Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 8 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
LB Sutton Primary School Expansion Consultation Document
To Sutton Borough Council by Darren Ayling 17 March 2010
Grit Bins - Locations - Dates + Reasons for Installation or Rejection
To Sutton Borough Council by Marlon Campbell 26 December 2010
Use of Section 547 of Education Act or the sending of 'warning' letters sent to persons requesting they do not enter school buildings or premises in the London Borough of Sutton
To Sutton Borough Council by Peter Jones 20 September 2009
Rent and lease for Hillcrest Halls, Fryston Ave, Coulsdon
To Sutton Borough Council by c hardgrave 7 March 2010
Request by LB Sutton to Dorchester Primary School to increase form entry size
To Sutton Borough Council by James Martin 9 April 2009
FOI requests received by authority
To Sutton Borough Council by Anthony Wall 8 August 2011
Sutton - Self-catering residents in residential care: remuneration
To Sutton Borough Council by Doug Paulley 21 February 2011
Agency worker: Agreements, Contracts, pay scales
To Sutton Borough Council by Eric Blair 8 February 2009
Employment status of teaching and support staff in London Borough Sutton Community Schools
To Sutton Borough Council by George Gardner 27 April 2009
Advice on WhatDoTheyKnow.com
Tony Bowden made this Freedom of Information request to Sutton Borough Council
Waiting for an internal review by Sutton Borough Council of their handling of this request.
From: Tony Bowden
27 April 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
I see from another request[1] made via WhatDoTheyKnow.com that you
have decided that emails made via this site do not provide a
"personal email address" and thus are not valid FOI requests.
I would ask that you please provide copies of any correspondence,
notes, memos or other records relating to this matter, including
any advice obtained on it (whether from your own Legal department,
the ICO, or elsewhere). For the avoidance of doubt I am asking for
all records that either refer specifically to the
WhatDoTheyKnow.com site, or to questions relating the validity of
the sorts of requests that come from such a site.
If you are minded to refuse my request on similar grounds, I would
direct to you to the advice already given by the ICO to another
public body on this matter, which states, amongst other points:
"There are no grounds in the Act to refuse to deal with a request
simply because it originates from such a site"[2]
Yours faithfully,
Tony Bowden
[1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ag...
[2]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ad...
From: Freedom Of Information
Sutton Borough Council
27 April 2009
Dear Mr Bowden
We are very happy to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information
Act which come to us via the "Whatdotheyknow" website, however it is very
simple to make a request direct to an authority without the need to use
this website (simply email [1][Sutton Borough Council request email])
In the case I believe you are referring to, we believe we have correctly
handled the FOI request by refusing to respond on grounds of commercial
sensitivity. The requestor challenged this decision on the basis that some
authorities had responded in greater detail. We were advised by another
authority that they had reason to suspect a request was being made under a
pseudonym which is not permitted under the legislation. This information
was passed to us during a telephone call and therefore there is no
correspondence we can provide you with. An internal appeal was conducted
which upheld this decision. Any requestor who is unhappy with a response
to an FOI request may refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's
Office. We will of course cooperate with any investigation the Information
Commissioner undertakes.
I trust this puts your mind at ease.
Sarah Milne
Corporate Customer Care Manager
Sarah Milne
Corporate Customer Care Manager
Chief Executive's Group
London Borough of Sutton
show quoted sections
Adrian Short left an annotation (27 April 2009)
"it is very simple to make a request direct to an authority without the need to use this website"
True; and very easy for the council to sweep FOI requests that they don't like under the carpet unless there's better public scrutiny of how they respond.
In my own particular case this meant refusing to release information about the Sutton Life Centre (£8m of public money) that had already been released to a select group of residents. Result of appeal against refusal: no response. Of course, it took the statutory maximum of 20 working days just for them to say "no" in the first instance.
George Gardner left an annotation (29 April 2009)
Whilst I suspect, like other users of this website, that some Local Authorities may 'drag their heels' and delay the response to legitimate FOI requests I think we must give them the the benefit of the doubt and allow them the full 20 'working' days in which to respond.
I have noticed however that LB Sutton is not the only Public Body that appears not to act within the spirit of the law as it seems to choose carefully the FOI requests that it responds quickly to.
It is interesting to note that when any request becomes too specific then, as if by magic, a more senior member of staff becomes involved.
I wonder if junior members of staff are being 'gagged' or instructed not to deal with specific or potentially contentious enquiries?
