Brent Council apologises for Friday's email data breach - investigation underway

Alan Lunt, Brent Council's Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment has written to the 970 recipients of Friday's email apologising for the data breach.

He said:

Please accept my apologies for the sending of an email on Friday regarding the consultation on the Neasden Stations Growth Area SPD, which showed email addresses when they should have been hidden. This was a human error. This security incident is being investigated by the data protection team.

We are reviewing our practice and process, in addition to exploring with IT ways of ensuring that this type of error cannot happen again.

The vast majority of emails recipients are for companies, stakeholders and staff and consequently we have assessed the risks to you in terms of any data mis-use as low.

Former Liberal Democrat councillor, Alison Hopkins, who was one of the recipients of Friday's email has replied to Mr Lunt:

I note that I have had no response to my formal complaint to Brent's DPO (Data Protection Officer)

I have spoken to the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) this morning and consider your response to be wholly inadequate. They concur and I am raising a formal complaint with them.

Your statement that the risk to me is "low" is a dismissive brush off. It is presumably based on Brent's opinion, rather than any proven and sound foundation, and as such legally remains merely your opinion rather than any properly tested fact.

As someone with decades in IT and considerable experience of GDPR and safeguarding practice, the risk is considerably more than "low". Given the seriousness of the original "error", how am I to trust any assessment you have made, especially as you have given no detail of how this conclusion was reached?

I have no knowledge of the companies, stakeholders and staff you refer to, their credentials or probity. In any event, this statement is not acceptable under GDPR rules.

Time for a public debate on Kensal Rise Library issues

At the beginning of this month I carried a 'Guest Blog'  LINK from trustees of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library on why they had reached an agreement with the developer, Andrew Gillick. This has attracted many comments with the debate becoming quite heated at times. I posted an update on the planning application for the redevelopment of the library building on Saturday LINK which has also attracted debate.  The revelation of the option agreemment between All Souls and Andrew Gillick LINK added another dimension to the discussion.

There are three main questions arising from the debate as far as I can see:

1. Is the agreement the best deal possible for the campaign to safeguard a community library space in the building, is it secure and will the Friends be able to raise the necessary funds for the upkeep and running of the space?
2. Should the police investigation into the fraudulent emails supporting Andrew Gillick's first planning application be concluded before the Brent Planning Committee considers this planning application and would a delay put the acquisition of the community space in jeopardy?
3. What are the ramifications of the option agreement and should it be submitted as evidence to the Planning Committee?

Having hosted this debate on Wembly Matters I do recognise that it has reached only a small number of people but concerns a whole local community.

As the issue is clearly controversial with strong opinions voiced on both sides, I wonder of there should be a public meeting where some of these matters can be thrashed out, starting from the assumption that everyone wants to retain a library presence in the building?

The consultation closes on April 28th and there is a possibility that the application will go to the May 14th Planning Committee, a week before the local elections.

Butt 'bitterly disappointed' over dropping of police fraud email investigation

Reporter Hannah Bewley of the Wembley and Willesden Observer has been busy following up the Kensal Rise Pop Up library demolition story. Her report LINK contains the following statements from the Council and Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt:

A spokesman for Brent Council said:

The council undertook its own detailed enquiries before referring the matter to the police and provided the police with a summary of the outcome as part of the agreed referral process through the National Fraud Reporting Centre. The council remains very concerned about the way that the planning portal was used on this occasion and has subsequently made changes to forestall future problems arising. The council wants to continue to maintain the highest level of integrity with its planning process, since the authority continues to have statutory responsibilities to consider planning applications that are submitted.

Labour leader of the council Muhammed Butt said:

It is bitterly disappointing that the police have chosen to ignore the evidence found in the council’s own inquiries and drop their investigation. When the future of the building affects hundreds of Brent residents and the entire Kensal Rise community, any issue of alleged fraud must surely be a priority in order to maintain the trust of local people. Whilst I know that this Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government has cut the police force by a fifth in the last three years, I am troubled that this investigation has not been carried out as a matter of urgency. Brent Council will be writing to demand that the police review their original decision and launch an appropriate investigation.

Pressure mounted further following an Evening Standard report  LINK on the demolition and Hannah Bewley hinted on Twitter that the police may change their stance and expects a statement tomorrow morning. Cllr James Denselow tweeted back saying that he had 'seen the emails'  (presumably those between the council and police - not the fake ones) and that he had his fingers crossed.

I understand that  Kirsty Slattery, of Gracelands Yard, whose address was falsely used to support Andrew Gillick's planning application is taking up the issue directly with the police, having had no response to her emails to Brent Council.