Dear Mr White

Complaint from Mr Marlon Campbell

Thank you for your letter of 15^th September 2010 regarding a complaint received by the ICO from Mr Campbell relating to non compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

We confirm receipt of the Freedom of Information request dated 19 January 2010 from Mr Campbell. A response (though late) was sent to Mr Campbell. The response advised that the council was unable to process his request as the hours to be used in providing the information would that over the “appropriate limit” i.e. 18 hours work. The Council therefore applied the section 12 exemption as provided under the FOIA.

In the response, Mr Campbell was advised of the council's FOI complaints procedure and his right to request to request an internal review of the decision not to provide him with the information requested, which he did. I can only sincerely apologise that Mr Campbell's request for internal review was not concluded within acceptable timescale. I note from my records that this is the first time a request for internal review has not been completed within timescale. I will ensure that any officers undertaking internal reviews are referred to the ICO guidance on reviews and in particular to the recommendation from the ICO that all internal reviews be undertaken within 20 working days following receipt thereof.

I have now revisited Mr Campbell's FOI request of 19^th January 2010. I confirm that some of the information requested is held in a recorded and readily accessible format by the council for example dates that requests were received and dates on which the requests were finalised. However, some of the information requested is not held or recorded in the format which has been requested by Mr Campbell, particularly in relation to identifying the 100 most recently closed cases as opposed to the most recently received requests. In addition, for the period which Mr Campbell's initial request could cover the Council did not hold a log of internal reviews which would record the information he has requested. The Council has recently put measures in place to ensure that a log of internal reviews is available going forward, however this does not record the information which Mr Campbell was seeking. Accordingly, once the Council had established which are the 100 most recently closed files, it would require officers of the council accessing each of those FOI request folders separately to determine what the specific outcome of the request was, whether there had been a request for review and what the outcome thereof was.

Accordingly we believe that the time required to carry out this exercise will exceed the appropriate limit of £450. This cost includes officers' time in going through its database to establish the most recent 100 FOI requests that have been “closed”, extracting information requested from the said closed100 FOI requests folders stored on its system and time spent to redact any exempt information.

Nevertheless, pursuant to our duty to provide advice and assistance as provided in Section 16 FOIA we herewith attach a summary of FOI requests received by the Council from January 2006 - 30 July 2010. The attachments provide some of the information requested in Mr Campbell's FOI request of 19 January 2010.

The Council is aware of the importance of ensuring strict compliance with the FOIA. Our staff are trained to process FOI requests in accordance with the FOIA. The Council is committed to providing a high quality service to its customers which it seeks to continuously improve through constant training and awareness updates to all employees.

We do not have any objections to disclosure of information provided in this letter. If you believe there is a legal requirement to disclose this letter, we advise that the name of Council employee should be redacted.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information or clarification regarding this query.

Yours sincerely

James Derby

Corporate Solicitor

Encl.

2