PROCEDURAL breaches have been found in the way Enfield Council dealt with a Freedom of Information request to find out why its former director of housing was suspended.

Four sections of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act were breached according to the Government’s FOI watchdog, the information commissioner.

Rajesh Katkoria, of Galahad Road, Edmonton, complained to the commissioner on October 13, 2006, after failing to get an answer when he asked why its then director of housing Donald Graham was suspended.

He had put an FOI request to the council on July 13, 2006, but said he had been ignored.

It was only after the commissioner got involved two years later that Mr Katkoria got his response — that the council would not answer his questions.

He was told Mr Graham had been made redundant and his departure was covered by a mutual confidentiality agreement, meaning both he and the council were legally bound to keep quiet on the reasons why he left.

The council said it was not prepared to provide any further information about his departure, quoting section 40(2) of the FOI Act which refers to data protection.

Gerald Tracey, the assistant commissioner, ruled Enfield Council used the law correctly but criticised the authority for not responding to Mr Katkoria’s original request.

The four breaches were: failing to reply within 20 working days, failing to state whether it held the information requested, failing to state the information was exempt from disclosure and failing to giving a specific legal reason why it was exempt. However, Mr Tracey has decided no further steps will be taken.

In his decision notice, published last Tuesday, he said: “The commissioner has concluded that the rights and interests of Donald Graham outweigh the legitimate public interest in disclosure.”

He said the issue leading to Mr Graham’s suspension was never fully investigated and he had every right to reach a compromise agreement with the council under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

However, Mr Katkoria is not happy and said he will appeal.

He said: “When they make agreements of that nature, the public will never actually find out what the real truth is behind them.

“You could say the same thing about MPs’ expenses — that’s data protection but I think the taxpayer should know.”