Earlier this month I published a story which explained that Liverpool City Council had refused to answer a Freedom of Information request of mine in full.
I had used the Freedom of Information Act to request the names of any elected Liverpool city councillors who had received a court summons for the non-payment or late payment of council tax over the past five financial years. If you miss a council tax payment you will get a reminder notice telling you to pay in a certain time. Failing to do this can put you at risk of being summoned to court over the issue.
This could be a particular issue if you are an elected local councillor. The Local Government Finance Act says that a councillor cannot vote on a budget if they have an outstanding council tax debt of more than two months – to do so is illegal.
READ MORE:Thug battered girlfriend and left her dead body in a tent for a week
READ MORE:Scouse mum told man to 'f*** off' when he threatened to stab son
So there is a fair amount of public interest in the taxpaying public knowing if any of their elected representatives have been summonsed to court over this issue – or so you might think.
In its response to my request, Liverpool Council did confirm that within the past five years two elected councillors had received court summons for council tax payment failures. But they would not tell me their names.
In its rationale for refusing to divulge this information, the council cited data protection factors as it claimed that the disclosure of the names of the councillors would be "unfair and otherwise unlawful." The council went on to claim that there is "insufficient legitimate interest to outweigh the fundamental rights and freedoms of the sitting councillor in this specific case."
I must admit I was surprised at this decision, not just because I believe this is a clear issue of public interest – but because of the very clear precedent that has been set, not only in a court but by the very same council that was now denying me this information.
Let me explain.
The legal precedent arrived in 2014 when this reporter was working at The Bolton News. A then colleague of mine called Dale Haslam had submitted the same request for information as I have and had similarly been denied the identities of those involved by Bolton Council.
Dale doggedly pursued this case, escalating the matter to the office of the Information Commissioner and to a First-Tier tribunal judge, who both sided against the newspaper in its pursuit of the information. However, this was then overturned by Upper Tier Tribunal judge Kate Marcus KC, who allowed an appeal and ordered Bolton Council to release the information.
In her judgement, the judge concluded that the decision not to allow the naming of councillors was "made in error of law." She added: "I conclude that disclosure of the identity of the councillor is necessary to achieve the objectives of transparency and accountability."
In another damning passage, she added: "There is a compelling legitimate interest in the public knowing whether a particular councillor has failed to pay the council tax.
"The public interest in knowing the information is central to the proper functioning and transparency of the democratic process. The identification of a defaulting councillor involves an intrusion into his private life but it is an intrusion that a councillor must be taken to have accepted when taking office.”
It could not be clearer. This is a matter of public interest and while it does involve an intrusion into someone's private life, this isn't just a person in the street but an elected politician who should expect this level of scrutiny.
This was a judgement that Liverpool Council clearly agreed with, because in 2017 when I cited it while making a similar request for information, the council came back with a list of the names and details of eight councillors who had received court summons over council tax payment in previous years.
As you can see from this story we printed at the time, some of those named provided reasons for why they were caught up in such a situation. From banking errors to house moves and medical explanations, the public was able to digest the information and form a view on it and their explanations.
That is what should happen in this case. There could be some very compelling reasons why the two councillors in question ended up in council tax arrears. They are human beings with struggles and problems like everyone else and if that's the case, many will understand.
But this is about transparency when it comes to our elected politicians. Something Liverpool City Council has not always been associated with in recent years.
There is another issue too. All the time that these names are not provided, the cloak of suspicion will linger over all of the elected members in the city – and that's not fair and I am led to understand that some councillors are not happy at the wall of silence that has so far existed and are urging their colleagues to come forward.
For these reasons and others I would hope that the councillors involved do reveal themselves and provide their explanations – we will take them in good faith and report them fairly and accurately.
We have also asked for an internal review of the initial decision not to reveal the information and I would hope this results in the council providing the information we have asked for. Failing this we will pursue this through the Information Commissioner and if necessary, through the courts, where, as I have mentioned earlier, there is a very real and clear legal precedent.
But that will take time and money on all sides and it really shouldn't have to come to that.
Don't miss the biggest and breaking stories by signing up to the Echo Daily newsletter here