According to Bob Neill he told the Audit Commission that every time the 'SPD' NFI exercise was mentioned it should be made clear that it does not show lack of entitlement, failure to provide information required by law or even any maladministration on the part of the council.
It seemed reasonable to ask the NFI what action if any it had taken in response to this message, especially as some of its publications appear not to comply with this advice.
When asked via a F of I request for information relating to Bob Neill's advice on the so-called single person discount exercise, and on the NFI's subsequent discussion of this advice, the NFI simply said it could not identify the letter containing the advice nor, therefore, any other relevant information.
'We are therefore unable to carry out an effective search of our records to identify any information which we may hold with may fall within the scope of your request '
Is it reasonable to describe a government agency which cannot locate an important communication which may have required important actions on its part as incompetent?
It is not quite clear here whether the Freedom of Information officer is using the royal 'we' or whether in fact nobody at all at the Audit Commission can identify the document.
Moreover, if formal consideration had been given to the advice, they would be able to work backwards from the discussion of the advice to the document or communication in which it was provided.
They asked whether the F of I requester had a copy. If they have lost it, perhaps they ought to ask Bob Neill for another? Or perhaps it was an error on Bob Neill's part of that of his office, and it was never sent.
I think this may well be within the scope of the sort of difficulty which may fall within the average person's definition of incompetence. Or perhaps, to take a phrase out of the AC's own book, it may indicate that there is incompetence, or constitutes potential incompetence.
