Publicly-funded workers have been punished for abuse of trust, putting clients at risk, falsifying records and “inappropriate conduct” within a three-year period, documents released under Freedom of Information rules show.

Surrey Comet:

But, after Kingston Council sat on the details for eight months during an internal review, transparency campaigners have said the case is proof that laws must be made tougher.

The Surrey Comet asked in December 2014 for details of when and why council staff had been disciplined.

After appealing against a rejection notice on data protection grounds, this newspaper was stalled for months despite repeated follow-ups.

Government guidance says reviewing an appeal should take no longer than 40 days.

The authority relented only last week, after the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), an independent Government body, intervened for a second time.

In a letter to the Comet a council officer claimed there had been an “oversight in the processing” of the appeal.

Katherine Gundersen, from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “This case highlights the need for there to be a statutory time limit for internal reviews.

“These time limits need to be mandatory to prevent authorities dragging reviews out for months on end.

“The Freedom of Information Act has proved a major success in opening up many previously closed areas of public life. When serious delays occur, they undermine the Act’s effectiveness and public confidence in it.”

Records show that 14 council workers were fired between April 2012 and March this year.

Half were dismissed for “unauthorised removal of materials”, others for failing to follow orders, plus two for inappropriate conduct.

But staff who threatened colleagues, put clients at risk or committed fraud were only handed warnings.

In one instance, a worker abused their position and gained unauthorised access to records, but no formal action was taken. In total, 34 workers were disciplined.

A Kingston Council spokesman said: “All disciplinary cases are different and are judged individually according to the specific circumstances around them.”

The spokesman added: “Kingston Council apologises for the delay in reviewing our decision not to grant a Freedom of Information review request and our delay in responding to the ICO request.

“On this occasion we did not meet the high standards we set ourselves.

“We are looking at our systems and processes to ensure, as far as possible, a similar situation does not arise in the future.”

The Comet’s appeal contained a number of links to stories describing similar disciplinary details released by other public bodies.

The council’s spokesman said: “While what other councils do can inform our decisions, we have to make decisions based on the interests of Kingston Council, while maintaining appropriate transparency.”

The importance of such requests was underlined on Tuesday when bloggers Welfare Weekly revealed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had made up comments from supposed benefit claimants in a promotional leaflet.

After the fabrications were exposed the DWP said they were used for “illustrative” purposes to help people understand benefit sanctions.