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

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

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:
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
pplication/case_reviews_and_service_complaints_policy001.pdf

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: [2][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

1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
2. mailto:[email address]