The £1bn costermongers

www.dodsshop.co.uk

Mr Mustard hasn't written about Cllr Thomas recently but this week he became vaguely interesting for 5 minutes.

You can read the whole thing in the local Barnet Times newspaper here but he has been rattled by the appearance of the Better Barnet website (how could anyone object to the desire for a Better Barnet?) and the supposed scaremongering of the local Labour party. That is a bit rich coming from the cabinet costermonger himself who is busy helping to sell off services for 10 years worth about £1bn across the decade. Mr Mustard is pleased to see that Labour are starting to vocalise. It is the job of opposition to shout the roof down about anything they object to.

Copied from the local paper we have the following text which is the second half only of the article. Do please read the whole article on their website and then come back to see what comments Mr Mustard has added with his red pen.

He (Cllr Thomas) said: I’m confused about their stance. (I am easily confused) The amendments they made to our budget in March were so small they were clearly accepting the One Barnet programme (Labour are so heavily outvoted at Council that it is pointless trying to make wholesale changes to budgets as they will be voted down. Small adjustments might just be allowed through.) We’re still in competitive dialogue with two organisations so it is a bit rich for them to oppose something without knowing the final details. (How odd, the article talks about NSCSO and DRS and that means 3 organisations are still in the running, BT, Capita and EC Harris. Has one been binned off without us knowing? We don't need the final details; the choice is between equally huge corporations whose raison d'etre is profit)

On the new web page, Labour says it is campaigning to stop the authority “selling off critical council services” but Councillor Thomas has criticised the site for being misleading. If the best defence that Cllr Thomas has got is a semantic one then we are all in trouble. Does he tell us why BT or Crapita are the best choice and why an in-house bid has not been allowed? No.

I think there is an element of scaremongering from Labour on this - they are not being open minded. They keep using the term ‘selling off’ but that is not the case. The companies will be delivering services for us but we will retain overall control and that will be scrutinised. The wording is quite misleading. Well done Labour. To scaremonger is to spread frightening reports. One Barnet frightens the hell out of Mr Mustard because it is being promulgated by a collection of incompetents.

When I knock on doors, people are not against the One Barnet programme. People want services to be well run – they’re not that bothered who runs it. When I knock on doors no-one has heard of One Barnet because we have kept it very quiet and I don't mention it see so they don't either. If your next door neighbour was an escaped axe murderer would he mention it? Cllr Thomas is not, as far as I am aware, an escaped axe murderer but he is the Cabinet member for Resources and Performance and will butcher the workforce (i.e. transfer it out of the council to another employer to do with as they please)

We already outsource services in waste, leisure and social care and we have very few complaints about those. Should Mr Mustard send you all of his complaints about bin and recycling collections Cllr Thomas? You haven't been looking closely at the statistics have you. Leisure - there can't be many complaints because there aren't many leisure facilities. Mr Mustard has a complaint - you have given Copthall Stadium away for a song. Mr Mustard has a friend who uses social care. Often her carers simply do not show but she doesn't like to make a fuss as she is dependent on the council and doesn't trust them when Mr Mustard is not about.

Labour group leader Councillor Alison Moore defended her party’s stance on One Barnet. Go Alison!

She said: We have been critical of the programme right down the line. I think Councillor Thomas is being disingenuous and a bit daft to suggest we have not been against it from the start. A long word. Disingenuous means "insincere"; no question about that. Daft? too generous.

People have seen the way the current administration has dealt with issues like parking and they are concerned about the way they will deal with this. Too right Alison. Parking is in meltdown. Take a look at the Miss Feezance website to see how final appeals are going. You also can't even send an email to make an appeal.

This is the most fundamental change in this council’s history and it is important people understand that. This change will last for a minimum of 10 years and if it goes wrong will cost millions to put right. Get your wallet ready. It also undermines democracy as the councillors appointed in 2014, 2018 and 2022 will have almost nothing to decide upon.

We have a responsibility to up the ante on this and represent the people who voted for us.

Once these services have been outsourced it will be almost impossible to bring them back in-house. We have a number of months in which to make a final case against this. The most important thing is to stop this juggernaut before Barnet’s services are changed forever. To the barricades my friends, well attending council meetings would be a good start. Times and dates can be found here. 

