Former Personal Assistant to the Registrar & Secretary

Dear Mr Shannon

Your information requests to the University of Salford

Thank you for your correspondence dated 15 January 2010 in which you complain about the response you received to four requests for information you have made to the University of Salford.

We note from the correspondence that the University of Salford failed to respond to three of your information requests within 20 working days.

As the University of Salford did not respond to three of your requests within twenty working days clear breaches of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 did occur.

In cases such as this the Commissioner does not consider that serving a formal decision notice would serve any strong public interest. However, I have written to the University of Salford reminding it of its responsibilities and referring it to the Information Commissioner’s guidance on the matter. I attach a copy of my letter for your information.

As you will see even though the Commissioner does not intend to issue a formal notice in this case, your concerns have been taken seriously. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

Internal Review

It is also clear form the correspondence that you are still awaiting a decision regarding the internal review you requested on 14 December 2009 in relation to your request for information dated 16 November 2009.

The right to complain to the Information Commissioner is given under section 50 of the Act. However, a complaint may be deemed ineligible under section 50, if for example:

* there is an undue delay before bringing a complaint to our attention, or
* you have not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority.

Therefore, before accepting complaints, the Commissioner generally expects complainants to allow public authorities the opportunity to respond to their appeal for a review of the handling of or decision regarding their request for information.

Although there is no statutory time set out in the Act within which public authorities must complete a review, the Commissioner has issued guidance on this matter (Good Practice Guidance 5). The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.

As you will see from my letter to the University of Salford I have provided them with a copy of your request for internal review and recommend that they issue you with an internal review decision within 20 working days from the date of receipt of our letter. I have also recommended that the internal review decision address the handling of the other three requests for information you have made.

Significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews by public authorities 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 you remain dissatisfied after having received the University of Salford’s internal review decision and would like us to look into the matter, please contact us quoting the reference number on this letter and providing us with a copy of the internal review decision.

Please find attached a document describing how we deal with Freedom of Information complaints. If we can be of any further assistance please contact our Helpline on 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a national rate number, quoting your case reference number. You may also find some useful information on our website at www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Tony Dixon

FoI Case Officer

FoI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Stephenson

Information requests from Mr Damien Shannon (the requester)

Further to our telephone conversation, I am writing to confirm that the Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Mr Shannon regarding four requests for information he has made to the University of Salford. We attach copies of the requests for your information. Full correspondence is also available at the following link:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/damie...

Mr Shannon’s requests were made on 16 November 2009, 28 November 2009, 4 December 2009 and 4 January 2010. We note from the correspondence that in relation to three of the requests the University of Salford failed to reply to Mr Shannon within the time limits prescribed by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA).

As you will be aware, a public authority in receipt of a request under the FOIA has a duty to deal with them promptly and, in any event, within 20 working days. Although there are some exceptions, particularly where additional time is required to consider the public interest in disclosing information; none of these exceptions appear to apply in this case.

The Commissioner recognises that in this particular instance you have acknowledged the breach and apologised for the delay. He does not consider, therefore, that there is any strong public interest in issuing a decision notice. He does, however, draw your attention to his published guidance on this matter (http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...)

Internal Review

We also note from the correspondence that Mr Shannon has not received a decision regarding the internal review he requested on 14 December 2009 in relation to his request for information dated 16 November 2009. We attach a copy of the internal review request for your information.

Guidance

The Commissioner has issued guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal reviews (Good Practice Guidance 5). The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken 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.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/free...

Enforcement

The Commissioner wants to ensure that a complainant has exhausted a public authority’s internal review procedure, but at the same time the complainant should not be unreasonably delayed in having his complaint considered under section 50.

Internal reviews are referred to in the section 45 Code of Practice, and significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews will be monitored by the Enforcement team. In some instances structured intervention, for example the issuing of a Practice Recommendation, may be necessary.

More detail about the Commissioner’s enforcement strategy is available on our website under the Freedom of Information enforcement section.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/free...

Actions

As you have not issued an internal review decision to Mr Shannon we recommend that you do so within 20 working days from the date of receipt of this letter. As discussed we would also recommend that the internal review decision address the handling of Mr Shannon’s other three requests for information as mentioned above.

If you need to contact us about this complaint please quote the reference number at the top of this letter. I have provided a copy of this letter to Mr Shannon.

Yours sincerely

Tony Dixon

FoI Case Officer

FoI Case Reception Unit

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Dear Mr Shannon

Your information requests to the University of Salford

Thank you for your correspondence in which you make a further complaint about the University of Salford’s failure to provide you with an internal review decision in relation to four requests for information which were refused under s14(1) of the Act.

Your cases have been allocated to one of our case resolution teams who will contact you as soon as possible to explain how they will be progressed.