From: Tony Bowden
29 April 2009
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for your response. I note your comments, although I
believe you are being slightly disingenuous in your claims.
The referenced request is a little difficult to follow as it
appears that some correspondence "crossed in the post", so to
speak, but whilst the request was indeed rejected on grounds of
commercial sensitivity as you say, the appeal was rejected under
s8, rather than s43(2).
This was then clarified as: "You have not provided us with a
personal email address, the email address you use is for a website.
Therefore we do not consider you have complied with Section 8 of
the Act."
For you to now act as if nothing like this was never said is rather
surprising and your current claim that you are "happy to respond to
requests under the Freedom of Information Act which come to us via
the "Whatdotheyknow" website" seems to be somewhat at odds with the
above statement.
Can you please confirm that you are now withdrawing your earlier
claim that email addresses from the WhatDoTheyKnow website are not
valid under s8, and you will not be drawing any negative inferences
whatsoever from requests made via this site?
In relation to my own request, you state that the "information was
passed to us during a telephone call and therefore there is no
correspondence". I would note that I did not ask not solely for
"correspondence" but for "correspondence,
notes, memos or other records". Can you therefore please confirm,
for the avoidance of any doubts, that there are no records
whatsoever relating to this call, such as contemporaneous notes,
references in emails/memos etc.
Can you please also provide details of which other authority this
call was with.
Thank you,
Tony Bowden
From: Freedom Of Information
Sutton Borough Council
30 April 2009
Dear Mr Bowden
The FOI request to which you refer was not your request and therefore I
do not believe I am required to provide further information to you in
relation to it.
When I responded to your request, I used the word "correspondence" in
the broadest sense. I believe the authority in question was London
Borough of Brent, and there response to the FOI in question is on the
Whatdotheyknow website.
If you remain unhappy with the way we deal with FOI requests you may
refer to the Information Commissioner's Office.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Milne
Corporate Customer Care Manager
London Borough of Sutton
show quoted sections
James Martin left an annotation ( 2 May 2009)
Is it possible that there is an unofficial policy of obstruction in operation at LB Sutton in relation to FOI requests!?
This link may be of some use to users:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/p...
It clearly demonstrates quite that LB Sutton (along with other Local Authorities) will do as it pleases and even when advised by the ICO to comply with a request it will delay further the release of information until a ICO decision notice is issued!
Not exactly a policy of openness or transparency!!
From: Tony Bowden
2 May 2009
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for your response. I think you have, however,
misunderstood my previous message. I have not asked for details
relating to anyone else's FOI request, merely for clarification of
what appears to be a contradiction in your statement to me that you
are happy to respond to requests made via WhatDoTheyKnow.com in
light of your previously stated position that you are entitled to
reject requests made via it as they do not comply with section 8 of
the Act.
It is unclear from this whether it is the Council's position that
use of the site does make the request invalid, but, in keeping with
ICO guidance, you are usually happy to comply anyway, or whether
you have reversed your earlier position that such a request is
invalid.
I find it confusing that you seem to be unwilling to publicly
resolve the matter. I would therefore ask you again, in simple
terms, to clarify whether it is the Council's position that
requests made via WhatDoTheyKnow.com, simply by dint of being made
via that site, are in breach of s8 and can be rejected on those
grounds.
In regard to my request for details regarding the telephone call, I
am a little surprised that you have again responded in such vague
terms. Merely responding with whom you _believe_ it to have been
falls somewhat short of an adequate answer. I would request that
you state in plain unambiguous language which authority this call
was with and whether or not there are any records whatsoever of or
relating to the call.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Bowden
Christopher John left an annotation ( 2 May 2009)
Tony,
I have mad the following FOI request which may assist you when I get a definitive answer from the ICO.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
Eric Blair left an annotation ( 2 May 2009)
Extract from related correspondence with Sutton Council:
"RE: Discussing this Freedom of Information request with Tony Bowden
Further to correspondence [1] by Sutton Council I am writing to
advise that I am happy for you to answer any queries or provide
information to Tony Bowden, in connection with any related
information request they make to Sutton Council, such as the one
shown at:"
2 May 2009
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ag...
From: Freedom Of Information
Sutton Borough Council
5 May 2009
Dear Mr Bowden
As I have explained before, we respond to all FOI requests in the same
way, regardless of whether they are received by us direct, or via a
website.
If you are unhappy with the way in which we have dealt with an FOI
request you may bring your concerns to the attention of the Information
Commissioner's Office.