You could also go to a meeting of the Barnet Alliance for Public Services who meet each Wednesday evening at 6pm at the Greek Cypriot Community Centre, 2 Britannia Road, London N12 9RU

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Sorry seems to be the hardest word - special request for Cllr Thomas

Do you remember that Mr Mustard got something wrong and it was picked up by Cllr Rawlings. He wasn't home at the time but within 24 hours Mr Mustard had posted a correction and issued an apology. It is not difficult and you feel better for it unless you are the deputy leader apparently. 

Let Mr Mustard start at the beginning.

He was in Portugal going round and round the racetrack in Portimao for 3 days when word reached him, via the bloggers early warning system that he was being maligned in the press, here is a link to one of the articles. He was also receiving emails and phone calls about this.

So in the evening instead of having a beer with his mates in the bar Mr Mustard had to get his laptop out and defend himself.

Once he was back Mr Mustard decided to get to the bottom of the supposed £40,000 figure. He wrote to Cllr Thomas as follows on 6 October

---

Dear Cllr Thomas

I have seen the article on www.publicservice.co.uk

I believe that you were referring to my requests although I can't agree the number of 175 without further enquiry.

I do not believe that my requests can possibly have an average cost of £225 being 9 hours work at £25

Below is a typical request and response.

---

27 September 2011

Dear Mr Mustard

I am writing regarding your request, received by the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) on 30 August 2011 for access to the following information:

“Please provide the cost of hall hire for the Finchley & Golders Green Residents' forums on the following occasions:-

5 January 2011

9 March 2011

23 June 2011

14 September 2011

Please provide the cost of hall hire for the Chipping Barnet Residents' forums on the following occasions:-

17 January 2011

22 February 2011

23 June 2011

20 September 2011

Please provide the cost of hall hire for the Hendon Residents' forums on the following occasions:-

18 January 2011

15 March 2011

23 June 2011

12 September 2011

If any of these meetings are followed by an environment sub-committee please provide the total cost of hall hire for that evening ( i.e. you do not need to split the cost of hall hire across the two meetings but just state the total fee due or paid for that evening ).”

We are processing your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). My response to your request is below.

Response

I can confirm the following:

The cost of hall hire for the Finchley & Golders Green Residents' forums on the following occasions -

5 January 2011 - Avenue House - £180.00.

9 March 2011 - St Michael’s Church Hall - £50.00

23 June 2011 - Greek Cypriot Neighbourhood Centre - £120.00

14 September 2011 - Trinity Church Centre - £106.00

The cost of hall hire for the Chipping Barnet Residents’ forums on the following occasions -

17 January 2011 - East Barnet School - £105.00

22 February 2011 - Chipping Barnet Library - £168.00

23 June 2011 - Coppetts Wood School - £247.50

20 September 2011 - All Saints Art Centre - £30.00

The cost of hall hire for the Hendon Residents' forums on the following occasions -

18 January 2011 - Sangam Centre - £175.00

15 March 2011 - Barnet Multicultural Centre - £100.00

23 June 2011 - Sangam Centre - £200.00

12 September 2011 - Copthall School - £420.00

Your Rights

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by writing to the FOI Officer at: The London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP (email foi@barnet.gov.uk).

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF (telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45; website: www.ico.gov.uk).

There is no charge for making an appeal.

Yours sincerely
 

Mandy Byfield

Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7072
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk

---

Let me first of all observe that this simple request took exactly 20 working days to answer. The Information Commissioner says that answers should be sent promptly. The 20 working days are the maximum time that a response should take. Barnet Council treat the 20 days as a target to hit, not one to beat.

I think that to answer the above question/s about hall hire would be about 15 minutes work at most. Do you agree?

Firstly, I need to know if you counted the above request as 1, 3, 4 or 12 questions ?

Secondly, as you have used an average of 9 hours for a response time in order to arrive at your figure of £225 then, given that many questions were much quicker to answer than that, some must have taken more than 9 hours to answer. Please tell me which questions did take more than 9 hours to answer.

Please provide a list of all my 175 questions so that I can check them.

publicservice.co.uk implies that I should not have submitted so many requests because of the administrative burden it places on the council.

Do you think that I have done anything wrong ?

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

---

Now the council's standard for answering correspondence is 10 working days. Having blabbed to the papers you would think that Cllr Thomas would be keen to reply as it's obviously an important manner. Not so, Mr Mustard had to nudge him on 27 October to reply. A reply did come on Sunday 30 October, as follows in sea-sick blue (teal!) and further comment by Mr Mustard in red

---

I think that to answer the above question/s about hall hire would be about 15 minutes work at most. Do you agree? 

The information you requested does appear basic enough to obtain quickly however there will be factors I'm not aware of such as the number of records/invoices to search (the Council deals with many property matters) and officer prioritisation of workload/more urgent matters. 

That's a yes then. 15 minutes work. I also don't have any idea about the council's procedures.

Firstly, I need to know if you counted the above request as 1, 3, 4 or 12 questions ?  

The questions regarding hall hire were treated as one request as demonstrated in the list attached.

Fair enough.

Secondly, as you have used an average of 9 hours for a response time in order to arrive at your figure of £225 then, given that many questions were much quicker to answer than that, some must have taken more than 9 hours to answer. Please tell me which questions did take more than 9 hours to answer. We do not keep a record of the amount of time spent dealing with a request. The 'typical cost' figure of £225 is derived from research into the costs of FoI requests carried out by UCL.

No question, or set of, took 9 hours to answer so no question cost £225 to answer.

Please provide a list of all my 175 questions so that I can check them.
See attached list.

Mr Mustard isn't going to burden you with the list but he did ask the 175 questions. Even though Mr Mustard numbers his requests in order the council didn't quote those numbers or get the list in the same date order.

It is a legal duty of the council to respond to Freedom of Information requests. I accept that I have sent in quite a few. That is necessary because the council is not open and transparent enough for my liking and the website is difficult to navigate. The response that you made, as reported by publicservice.co.uk implies that I should not have submitted so many requests because of the administrative burden it places on the council.

Do you think that I have done anything wrong ?

Members of the public are entitled to request information and I, of course, do not see anything wrong with that. I also see nothing wrong in publicising the costs of responding to such requests in the interests of transparency.

No! Good, you can expect many more requests when Mr Mustard has the free time. Please make sure that you don't identify Mr Mustard in the future.

The more information the Council can publish on a standard basis the less need there will be for FoI requests. This Council was one of the first to publish spending on items over £500. I gather in June you were invited to suggest areas to be added to our publication scheme but officers have not yet received a response. 

Please see the previous blog post on this subject.

---

Mr Mustard felt that he & the situation had been misrepresented and so he emailed Cllr. Thomas today as follows :-

Dear Councillor Thomas

Thank you for your email of 30 October 2011 from which it is apparent that you simply cannot support the following made to www.publicservice.co.uk

"Thomas said one of the bloggers had submitted a total of 175 FoI requests between April and September of 2011. This meant a total nearing £40,000 was spent by the council responding to this one individual, based on a typical cost of £225 in dealing with each request"

Now I may have submitted 175 requests as per your attached list but the council hasn't answered 175. I have added a notes column. There are 9 that have been aggregated for cost purposes and then refused. The total cost to answer the 9 requests, counted as 140 line items, was estimated to be £1,400 which would make each individual line item £10 to answer if they had been answered ( and your £40,000 estimate was overstated by 9 * £225 = £2,205 ) .

2 questions were only answered today and so were late, as is often the case. At the time that you made your statement they had not cost the council anything to answer.

3 questions have been refused. ( £675 of your estimate not spent )

7 await an answer and are late. ( £1,575 of your estimate not spent )

I have not looked in detail at every line, I have just annotated the questions which sprang readily to mind.

There is no evidence that the typical cost of answering my requests is anything like £225 although there is evidence from the council itself that it isn't a typical cost.

In summary, both the number of items and the cost estimate are wrong and you should now issue a correction to www.publicservice.co.uk

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

---

Did this prompt an apology. No. This response arrived 17 minutes later and from this you can gather that the question of an apology has been given insufficient consideration.