The Information Commissioner’s 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 please contact our Freedom of Information Helpline on 0303 123 1113, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Sent on behalf of

Mr Andrew White

FoI Triage Team Leader

Information Commissioner’s Office

Brief update.

Just spoke to the ICO on the phone - the University's suddenly thrashing out some blanket rejections will not affect anything, I am assured.

The responses are "too late", are in clear violation of the Information Commissioner's instructions etc etc.

To those curious readers,

I received a rather more fullsome account of the events that this FOI request pertains to. It is more complicated a situation than I was originally led to believe.

We can only look forward to the ICO's action in relation to this matter.

Further update.

Spoke to the ICO today - there is an anticipated 2 month turn around for FOI Triage Teams and I can expect movement on this case by the end of this month, or at the very latest mid-June.

Case Reference Number FS50288812; FS50294656; FS50294659; FS50294660

Dear Mr Shannon

Further to our previous correspondence regarding your complaint about the University of Salford, I am writing to inform you that your case has now been allocated to me to investigate.

In order to reach a decision as to whether the Freedom of Information Act has been correctly applied, I will need to carry out a thorough investigation. This may take me some time as I will need to ensure that I am aware of all the relevant facts and that I carefully consider the application of the law to those facts.

Where possible the Information Commissioner prefers complaints to be resolved by informal means. If this does not prove to be possible, he will usually issue a Decision Notice to you and the public authority once an investigation has been completed. This will inform you of his decision and the reasons for it.

Where the Commissioner decides that a request has not been handled properly he may specify what steps he believes are necessary to remedy the situation. This can include requiring a public authority to release information which has previously been withheld. A copy of the Decision Notice will be placed on our website (with your details omitted). If you disagree with the decision that has been reached you have a legal right of appeal to the Information Tribunal.

Your request

From the information which has been provided to us, I understand that you made a series of requests to the University of Salford between 16 November and 14 December 2009 for information on various subjects. You have provided copies of those requests.

The University of Salford provided a response to you on 14 December in which it refused your first request on the grounds that it was vexatious, under section 14(1) of the Act, and the other three requests were similarly refused on 2 February 2010.

You requested an internal review of the public authority’s first decision on 14 December 2010. On 7 April 2010 the public authority wrote to you with the details of the result of the internal review it had carried out. This upheld the decision to refuse the various questions as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act.

The scope of the case

The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether the public authority’s refusal of the requests under section 14(1) of the Act was correct or incorrect.

Please contact me as soon as possible if there are matters other than these that you believe should be addressed. This will help avoid any unnecessary delay in investigating your complaint. If I do not hear from you, my investigation will focus only upon the matters identified above.

[Personal Data Omitted]

It may not be possible for me to respond to enquiries immediately due to other work commitments but I will endeavour to provide a response as promptly as possible and will ensure that a response is provided within 14 working days of the receipt of any enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Steven Dickinson

Complaints Officer

Case Reference Numbers FS50288812; FS50294656; FS50294659; and FS50294660

Dear Mr Shannon

I am writing with reference to your four complaints about Salford University, with regard to requests for information you made to the university, your case references: FS50288812; FS50294656; FS50294659; and FS50294660.

As you will be aware, these cases, and a number of other requests from other individuals, have been refused as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

In considering a complaint about a refusal of a request as vexatious, the Commissioner will consider the context and history of the request as well as the strengths and weaknesses of both parties’ arguments in relation to some or all of the following five factors to reach a reasoned conclusion as to whether a reasonable public authority could refuse to comply with the request on the grounds that it is vexatious:

1) whether compliance would create a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction

2) whether the request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance

3) whether the request has the effect of harassing the public authority or its staff

4) whether the request can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable

5) whether the request has any serious purpose or value

The Commissioner has issued guidance about the use of section 14 of the Act, which is available on the ICO website at the following link:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

In the current circumstances, the public authority has argued that the timing of the requests (over 100 requests in a 3-month period) from a small number of individuals, whose requests sometimes overlap or request information on similar subjects, is evidence of a degree of collusion and consequent intention to cause disruption, annoyance or otherwise harass the public authority by a ‘campaign’ of FOI requests. Further, it is reasonably evident that the significant increase in the number of requests received in this short period will create a burden in terms of expense, and distraction, in diverting staff from their normal duties in order to compile information for responses to these requests.

These arguments are currently under consideration. Noting the list of factors which are commonly considered in these circumstances, you will see that the main factor which weighs in the balance in favour of the requester is the last: whether the request has any serious purpose or value. If you have any evidence and arguments which would indicate any serious purpose or value behind your requests, please would you provide it to me? Similarly, if you have any evidence which you consider may be used in rebuttal of the public authority’s position relating to the ‘disruption, annoyance or harassment’ you are invited to submit it.

