Follow this request
There are 6 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Contract with Thales for National ID Scheme
To Identity and Passport Service by Sue D Nym 2 August 2008
Line to take - name of applicant
To Information Commissioner’s Office by Andrew Jonathan 18 December 2010
Contract with Thales for National ID Scheme
To Identity and Passport Service by Peter Collingbourne 28 November 2008
FS50232537
To Information Commissioner’s Office by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 26 May 2010
Advice sought from Information Commissioner
To Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust by Tony Bowden 21 April 2009
Agency worker: Agreements, Contracts, pay scales
To Brent Borough Council by Eric Blair 8 February 2009
Reduction in price of passports - second helping
To Identity and Passport Service by David Hansen 15 February 2011
Information Commissioner’s Office
To Information Commissioner’s Office by robert rymer 30 November 2009
Use of Pseudonyms in FOI
To Information Commissioner’s Office by Tony Bowden 28 November 2008
FOI Complaint: Contract with Thales for National ID Scheme
Sue D Nym made this Freedom of Information request to Information Commissioner’s Office
The request was refused by Information Commissioner’s Office.
From: Sue D Nym
10 November 2008
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please forward this email for the attention of your FOI casework
division.
This is a complaint made under section 50 of the FOIA. It relates
to the following public authority:
Name: Identity and Passport Service
Address:
Parliamentary & Correspondence Management Team
8th Floor, Globe House
89 Eccleston Square
London
SW1V 1PN
Tel: (0300) 222 0000
Fax: (0870) 336 9175
Email: [email address]
All correspondence relating to my request can be viewed on the
"whatdotheyknow" website at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
Please note that "annotations" do not form part of the
correspondence.
The substance of my complaint is that the public authority's
handling of my request is incongruent with established FOI case
law. In particular, the public authority claims that it is
permitted to take into account the time taken to redact exempt
material in its cost assessment under section 12 of the FOIA. This
is contrary to the Information Tribunal's decision of Mr J Jenkins
v Information Commissioner and Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, EA/2006/0067, as well as recently published ICO
guidance and numerous decision notices, which all conclude that
redaction time cannot be taken into account in this manner.
You may contact me by email at this email address. Should you
require to contact me privately when absolutely necessary, please
do so via the "whatdotheyknow" website at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/conta...
Yours faithfully,
Sue D Nym
Information Commissioner’s Office
12 November 2008
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
Information Commissioner’s Office
27 November 2008
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]
Peter Collingbourne left an annotation (28 November 2008)
Unfortunately I don't think a complaint will get me anywhere useful -- the Scottish ICO maintains the same position and section 8(1)(b) contains the same language for both FOI Acts. Besides this is not something I feel it necessary to fight over at this stage. I re-filed the request under my real name:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Make and explore Freedom of Information requests






Tony Bowden left an annotation (28 November 2008)
I have also made a follow-on request for information relating to the decision: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/us...
Link to this