---

Dear Mr Mustard,

Thank you for your observations and assumptions.

I disagree that requests not yet answered or where answers were refused have cost the Council 'nothing'. Requests currently worked on or refused still receive officer time.

Thank you for your feedback.

Regards,

Cllr Daniel Thomas

---

This reply talks about feedback. Mr Mustard did not give feedback. He asked for a correction to be sent to www.publicservice.co.uk - It has not been forthcoming. Mr Mustard has been misrepresented in the press and thinks the councillor is being churlish in his failure to acknowledge that the requests made did not cost anything like the £40,000 he stated without any substantiation whatsoever. 

This standard of behaviour is below the one that we should receive from councillors, especially one who is the deputy leader.

If you think Cllr Thomas should correct the misleading impression then please email him on cllr.d.thomas@barnet.gov.uk and if you think Mr Mustard should drop the matter then please email him at mrmustard@zoho.com

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

FOI 1044 - still ongoing

I would love to tell you dear reader the answer FOI 1044 but it is still ongoing since June. It started with Mr Mustard asking the following:

14 June 2011

Dear Councillor Rams

I refer to the press release of 7 June 2011 which is on the Council's website.

I note that you said "We have funded the Big Society Innovation Bank with reductions in senior management pay as the council has adapted to the changing financial climate."

I also note that "In total there will be £600,000 over three years with £200,000 available in 2011/12"

Please send me a list showing which senior management have had their pay cut and by how much to reach the total of £200,000 for 2011/12. Please provide this information in the form of an xls spreadsheet.

Yours sincerely

and getting a partial reply as follows :

16 June 2011

Thank you for your email.

We made reduction in our senior management pay bill last year, some of which has gone to this bank. I am sure you will agree this is a great initiative and was launched yesterday.

Attached is the link to the report from October last year.

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=9720.

All the best

Cllr Rams

---

Not convinced, this led to further questions including this one sent to the FOI section - ref #1044C

22 June 2011

Dear Sirs

Paragraph 9.5 of the agenda for the above meeting lists 5 deleted posts.

Please tell me the amount paid as compensation for loss of office in each case.

Yours sincerely

---

Then the fun and games started ( Mr Mustard enjoys fun & games )

22 June 2011

I write in response to your request, received by us on 20 June 2011, which reads:

“Paragraph 9.5 of the agenda for the above meeting [General Functions Committee 25 October 2010] lists 5 deleted posts. Please tell me the amount paid as compensation for loss of office in each case.”

We have processed this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Response

I have decided to refuse this request relying on the exemption contained in section 21 of the FOIA.

The amounts paid to senior officers for compensation for loss of office are published in the council’s Statement of Accounts.

An unaudited version of the Statement of Accounts for financial year 2010-11 was published as report to the Audit Committee meeting on 16 June 2011. To view this report please follow this link:

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/documents/documentreportlist.asp?intSubSectionID=12&intSectionID=6

---

Did the answer contain the answer. No, of course not! Mr Mustard enters into the spirit of the game.

22 June 2011

I wish to appeal against this refusal ( which was uncharacteristically unhelpful as it would have taken you 5 minutes to answer ) on the grounds that the information is not where you say and/or if it is, it is ambiguous or incomplete.

The posts about which I have asked, as described in the GFC report, were :

Deputy for Adult Social Services
Deputy Chief Executive for Environment
Director for Environment & Operations
Director for Planning, Housing and Regeneration
Director for Corporate Services

none of those titles are exactly replicated in the unaudited accounts ( page 67 attached ) and given the plethora of Directors, Heads, Assistants, Deputies etc that Barnet Council employ it is not for me to assume that a post with slightly different description is the same post.

In addition some of the possible matches have no compensation payment and given that they were forced to leave this seems unlikely to be the case.

Please now provide the requested information without making me trawl through documents that are over 100 pages long. That is not within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.

