Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of
Information (FoI) Act 2000 by the Home Office (reference 14199)
Responding Unit: Home Office
Chronology
FoI request submitted: 20 January 2010
Query from Mr Elibank re expected date of response: 18 February 2010
Query from Mr Elibank re response delay:
05 March 2010
Response provided: 24 March 2010
Request for internal review: 24 March 2010
Subject of request:
1. On 20 January 2010 Mr Elibank (the applicant) contacted the Home
Office to request information regarding photographs of the
Department’s Ministers.
2. Mr Elibank’s request is seen as being composed of two distinct
elements (full text of Mr Elibank’s request included at Annex A):
(i)
A request for confirmation as to whether the Home Office was in
possession of ‘high resolution’ images of its Ministers
(i )
A request for information on the circumstances under which the
Home Office would disclose such material were it held
3. As way of a clarification it should be noted that the term ‘high
resolution’, though not specified by Mr Elibank, is commonly
understood in the context of digital images as being those composed of
an excess of 300 pixels per inch (PPI).
The response by Home Office
4. On 24 March 2010 the Home Office responded to Mr Elibank,
addressing both parts (i) and (i ) of his FoI request.
5. With respect to part (i) of Mr Elibank’s request it was confirmed that the
information was held.
6. With respect to part (i ) of Mr Elibank’s request it was explained that
this enquiry did not in fact constitute a request for recorded information,
but rather a comment on Home Office policy. As such part (i ) of Mr
Elibank’s request was seen to fall outside of the scope of the Freedom
of Information Act and a response to Mr Elibank’s query would need to
be dealt with as general correspondence.
7. As a courtesy it was clarified to Mr Elibank that the Home Office did not
intend disclosure of the high resolution images it held of its Ministers as
they were considered as being for ‘official use only’.
8. Mr Elibank was however provided with the following link which would
allow him access to standard resolution images of Home Office
Ministers: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-
us/organisation/ministers1/indexe42d.html?version=1
Mr. Elibank’s request for an internal review
9. On 24 March 2010 Mr Elibank requested an internal review of the
handling of his FoI request.
10. Mr Elibank stated that he wished the internal review to address three
areas in which he was dissatisfied with the Home Office response of 24
March 2010:
• The length of time taken for Home Office to provide a substantive
response
• The tone of language in the Home Office response
• The reason why the Home Office reply did not reflect answers Mr
Elibank claimed to have been provided with by other government
departments in response to similar FoI requests
Procedural issues
11. Mr Elibank’s request is recorded as having been received on 20
January 2010.
12. Accordingly Mr Elibank should have been provided with a response in
accordance with Section 1 (1) of the Act which requires that the
response be provided within 20 working days; that is, no later than 17
February 2010.
13. The final response provided to Mr Elibank’s request was made by
Home Office on 24 March 2010. This date is noted to be in excess of
the statutory deadline by which Mr Elibank was entitled to receive a
response. Mr Elibank did not receive any acknowledgment of, or
apology for, the delay in responding to his request until 8 March.
14. In this respect Home Office are seen to have breached section 10 (1)
of the Act by failing to provide a response within 20 working days of
receipt of Mr Elibank’s request.
15. It is noted though that when Mr Elibank was provided with a response
to his FoI request, such was seen to satisfactorily discharge section 1
(1) (a) of the Act. Specifically, in response to the scope of his request, it
was confirmed to Mr Elibank that the Home Office did hold high
resolution images of its Ministers.
16. The response of 24 March 2010 informed Mr Elibank of his right to
request an independent review of the handling of his request as
allowed for in section 45 (2) (e) of the Act.
17. Furthermore the response also informed Mr Elibank of his right of
complaint to the Information Commissioner as required by section 50 of
the Act.
Consideration of the response
18. On 24 March 2010 the Home Office responded to Mr Elibank, providing
a substantive response to both parts i) and ii) from his initial request of
20 January 2010.
19. It is important to note that Mr Elibank’s request of 20 January 2010 did
not seek the disclosure or communication of any information that might
be held by the Home Office. Rather, Mr Elibank’s request posed two
specific questions – questions which are seen to have been answered
by way of the Home Office response of 24 March 2010.
20. On these grounds I am content that the response provided to Mr
Elibank satisfactorily discharged the Home Office’s obligations under
the Freedom of Information Act.
Points raised by Mr Elibank in his request for internal review
21. Mr Elibank raised specific areas of dissatisfaction in requesting this
internal review. For the purpose of clarity I will address each of these
concerns in turn.
22. Firstly, regarding the length of time taken for the Home Office to
respond to Mr Elibank’s FoI request it is noted (see point 14 of this
review) that such was in excess of the 20 working day limit specified in
section 10 (1) of the Act.
23. The Home Office recognises that to take more than 20 working days to
respond to a FoI request falls short of the standards it sets itself and
apologises for the inconvenience this delay may have caused Mr
Elibank.
24. Secondly, Mr Elibank stated dissatisfaction with the “tone” of the Home
Office response of 24 March 2010. In particular Mr Elibank drew
attention to what he perceived to be the “unnecessarily curt”
clarification provided as to why the second element of his request (the
circumstances in which the Home Office would consider disclosing high
resolution images of its Ministers) did not fall within the scope of the
Act to answer.
25. Having examined the response provided to Mr Elibank I must conclude
that I am unable to support his assertion that there was anything either
impolite or unprofessional about the response provided to him. Rather,
it is my determination that the response provided by the Home Office
was informative and succinct. The conciseness of the message
provided to Mr Elibank reflected the Home Office’s commitment to clear
communications and the need to avoid burdening FoI applicants with
unnecessarily lengthy or bureaucratic correspondence.
26. Thirdly, Mr Elibank questioned why the Home Office response to his
FoI request did not reflect responses Mr Elibank stated had been
provided by other government departments.
27. In response to this comment by Mr Elibank it is necessary to note that
all FoI requests handled by Home Office are dealt with on a case by
case basis. Furthermore, it is not the place of the Home Office to
comment on the determinations and decision making processes by
which other government departments respond to FoI requests.
Advice and assistance
28. Having considered the body of correspondence between Home Office
and Mr Elibank it is my determination that the Home Office complied
with section 16 (1) and section 16 (2) of the Act and provided Mr
Elibank with both advice and assistance regarding his request.
Conclusion
29. The Home Office is noted to have failed to respond to Mr Elibanks’s
FoI request within the statutory limit of 20 working days. Accordingly,
the Home Office was in breach of section 10 (1) of the Act.
30. In all other respects the Home Office response of 24 March 2010 is
seen to have satisfactorily responded to Mr Elibank’s request of 20
January 2010.
Robert Clifford
Information Access Team
Home Office
22/04/10
Annex A
Text of FoI request made by Mr Elibank on 20 January 2010
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.
Do you hold electronic, hi-resolution photographs of all your
ministers? (Perhaps the ones on their security-passes?)
If 'yes', under what circumstances would you consider releasing any
or all of the said photos to the public?
Yours faithfully,
Steve Elibank
