Back log

Dear Sir or Madam,

Will you please provide information which shows the size of all the
complaint backlogs you have.

Include information which shows the longest time you have where a
complaint made to the ICO is currently being dealt with, include
the average wait time for a complaint being dealt with by the ICO
itemised over a year. Please give this information on a yearly
basis and provide it for the last 3 years.

Yours faithfully,

watchingyou

Dear Joanne Crowley is it any wonder the Information Commissioner
has such a well known large unacceptable backlog when you don't
even know of or understand your own guidance?

Is this poor understanding not one of your biggest problems?

Oh and by the way the links you provided are invalid links; I found
the relevant guidance here on this website.

In the guidance issued by the ICO Titled

Valid request – name and address for correspondence:- It says

• Where a public authority knows that a pseudonym has been used, as
a matter of good practice it should still consider the request, for
example where identity is not relevant and it is content to
disclose the information requested, even though technically the
request is invalid.

The guidance points out:-

• Either an email or postal address IS acceptable as an address for
correspondence.

An extract from the guidance issued by the ICO :-
Email address

An email address also satisfies the requirement of section 8(1)(b)
that the applicant should provide an address for correspondence.
Support for this is found in the FOIA as follows:

• a request for information can be made by email.

• the access regime is a relatively informal one – for example the
applicant does not have to state formally that the request is being
made under the FOIA.

In guidance you referred me to it points out that you should still
consider a request even though a pseudonym has been used. This
should be especially so when you are being asked about your own
backlog which as everyone knows is extremely large. Please at least
try to be honest, open and transparent about this embarrassing
subject even if you can't fix it.

Although you wrote; an your email would not constitute a valid
request under the FOIA you are not correct your assertion is wholly
inaccurate information and considering you represent the
Information Commissioner how bad is that?

The guidance regarding the use of an Email address is quite clear
it says an Email address IS sufficient and acceptable as a valid
address. It is apparent you are not able to understand this aspect
of your guidance either.

All in All Joanne Crowley a pretty bad showing again from the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

[email address]

Dear Joanne Crowley

It seems that Bournemouth Borough Council didn’t have a problem
allowing a reply from this pseudonym but of course the subject
matter was a little less sensitive as far as the Information
Commissioner and staff are concerned I suppose. Maybe we should all
keep quiet about the backlog the ICO currently has.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

watchingyou

Dear Joanne Crowley,

You are correct I have spoken with your manager today Charlotte
Powell, about your refusal to supply the requested information
because I have used a pseudonym.

Interestingly when your manager Charlotte Powell was recently asked
a question under the Freedom of Information Act by another person
using the pseudonym of Mr. Wherewithall. She decided she WAS going
to provide the requested information and in doing so was in accord
with the guidance given by the Information Commissioners Office.

You however have chosen not to do so which is not in accord with
the guidance I have taken from the ICO. web site and is printed
below:-

• Where a public authority knows that a pseudonym has been used, as
a matter of good practice it should still consider the request, for
example where identity is not relevant and it is content to
disclose the information requested, even though technically the
request is invalid.

Clearly this guidance indicates that where the identity of the
person asking the question is not relevant, as it is in this case,
then you should, as a matter of good practice, supply the requested
information. You have failed to put forward any reasons why you
think my true name is relevant to the question asked so I can only
presume therefore that your real reason for not supplying the
requested information is that you are not content to disclose the
information requested which is about your apparent enormous backlog
of complaints.

You have however supplied another reason why you have not provided
the information requested which was that to produce the information
would not be straightforward and is likely to be resource
intensive. If you are giving this as a reason then should you not
also quote the relevant Section of the Act as well that would
provide the relevant exemption you wished to rely on? I believe the
information requested should also be put to the 'Public Interest
Test' if you were to rely on the above reason not to supply it.

Below is a link to the information your manager Charlotte Powell
recently gave to a person using the pseudonym of Mr. Wherewithall.
She wrote :- “We have however decided on this occasion to deal with
your request as we are content to disclose the information”.

http://tiny.cc/oFvII

There is a clear difference in the way in which you have dealt with
the issues surrounding the Information Commissioners Office backlog
to the way in which Charlotte Powell gave different but more
information to Mr. Wherewithall.

It would appear to any reasonable thinking person that the amount
and content of the information supplied by Charlotte Powell, your
manager, to this person using the pseudonym of Mr. Wherewithall is
far far more than the information I have requested so again I can
only presume you are overly sensitive about revealing information
about your inordinate backlog indicating there is a lack of honesty
and transparency when it comes to questions about it.

Your manager did mention to me today that some of your complaints
backlog extends to more than 18 months, can you imagine how this
impacts on the Act itself and the people who wish to avail
themselves of it? From a personal point of view I have several
complaints awaiting your attention and I feel that they are not
being dealt with expeditiously.

Its bad enough when after waiting in many cases for the
organisation to respond for more than the 20 working days allowed
that they then refuse to supply the requested information. The
requester then has to ask for an internal review which often takes
many more days than the 20 working days the guidance advises only
to find that there is another refusal to supply the information.

We are then left with the only other avenue of complaint which is
with the ICO. Only to find the complaint has again fallen into a
very large black hole with an 'event horizon' that even light
itself seems unable to escape from!

Yours faithfully,

[email address]