22 December 2008

Mr S Hardwicke Carruthers

Via email ([email address])

Our ref: CS/08/0046/JRW

(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

If telephoning contact Hilary Pook on 020 7217 4734

of if using email send to: [email address]

Dear Mr Carruthers

Review of FOI response to request CS/08/0046

On 3 November you asked for a review of the s.36 decision by Nigel Karney to redact sections of the strategic risk register and operational risk register sent to you by Hilary Pook on 30 October.

You say that the information is needed to “allow full and frank examination of the role and effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsmen and their discretionary decisions”. You also suggest that there are “perceived failures in the service” and that “the registers should identify how the Commission intend to correct these”.

The registers do not show actual failures in our service, but list possible risk factors that could affect our service. The registers also include control arrangements (ie what measures we have in place to reduce the risk to a minimum) and what the response would be to an incident occurring. All this information was included in the redacted versions sent to you.

The only information redacted was our rating of how severe the impact would be if an incident occurred, what we perceive the current likelihood of an incident occurring and, by combining these elements, what the residual risk is and whether this is acceptable or not.

I agree with Mr Karney's view that a disclosure of risk and actions being taken to manage the risk is likely to increase the risk to the operations under consideration and so prejudice both the provision of the advice and prejudice the effective management of the risk to the Commission's activities. I therefore endorse Mr Karney's decision to withhold the redacted information.

I also endorse Mr Karney's decision to withhold the project risk register related to our replacement complaint management system - COIN under s.43 of the Freedom of Information Act because the document is of a commercial nature. As Mr Karney stated, the document was agreed between the Commission and the contractor involved and disclosure of it which would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of that contractor.

/…

I note that you also asked in your email of 3 November about Mr Karney's authority to make a decision under s.36 of the Act. However, this is a new request, and I understand you have also asked for this information separately. A response will be given on this via that separate request (CS/08/0115).

That concludes my response to your request for a review. If you remain unsatisfied, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner to determine whether your request has been properly dealt with. You will be able to obtain further details of the Information Commissioner's role from the website on www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Jerry White

Jerry White

LGO 05 (03/08)