Information Commissioner's Guidance Ignored

Dear Sir or Madam,

Can you please supply all information/figures held that relate to
the whether or not the CAFCASS are taking a relatively low-key
approach as recommended when answering requests placed by the
public.

It is worrying that the CAFCASS has on several occasions’ where
‘the prime consideration is whether enough of a person’s full name
has been provided to give a reasonable indication of that person’s
identity ‘ contained within the guidance below has been ignored and
questions left permanently un-answered.

Quote:

'We recognise that it may be difficult for a public authority to be
certain that a pseudonym has been used by an applicant. A
relatively low-key approach is recommended and public authorities
should not seek proof of the applicant’s identity as a matter of
course. In accordance with the spirit and purpose of the FOIA, the
default position of a public authority should be to accept the name
provided by the applicant unless there is good reason to enquire
further about the applicant’s name, as indicated above. Even when
an obvious pseudonym has been used, as good practice a public
authority should still consider the request even though technically
it can be regarded as invalid. This approach could be adopted in
cases where identity is not relevant to the request and, in view of
the general principle within the FOIA of disclosure to the world at
large, where the authority is content to disclose the information.
What constitutes a real name?
We consider that a relatively informal approach is also appropriate
in this context. Therefore, title and/or first name with surname
satisfies the requirement for provision of a real name, as does the
use by a female applicant of her maiden name.
The prime consideration is whether enough of a person’s full name
has been provided to give a reasonable indication of that person’s
identity.'

Yours faithfully,

Mr Brian Gerrish