We believe we have responded to the request in request in full.
Sarah Milne
Corporate Customer Care Manager
Chief Executive's Group
London Borough of Sutton
show quoted sections
From: Tony Bowden
13 May 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Sutton Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Advice on
WhatDoTheyKnow.com'.
If required, a full history of my FOI request and all
correspondence can be found at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ad...
The answers I have received to date have fallen short of being
clear and unambiguous, and as there appears to be a glaring
contradiction between the response here and the response to a
different request, I am unfortunately unable to accept such vague
answers.
As the correspondence has gotten slightly protracted I will repeat
here my main requests:
a) copies of all correspondence, notes, memos or other records
relating to the validity of requests made from WhatDoTheyKnow.com,
or in a similar manner (whether directly concerning
WhatDoTheyKnow.com or not).
b) specifically in relation to a telephone call with another
authority about this issue:
i) any records whatsoever relating to this call
ii) details of which authority this call was with
c) whether or not the Council still stands by its claim of 9th
April that, when "an email address you use is for a website ... we
do not consider you have
complied with Section 8 of the Act", either in the general case, or
specifically in the case of WhatDoTheyKnow.com
Although you may be able to choose to sidestep question 3 as not
strictly an FOI request, depending on what information you hold on
the matter, I would suggest that having made such a statement in
public, it is now important that you clearly state whether you
still reserve the right to refuse requests purely on this basis, or
else unambiguously retract this earlier statement in light of the
recent advice by the Information Commissioner.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Bowden
George Gardner left an annotation (13 May 2009)
I reckon that a lady called 'Sarah Milne' will conduct the internal review.
I suggest that this actually goes against Sutton's own complaint's procedure which says a 'Senior member of staff not connected with the issue should investigate the matter!!!
Perhaps an 'internal review' under the FOI Act is not viewed as a complaint against the Council???
From: Freedom Of Information
Sutton Borough Council
15 May 2009
Dear Mr Bowden
I believe we have responded to your requests previously and would
therefore like to advise you that repeated requests on the same topic can
fall into the category of a vexatious or repeated request under section 14
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which means that a local authority
is not obliged to respond to such requests.
However in this instance and in a bid to bring this correspondence to a
close:
a) there are none
b) i) there are none - it was an informal telephone conversation with
a colleague in another London authority who had received and refused a
similar FOI request. If any notes were taken at the time they would have
been on scrap paper and not retained. We have explained this to you
previously.
ii) from memory I believe it was with London Borough of Brent
c) As we have previously advised you, we are happy to respond to
Freedom of Information requests via this website, although applicants can
make requests to us direct via our dedicated email address
[1][Sutton Borough Council request email]. Our only concern is to ensure the applicant has
identified themselves (ie not used a pseudonym) and given an "address" (an
email address is acceptable as an address).
I trust this clarifies the position. As you know, if you remain unhappy
with our response to your request you may refer to the Information
Commissioner and we will of course cooperate with any investigation he
makes.
Yours sincerely
FOI Admin Officer
London Borough of Sutton
show quoted sections
From: Tony Bowden
15 May 2009
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for this answer. I would futher ask that you supply the
name of the "FOI Admin Officer" who provided it.
Thank you,
Tony Bowden
From: Freedom Of Information
Sutton Borough Council
15 May 2009
Dear Mr Bowden
Thank you for your email.
Sarah Milne, Customer Care Manager responded to your email. However we
use the title FOI Admin Officer as anyone in the team can respond to FOI
requests as they go into a shared inbox.
I trust this clarifies matters for you.
Sarah Milne
show quoted sections
From: Tony Bowden
15 May 2009
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Code of Practice on Internal Reviews states very clearly that a
review "should be impartial and undertaken by someone senior to the
person who took the original decision".
As you aware, the ICO will not normally investigate a complaint
until the authority's own complaints procedure has been exhausted,
so, for clarification, can you please confirm that either you do
not have a complaints procedure that would be valid under the Code
of Practice, or that despite my explicit request for such a review,
you are refusing to conduct one.
Thank you,
Tony Bowden
George Gardner left an annotation (15 May 2009)
Yet again LB Sutton appear to act as a 'law unto themselves'
Raphael Clifford left an annotation ( 8 July 2010)
Have you now referred this to the ICO? I would recommend doing so at this point.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
George Gardner left an annotation (27 April 2009)
Link to this