short this attempt to hide behind the legal fog, so splendidly articulated by the Borough Solicitor who has a penchant for such things, reveals so much about the hypocrisy of an administration which only recently claimed to understand how people felt, indeed the Leader of the Council actually said 

Quote
“We know people do not feel informed about where the money is spent, the issues concerned and how to influence decisions. I am passionate about facing these as openly and constructively as possible”

Do these files help Des?

Offline makethem99

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1138 on: March 12, 2013, 11:25:10 AM »
Other file now attached :)

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1904
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Is Final Chapter In wi-fi 'Saga' Near?
« Reply #1139 on: March 12, 2013, 09:41:44 PM »
Quote
You may be interested to know that the email below was sent this morning to SBC and The Adver:-

Hello

In 2011 the Council commissioned a report costing £10,100 from a firm of consultants, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) to assist them making a decision on its’ future options in relation to Digital City UK Limited. The Council also state that they signed a contract when commissioning this report which gives PWC ultimate control of who sees the report and whether any part or parts can be disclosed.

Under the Freedom of Information Act could I request a copy of the contract that Swindon Borough Council agreed to when commissioning PWC to produce the report? 

Many thanks

Charles

Coun Bluh maintains the request made under Ref: FOI101000381394 was not for the same PWC document and upon a second read it isn't.