Blacklists

Dear MR Ingle,

I do not accept your apology, indeed I have noticed that hillingdon council are seriously overdue on most requests made on this 'whatdotheyknow' site.

It is clearly evident that this council pay's little attention to upholding the law.

I look forward to a speedy repose to my request which is seriously overdue,

Dear DPO,

It is now Novemeber and Hillingdon council appear intent on refusing a response to this request.

Can you please inform when a response is likely? If response is not forthcoming then I will refer this matter to the ICO.

Mr ANdrews

As of the 1st March 2010 this matter has been referred to the office of he information commissionaire. i will post responses on here.

Dear ICO,

With reference to Hillingdon Council, I would like to raise the following failure to adhere and provde a response to FOI queries made through the 'whatdotheyknow' site.

1.BLACKLISTS

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

This is a total failure to respond to repeated communications on this request. I would like to add I have another FOI in relation to PARKING METER replacement costs, which they have also failed to respond, i have also referred this to the ICO.

It appears (looking at other requests on this site) that Hillingdon have a considerable history of ignoring and delaying requests.

Mr Paul Andrews

EMAIL FROM INFORMATION COMMISSIONAIRES OFFICE

26th March 2010

Case Reference Number FS50299145

Dear Mr Andrews

Information request to London Borough of Hillingdon

Thank you for your correspondence dated 01/03/10 in which you complain about the time taken by London Borough of Hillingdon to carry out its public interest test (PIT). Please find attached a document describing how we deal with complaints made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Where a public authority requires any additional time to consider the public interest, they must respond within 20 working days of the request. That response must state the exemption(s) being considered and must include an estimate of the time by which this decision will be made.

The FOIA requires the authority to reach its decision “within such time as is reasonable in the circumstances.” The Commissioner has issued guidance on this matter (Good Practice Guidance 4). The Commissioner considers that public authorities should aim to respond fully to all requests within 20 working days. In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total time exceed 40 working days.

I have written to London Borough of Hillingdon to provide them with a copy of your original request and instructed them to respond to you within 20 working days from the date of receipt of our letter. I enclose a copy for your information.

From my letter to London Borough of Hillingdon you will see that significant or repeated unreasonable delays by public authorities in this context are monitored and where appropriate further action may be taken.

This case has now been closed, however if you do not receive a response within 20 working days please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter.

If London Borough of Hillingdon respond and refuse to release the information you have asked for and you are dissatisfied, you may, after exhausting London Borough of Hillingdon‘s internal complaints procedure, complain to us. Again, please be sure to quote the case reference number from the top of this letter.

If we can be of any further assistance please contact our Helpline on 0303 123 1113, quoting your case reference number. You may also find some useful information on our website at www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Jim Dunn

FoI Case Officer

FoI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office

What will the Information Commissioner do with my complaint?

The Case Reception Unit

All complaints are initially handled by our Case Reception Unit (CRU). The CRU makes an early assessment of all complaints to establish whether they can be progressed.

What will happen if we progress your complaint?

We will send you an acknowledgment letter and case reference number. We will also notify the relevant public authority that we have received a complaint about them. Your complaint will then be referred to a Case Resolution Team and allocated to a Case Resolution Officer in line with our published service standards. If we cannot then resolve your complaint informally, the Information Commissioner will issue a Decision Notice. We will send it to you and to the public authority you have complained about.

Why would we not progress your complaint?
There are three reasons why a complaint may not progress beyond the Case Reception Unit:

1. We have not been provided with sufficient information or documentation in support of a complaint, or the information provided is unclear.

Where we require further information the CRU will write to request it. Your complaint will be closed until we receive the information we have asked for.

2. Your complaint is deemed ineligible under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For example::

§ Where there is an undue delay before bringing a complaint to our attention, or

§ Where a public authority has not yet been asked to internally review their decision not to disclose information.

3. The complaint, whilst containing all relevant evidence, falls within the ’complaint handling’ criteria as set by the Information Commissioner. In these cases the Commissioner would not consider that there was any public interest served by issuing a decision notice even if he were to uphold the complaint. These are cases where there are no unresolved issues. Such cases will not be ignored. On the contrary, the Commissioner will contact the public authority and provide it with clear advice as to how it should respond to future requests. Further details are provided in the paper A Robust Approach to FOI Complaint Cases published by the Commissioner on the 28th November 2006 .

Where we feel a complaint falls within these criteria the CRU will write to explain why, before closing the case and let you know what advice has been given to the public authority.

These complaints handling criteria” include:

* Where there has been a delay in response to a request for information, but it is clear that the requested information has now been provided

* Where the requested information has now been provided following the intervention of our office.
* Where a refusal notice provided by a public authority may be technically defective, but it is completely obvious, from the face of the evidence, that the request was properly refused

* Where a breach was of a procedural nature only (including failure to provide advice or assistance) which a public authority has subsequently acknowledged; or

* Where an alleged breach is insignificant with no practical consequence

These criteria will initially be applied by the Case Reception Unit, but in some cases where a complaint is deemed to meet one or more of the complaint handling criteria at a later stage we may still reject the complaint and close the case.

Where we are unable to progress a complaint we will always write to explain why.

Exceptions to the Complaint Handling Criteria

We will consider complaints falling within the robust complaint handling criteria where one or more of the following exceptions apply:

* Where there is evidence to suggest that a public authority has deliberately delayed its response to a request or has otherwise deliberately failed to meet its obligations

* Where the effect of delay or other non-compliance served the purposes of the public authority and requires the censure of an adverse Decision Notice (e.g. avoiding disclosure at a critical time)

* Where the requested information was eventually disclosed, perhaps after ICO intervention, but it would be right in the circumstances to proceed to a Decision Notice, for example to provide a formal record of the outcome

* Where a public authority has delayed responses or otherwise failed to meet its obligations in similar circumstances in previous cases

* Where there are sound reasons of principle or precedent for proceeding to a Decision Notice; or

* Where it would be manifestly unreasonable in the particular circumstances not to proceed with the case

Version 1.0

Published 30.05.06

____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk
Inline Attachment Follows: Confirmation from ICO to PA - complaint from Mr Andrews received.doc

26th March 2010

Case Reference Number FS50299145

Dear Mr Ingle

Your reference: FOI/1362

Complaint from Mr Andrews

The Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Mr Andrews stating that there has been an unreasonable delay in carrying out a public interest test regarding their request of 03/07/09. The request for information is being dealt with under your reference quoted above.

Guidance

The Commissioner has issued guidance regarding the time limits on considering the public interest following requests for information (Good Practice Guidance 4). The Commissioner considers that public authorities should aim to respond fully to all requests within 20 working days. In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total time exceed 40 working days.

A full copy of this guidance is available on our website (www.ico.gov.uk) under the Freedom of Information guidance section, or using the following link:

Good Practice Guidance 4: Time limits on considering the public interest

Enforcement

The Commissioner is keen to ensure that the time taken in such cases is no more than is necessary and that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, these time limits are adhered to.

It is a requirement of section 17 of the Act for decisions on the balance of the public interest to be made within a reasonable time. Significant or repeated unreasonable delays in this context will be monitored by the Enforcement team and, in some instances, this may lead to structured intervention.

More detail about the Commissioner’s enforcement strategy is available on our website under the Freedom of Information enforcement section, or using the following links:

FOI enforcement strategy

Actions

If it is the case that you have not responded to Mr Andrews please do so within 20 working days of receipt of this letter. You should either provide the information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the Act.

If you have, in fact, already responded to Mr Andrews, and believe that your response should already have been received we would recommend you contact them to confirm receipt if you have not already done so.

If you need to contact us about this complaint please quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Jim Dunn

FoI Case Officer

FoI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office

EMAIL FROM HILLINGDON COUNCIL

Our Ref: 3E/04/SJ/HH/5BAA/732

30th April2010

Dear Mr Andrews

Re: Request for an Internal Review

Your complaint of 6th April 2010 has been referred to me under the Council’s Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Complaints Procedure.

Your first complaint is that there has been an inordinate delay in processing your request for information, which was originally received on 3rd July 2009. I have reviewed all of the paperwork in this matter and have concluded that your complaint must be upheld. In my view, allowing time for clarification of your original request and allowing time for consideration of the public interest test under section 10(3) of the Act, you should have received a substantive response to your request by no later than 9th October 2009.

I offer a full apology for the delay in responding to your request and would like to advise you that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Borough Solicitor and will be referred to the Freedom of Information Officer’s line manager to ensure that improvements are made. You should also know that I am aware of the complaint that you have made to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

In relation to your second point, namely that the Data Protection Act exemption does not apply to your request for the disclosure of the Council’s restricted persons register - I do not uphold your complaint.

I agree with all of the points made by Mr Ingle in his letter to you of 6th April 2010. In my view, it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information, which consists of “personal data” and “sensitive personal data”, and that none of the conditions set out in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 have been met which would make the processing of this information lawful. I would also add that if I redact the list as suggested then, it is my view that the list will cease to exist and will no longer contain any of the information originally requested.

It is also my view that the health and safety exemption applies.

If you would like to challenge this decision further, then you may do so by writing to the Information Commissioner at the Information Commissioners Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Simon Jones
Principal Corporate Lawyer

Matter referred to the ICO as of 4th of May 2010

responses will be posted here;

This matter resulted in ICO decision against Hillingdon council;

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...

See link above for details.