If replying by email, please select 'reply' to this message and leave the subject line in the message header unchanged. This will send your reply directly to the case file. I would hope to receive your response within the next 10 working days in order to progress this investigation without undue delay.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Steven Dickinson

Complaints Officer

Dear Mr Dickinson,

Thank you for your email on this matter.

I will keep my response brief so as not to bore you with meticulous detail.

If the University of Salford have any evidence whatsoever that there is collusion between the submission of requests by separate individuals - other than the timing of those request (and I note that events which occur that bear no relationship other than their happening at the same time are usually referred to as a 'coincidence' by reasonable members of society) - then let them submit it to be examined.

I guarantee they have nothing to offer, since I haven't the foggiest who any of the other requesters - with the exception of Mr (now Dr) Gary Duke, who was up until recently a fellow student at the University - are or may be. In fact, I have tried to establish the identities of the other requesters after they submitted their requests but have failed to do so.

As for your request that I present any arguments or evidence that there is a serious purpose behind my requests, I will go through the requests in turn:

1. 'Full Details of "Other Operating Expenses": I will point you to the University of Salford's Annual Accounts described in this link, Page 28 Sub-Heading 7. Of the elements I have requested full financial data for, there is approximately £37 million of the University's expenditure being declared as "expenses" (i.e. presumably not directly funding teaching or research). This is considerably more than the University has yielded in Tuition Fees charged to their British students in the same financial year. I have been a student at the University of Salford, as have several friends, and indeed I ran for the elective office of President of the Students' Union there. I believe I have an indisputable right to investigate how £37 million pounds of "expenses" are actually being spent, so I can make a reasonable deduction about whether or not my money is being/has been well spent by the University.

2. 'Former Personal Assistant to the Registrar & Secretary': Whilst a student at the University of Salford, I served as the News Editor of the student paper there, Student Direct. It is in my capacity as the Editor of this paper and as a journalist that a story was brought to me by a member of staff at the University in which it was claimed that the Registrar and Secretary had [certain details ommitted here so that 'Darth Graves' doesn't try and sue me - I am sure those reading can guess the contents].

3. 'Number Of Staff On Part Time Contracts': As I have mentioned, I ran for the position of President of the Students' Union at Salford. A repeated complaint I heard during the campaigning period and prior was that students were frustrated at paying a large sum of money for their education, only to find themselves not taught by leading academics, but by part-time teaching staff who were barely more qualified than the students were. I thus submitted this Freedom of Information request to be able to communicate reliable data to the students I spoke to about precisely what proportion of the teaching staff were actually on part time contracts, which would have served to either substantiate or put to rest their concerns with accurate evidence.

4. 'Current Emoluments of the Vice-Chancellor and Registar & Secretary': Again as I have mentioned, I ran for the position of President of the Students' Union at Salford. Part of my campaign was to contest what I feel are unjustifiably high wages for senior managers which are not linked to performance. The remuneration for the Vice-Chancellor is incorporated into the University's Annual Accounts anyway, but these are not due to be published until December 2010 and the most recent document available describes the remuneration of the previous Vice-Chancellor, Professor Michael Harloe (now retired). The remuneration of the Registrar & Secretary is also contained within this document, albeit his identity is anonymised. Nevertheless, I note that this data has now been partially provided to another requestor who asked a similar question recently. The information commissioner may also care to note that the request which was answered on behalf of another requestor actually came from one of those the University are claiming I have "colluded" with in recent months - how ironic.

I do not consider there to be any substantial reason for me to rebutt the University's arguments against releasing this data. They have not met even the most basic threshold of evidence that would be required of a Civil dispute, and I do not agree with their legal team that on balance of probabilities, it is most likely that myself and various other members of the public colluded specifically for the purposes of distrupting the workings of the University, or that there is any substantial evidence that myself and other individuals were in collusion at all.

Kind Regards

Damien Shannon

To those who have been following my FoI requests, I received a decision notice from the Information Commissioner today.

He has upheld my complaints and has ruled that the University have incorrectly applied section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act in my case.

The decision notice will be placed on the Information Commissioner's website shortly.

I note that the ICO has been rather slow and has not yet published on whatdotheyknow the decision in relation to Mr Shannon's four requests to which he found in the complainant's favour. Here is the ICO's decision: 'The Commissioner's decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the Act.

The public authority incorrectly applied section 14(1)of the Act to the complainant's four requests for information.

By it's failure to comply with section 1 of the Act within 20 working days, the public authority breached section 10(1) of the Act.

In relation to the complainant's second and third requests: by its failure to provide the complainant with a refusal notice which stated that it was relying on a claim that section 14 applied within 20 working days, the public authority breached section 17(5) of the Act.'

The ICO has now published decision notice FS50288812, which covers this request:

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

This is yet again with the Information Commissioner now.