---

Then Barnet Council tried boring Mr Mustard with a long reply ( he understands this tactic which doesn't work on him )

19 July 2011

I am writing in relation to your email to the London Borough of Barnet (the Council), received on 22 June 2011, requesting an internal review of the Council’s handling of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) for access to the following:

“Paragraph 9.5 of the agenda for the above meeting [General Functions Committee 25 October 2010] lists 5 deleted posts. Please tell me the amount paid as compensation for loss of office in each case.”

You have requested a review as you are not satisfied that the information you have requested is reasonably accessible to you by other means.

I have reviewed your request and my response is below.  

Response

The initial response relied on the exemption in section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible by other means) to refuse your requests as details of the amounts paid to senior officers for compensation for loss of office are published in the Council’s Statement of Accounts (the SoA)and provided a link to that document.

The initial response did not confirm or deny whether the information available in the SoA included the information requested in relation to the five deleted posts referred to in your request. In this respect the Council did not satisfy its duty under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA to confirm or deny whether information is held.

I can confirm that the Council holds information about the compensation paid for loss of office resulting from deletion of the five posts referred to in your request.

Details of compensation paid for the loss of office in relation to four of the posts has been published in the SoA. I am satisfied that the exemption in section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible by other means) was correctly applied in relation to these posts. However, additional information should have been provided to assist in the identification of relevant job titles. That information is set out in the table below under ‘Additional Information’.

Details of the compensation paid for the loss of office in relation to one of the posts referred to in your request, Director for Planning, Housing and Regeneration, is not published in the SoA. This is because the officer in that post received compensation for loss of office during the financial year 2011/12. Accordingly, that information will be published in the SoA for that year. The refusal notice below refers to this information.

Additional Information

Deleted post

Information about loss of office

Director for Adult Social Services

Details of the compensation for loss of office received by the officer in post are published in the SoA against ‘Acting Director of Health Integration’.

Deputy Chief Executive for Environment

Details of the compensation for loss of office received by the officer in post are published in the SoA against ‘Executive Director for Environment & Development’.

Director for Environment and Operations

Details of the compensation for loss of office received by the officer in post are published in the SoA against ‘Director of Environment and Transport’.

Director for Planning, Housing and Regeneration

See refusal notice below.

Director for Corporate Services

Details of the compensation for loss of office received by the officer in post are published in the SoA against ‘Director of Corporate Services’.

Refusal Notice

I am applying section 22 (intended for future publication) of the FOIA to withhold the information requested in relation to the Director for Planning, Housing and Regeneration.

The processing of requests for information under the FOIA must be applicant and purpose-blind. Accordingly, disclosure of information under the FOIA is considered to be disclosure to the world at large and my decision is based on this understanding.

The Council will submit the information requested by you for review by the Council’s Audit Committee in June 2012. The information requested by you will be published at least 5 clear working days before the date of the Audit Committee meeting and will be accessible here: http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/index.asp?intSubSectionID=-1&intSectionID=1

Disclosure of the information to the world at large under the FOIA before this time would inhibit the ability of the Audit Committee to exercise their Constitutional function to provide independent scrutiny of the authority’s financial performance.

Where the section 22 (intended for future publication) exemption covers the information requested the information must still be disclosed unless the public interest in maintaining the exemption is greater than the public interest in disclosing it. This additional stage is called the “public interest test”. The arguments we considered when applying this test to your request are:

Arguments for disclosure
Arguments for maintenance of the exemption

Promoting the general public interest in disclosure of information.
Ensuring elected members of the Audit Committee can exercise their Constitutional functions independently.

I am satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest for disclosure prior to the intended future publication in this instance and that the exemption in section 22 (intended for future publication) is applicable to the information requested.

---

So as long as one can translate council job titles from one title to another without a key you are OK. If the information is too embarrassing to release because the number is too high then we will try and make you wait until June 2012 for the answer in the hope that the storm has passed.

This is what he sent next. Mr Mustard is always civil to council employees although he may write in a direct style ( it is not intended to upset individual officers who are just doing their job ).

---

5 August 2011

Dear Ms Wilson Pointer

Thank you for your email of 3 August. 

I am going to appeal to the ICO about the decision of Barnet Council not to release the amount paid to the outgoing Director for Planning, Housing and Regeneration on the grounds that the information is intended for publication in the future as the publication date is a year after the payment date and this is a risible excuse.

