York council director apologises over inaccurate answer to Freedom of Information request

York council director apologises over inaccurate answer to Freedom of  Information request

York council director apologises over inaccurate answer to Freedom of Information request

Updated in News

A SENIOR director has apologised after City of York Council gave a highly inaccurate response to a Freedom of Information request about unspent 'Section 106' planning payments.

Ian Floyd, director of customers and business support services, admitted the authority was more than £700,000 out when it stated how much of the money, paid to the council by developers to help fund infrastructure projects, had never been spent.

Mr Floyd was responding to a complaint by chartered surveyor and council arch critic Paul Cordock, who spotted discrepancies between the answers to an FoI request made last November and another one made in December.

The director said the difference between the answers given, when the two queries were compared on a like-for-like accounting period, was £704,000, and the difference was not explained by expenditure during the 42 day period between the responses.

"The difference is explained by the council reviewing its records and finding that they were not fully up-to-date and accurate at the time of the initial FOI response, and reflecting a number of corrections in the response to the second FOI request," he said.

"I apologise for this, and can confirm that we have reviewed the records to correct this difference, and put in steps to ensure this does not happen again."

Mr Cordock branded the council's accounting system a 'shambles,' adding: "How many more mistakes are there? I will be referring this to City of York Council's external auditors, Mazars, as a complaint, asking them to investigate this matter."

Mr Floyd said in a statement to The Press: “This was simply that our records in respect of S106 agreements had not been updated at the time of this particular FOI response. Steps have been taken to address this matter.

"The overall accounting records are audited every year and in recent years the auditor has given a very complimentary report to City of York Council.”

Section 106 agreements are legally binding obligations, intended to make developments acceptable in planning terms, with the money going towards services and work on such as highways projects, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.

The Press reported in January how, according to the answer to the first FoI request, about £2.7 million out of more than £3.2 million received through Section 106 payments from developers between 2008 and 2013 was unspent.

In February, this newspaper reported how, according to the answer to the second FoI request, tens of thousands of pounds paid by developers as long ago as the 1990s had never been spent. For example, the council was still holding £20,000 of a Section 106 planning payment made in connection with the designer outlet development at Fulford in 1997/98.

The authority said ‘unspent’ money could legitimately be held for a number of years as per the legal agreement.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:58am Wed 26 Mar 14

old_geezer says...

Of course there can be legitimate reasons for deferring S106 expenditure, but surely not for over 15 years, with inflation eating away.
Of course there can be legitimate reasons for deferring S106 expenditure, but surely not for over 15 years, with inflation eating away. old_geezer
  • Score: -33

9:29am Wed 26 Mar 14

Dr Brian says...

Another example of our beloved council not wanting to reveal the truth. They really are a bunch of useless (well put whatever word you want to here!!!!!!)
Another example of our beloved council not wanting to reveal the truth. They really are a bunch of useless (well put whatever word you want to here!!!!!!) Dr Brian
  • Score: -32

9:34am Wed 26 Mar 14

acomblass says...

Mr Cordock's complaint may not be the only one Mazars are investigating!
Mr Cordock's complaint may not be the only one Mazars are investigating! acomblass
  • Score: -19

10:58am Wed 26 Mar 14

roskoboskovic says...

you could be forgiven for thinking that alexander and his halfwit cronies don t know what they re doing.
you could be forgiven for thinking that alexander and his halfwit cronies don t know what they re doing. roskoboskovic
  • Score: -8

11:47am Wed 26 Mar 14

York2000 says...

Clickbait
Clickbait York2000
  • Score: -73

1:28pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Badgers Drift says...

The amount that the council said was unspent in the second FOI, was £1,145,643.76, which was from S106 monies received from 2008/09 and earlier.

These monies have been unspent for over five years, and in many S106 agreements this is the time limit after which unspent monies should be refunded. Why haven't they ?

Here is the FOI on what Do They Know...

https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/s
ection_106_agreement
_monies_rec#comment-
48541
The amount that the council said was unspent in the second FOI, was £1,145,643.76, which was from S106 monies received from 2008/09 and earlier. These monies have been unspent for over five years, and in many S106 agreements this is the time limit after which unspent monies should be refunded. Why haven't they ? Here is the FOI on what Do They Know... https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/s ection_106_agreement _monies_rec#comment- 48541 Badgers Drift
  • Score: -85

4:01pm Wed 26 Mar 14

RingoStarr says...

Time is now 4:00pm and all six comments have got plus votes. Wonder how they'll fare later!
Time is now 4:00pm and all six comments have got plus votes. Wonder how they'll fare later! RingoStarr
  • Score: -50

8:24pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Thislittleold market town says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Another example of our beloved council not wanting to reveal the truth. They really are a bunch of useless (well put whatever word you want to here!!!!!!)
Tossers?
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: Another example of our beloved council not wanting to reveal the truth. They really are a bunch of useless (well put whatever word you want to here!!!!!!)[/p][/quote]Tossers? Thislittleold market town
  • Score: -106

1:38am Thu 27 Mar 14

RingoStarr says...

RingoStarr wrote:
Time is now 4:00pm and all six comments have got plus votes. Wonder how they'll fare later!
Thought so! ALL now LOTS of minus votes! Anyone remember George Orwell's '1984' ? Well, 30 years on, it's still 'Big W*nker is marking you'
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: Time is now 4:00pm and all six comments have got plus votes. Wonder how they'll fare later![/p][/quote]Thought so! ALL now LOTS of minus votes! Anyone remember George Orwell's '1984' ? Well, 30 years on, it's still 'Big W*nker is marking you' RingoStarr
  • Score: -38

12:59pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

RingoStarr wrote:
RingoStarr wrote:
Time is now 4:00pm and all six comments have got plus votes. Wonder how they'll fare later!
Thought so! ALL now LOTS of minus votes! Anyone remember George Orwell's '1984' ? Well, 30 years on, it's still 'Big W*nker is marking you'
Works both ways though...
Funnily enough a letter criticising Matthew Laverack and it's subsequent comments has completely disappeared from the site.

I don't trust anyone involved in excision and redaction.
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: Time is now 4:00pm and all six comments have got plus votes. Wonder how they'll fare later![/p][/quote]Thought so! ALL now LOTS of minus votes! Anyone remember George Orwell's '1984' ? Well, 30 years on, it's still 'Big W*nker is marking you'[/p][/quote]Works both ways though... Funnily enough a letter criticising Matthew Laverack and it's subsequent comments has completely disappeared from the site. I don't trust anyone involved in excision and redaction. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 2

4:03pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Badgers Drift says...

acomblass wrote:
Mr Cordock's complaint may not be the only one Mazars are investigating!
You're right, it isn't - there have been several complaints to Mazars!
[quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: Mr Cordock's complaint may not be the only one Mazars are investigating![/p][/quote]You're right, it isn't - there have been several complaints to Mazars! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree