FOI Complaint: Contract with Thales for National ID Scheme

Link: [1]File-List

12th November 2008

Case Reference Number FS50222050

Dear Ms Nym

Your information request to Identity & Passport Service.

Thank you for your correspondence dated 10/11/08 in which you make a
complaint about the Home Office (IPS) decision not to release the
information you requested. 

Your case has been allocated to one of our case resolution teams who will
contact you as soon as possible to explain how your case will be
progressed.  Due to the volume of complaints we are receiving at present
it may be several months before you hear from us.

The Information Commissioners Office is an independent public body set up
to promote public access to official information. We will rule on eligible
complaints from people who are unhappy with the way public authorities
have handled requests for information under The Freedom of Information Act
2000.

If you need to contact us about any aspect of your complaint about the
Home Office (IPS)  please contact our Freedom of Information Helpline on
08456 306060, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a 'national
rate' number, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this
letter. 

 

Yours sincerely,

Sent on behalf of

Mr Paul Arnold

Head of Customer Service

FOI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad7CE74_files/filelist.xml

Link: [1]File-List

Date:                                     
27 November 2008

Case Reference Number:            FS50222050

Dear Ms Nym,

 

I am writing in reference to your complaint regarding the handling of your
request for information to the Identity and Passport Service (IPS). In
this case you have made a request to the public authority under the
pseudonym ‘Sue D Nym’.

There has been a recent development in the Commissioner’s interpretation
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”), and specifically
in his understanding of what constitutes a valid request. This development
has a fundamental effect on the above case. I am writing to explain this
development to you.

The Act places a duty on public authorities upon receipt of a request for
information to inform the applicant in writing whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request, and if this is
the case, to communicate that information to the applicant.

Section 8(1) of the Act states that:

            In this Act any reference to a “request for
information” is a reference to such a request which –

            (a)       is in writing,

(b)       states the name of the applicant and an address for
correspondence, and

(c)        describes the information requested.

           

It is in relation to section 8(1)(b) that there has been a development in
the Commissioner’s interpretation of the Act.

The Commissioner has considered whether in order for a request under the
Act to be a valid one the applicant must use his or her real name, rather
than a pseudonym. In reaching a view on this he has been mindful of the
wording of section 8 and especially the phrase “the name of the
applicant”. He has, in particular, noted the use of the words, “the
name,” rather than, “a name”.

The Commissioner also notes that whilst the Act is generally ‘applicant
blind’, there are occasions where the identity of the applicant is
relevant to the handling of the request. This is the case in circumstances
involving determining whether the costs of responding to a request should
be aggregated; when determining whether a request is a repeated request;
when determining whether the request is for the personal data of the
applicant; and when considering whether a complaint to the Commissioner is
frivolous or vexatious.

This demonstrates to the Commissioner that there are times when a public
authority will need to know the identity of an applicant when dealing with
a request for information under the Act. After considering this the
Commissioner has formed the view that for a request to be a valid one, it
should have sufficient information in order for the public authority to be
able to process it in accordance with any part of the Act – which would
include those parts which would require knowledge of the real identity of
the applicant.

Given this, and the wording of section 8, he believes that the correct
interpretation of a valid ‘request for information’ is one where the
applicant has provided his or her real name – not one where the
applicant has used a pseudonym.

In reaching this view the Commissioner has also been mindful of the
Explanatory Notes for the Act, which are produced by the Home Office in
order to assist a reader in understanding the legislation. In relation to
section 8 and what makes a request for information a valid request under
the Act, the Notes state that,

“An applicant will have to identify himself for the purposes of the
application…”

This reflects the thinking of the Commissioner which was recorded in his
published Awareness Guidance No.22, in relation to section 14 (vexatious
or repeated requests). It is relevant to reiterate the section titled,
‘Are requests submitted under obvious pseudonyms automatically
vexatious?’ This states that,

“The Act requires applicants to make requests for information in writing
and to state his or her name and an address for correspondence.
Technically, therefore a request submitted using a pseudonym is not a
proper request and could be refused on that ground. However, the Act does
not allow public authorities to enquire into the circumstances of the
applicant or to ask for information in order to verify identities. Unless
the public authority knows that the applicant has used a pseudonym,
therefore, it will be difficult to refuse a request on that ground.” 
[my emphasis]

In light of these considerations the Commissioner is of the view that a
request made using a pseudonym is not a valid request for information.

Therefore the Commissioner does not consider that the request you made to
the above public authority, under the pseudonym Sue D. Nym, was a valid
request for information under the Act. As this was not a valid request,
the Commissioner believes that the public authorities were under no
obligation to respond to it under section 1 of the Act, and therefore we
are unable to take your complaint forward. Therefore this case has now
been closed and no further action will be taken.

I am sorry for the frustration that this might cause you. However, given
the nature of this development (i.e. what constitutes a valid request
under the Act), and the fundamental effect it has on your complaint, I
believe that this is the correct course of action to take. Of course, you
would be free to resubmit this request to the IPS using your real name.

If you wish to complain about the handling of this case, there are two
avenues open to you. The first is to make a service complaint to a more
senior manager, the details of which are on the website:
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Alternatively, you could seek legal advice about whether to take this
decision to another body, for example, by seeking a judicial review.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Humphries

Case Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office

Tel:  01625 545340

Email: [3][email address]

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad54CDF_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
3. mailto:[email address]