You say "Disclosure of the information to the world at large under the FOIA before this time would inhibit the ability of the Audit Committee to exercise their Constitutional function to provide independent scrutiny of the authority’s financial performance." which is the most ludicrous and misleading response I have received from Barnet Council. 

The Audit Committee will be presented in June 2012 with the draft Accounts for the year to 31 March 2012. The 2011 draft accounts ran to 128 pages. They were on the agenda at the meeting of the Audit Committee on 16 June 2011 and I was present throughout the meeting.

This is what the agenda says the duties of the Audit Committee are in relation to the draft Accounts :-

Constitution Part 3, Section 2 details the functions of the Audit Committee including “To review and approve the annual Statement of Accounts. Specifically, to consider whether appropriate accounting policies have been followed and whether there are concerns arising from the financial statements or from the audit that need to be brought to the attention of the Council”.

So the committee is approving statements of fact e.g. amounts paid in compensation to departing employees. They cannot change the amount paid some one year previously and so disclosure of the sum paid to the outgoing Director simply does not affect their ability to scrutinize the Accounts. It's not as if they spend long on them either. All of at most 20 minutes this year. I don't call that effective scrutiny.

In addition I refer you to this guidance on timing from the website of the Information Commissioner.

a) The timing of publication

Given that there is already an intention to publish, the critical issue in deciding whether to respond to a request for information is one of timing. Generally, the sooner the intended date of publication, the better the case for maintaining the exemption.  

Why do I get the feeling that the amount paid is going to be shockingly high and that is why Barnet Council want to cover it up for as long as possible? I also think that Barnet Council are showing a general reluctance to embrace the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.

---

The matter is now with the Information Commissioner to see what happens next.

Is this a case that Cllr Thomas can rightly complain took 9 hours to respond to? No it isn't. By refusing to release information which will eventually come into the public domain Barnet Council have themselves caused extra time to be spent on the matter. They didn't help by being so sloppy when it came to job titles.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Merda taurorum animas conturbit

click to enrage(sic); back to return

The translation of the Latin heading is "Bullshit Baffles Brains"

The above Strategic Review cost £19,000.

Mr Mustard obtained this report by exercising his right to Freedom of Information - the very right that Cllr Thomas does not like him to use. Given the nature of the information released ( itself only a 5 minute job to find although 22 calendar days later ) I would, if I was Cllr Thomas, be trying to hide it as it is so embarrassing. 

Also today in response to an article in the Barnet Times about tomorrow's strike 

Cllr Thomas also said any savings made from staff wages ( not being paid to strikers ) would be directed into public services. ( is £19,000 paid to Agilisys & Impower a public service or a public disservice? Discuss )

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard 

FOI 1040

As readers will know Cllr Thomas has said one blogger cost the council £40,000 to answer their 175 FOI requests across 6 months. Cllr Thomas might think that because of what he said the number of requests has gone down. The number of requests Mr Mustard has made has gone down but that is because he has been doing other things. Normal service will shortly be resumed.

Nothing will persuade Mr Mustard that he should curtail his use of the democratic right to information which is enshrined in legislation.

The average request cost £225 according to Cllr Thomas and that is supposedly the result of 9 hours work at the standard calculation rate of £25 per hour.

Mr Mustard applies reference numbers to each of his requests. Mr Mustard is going to go back to 1 June and start publishing many of his requests so that readers can see that Cllr Thomas is making a mountain out of a molehill e.g.

Question

Have any purchases been made from Collective Wisdom Ltd since 1 April 2010?

If yes, what has been purchased and what price was paid please ?

Answer

No payments made. ( If you know this answer to be incorrect please send information anonymously to Mr Mustard )

Summary

5 or 10 minutes work for that answer ?

The question was made on 3 June and Mr Mustard had to remind the council on 24 July - the answer came on  29 July. Mr Mustard is relieved that he did not ask anything difficult as if so he would have been waiting until doomsday for a reply.

Mr Mustard has legitimate grounds for complaint; Cllr Thomas does not.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard