Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Significant Case Failings - definition and statistics
To Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman by Spenser Poultney 20 April 2009
ACS:Law - Documents held by Ministry of Justice
To Ministry of Justice by John Fletcher 12 May 2010
Significant Case Failings - Definition and Statistics, Please
To Office of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner by Spenser Poultney 9 May 2009
Timeliness of Requests for Clarification Where Citing FOIA 2000 s1(3)
To Ministry of Justice by Bernard Silver 12 June 2010
Complaint information relevant to the Digital Economy Bill
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by John Fletcher 28 February 2010
ACS:Law complaint progress and forum allegations
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by John Fletcher 12 May 2010
ACS:Law data breach
To Information Commissioner’s Office by John Fletcher 24 November 2010
Number of complaints regarding Online Intellectual Property cases
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by John Fletcher 28 August 2010
Legal Ombudsman Order to SRA to investigate a complaint
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by Dr Helen Bright 16 December 2010
Solicitors' Practise Rules 1990 etc
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by Helen Bright 25 February 2011
SRA Timeliness in ACS:Law complaints
John Fletcher made this Freedom of Information request to Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman
The request was refused by Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman.
From: John Fletcher
11 May 2010
Dear Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman,
I have previously submitted a Freedom of Information request to the
SRA with relation to the number of complaints related to legal
action in illicit filesharing, with specific interest in those
involving three companies; ACS:Law, Davenport Lyons and Tilly,
Bailey and Irvine. As a result of this request it has transpired
that the action taken in the course of these complaints is
extremely tardy.
See:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
I therefore request the following information of your office.
Please send all correspondence with the SRA, ACS:Law and
individuals (suitably redacted to comply with the data protection
act) to your response - please limit this solely to complaints
concerning ACS:Law, or the involvement of the SRA in investigating
this firm of solicitors. In addition, please address the following
specific questions:
1) How many complaints have you received with relation to the
investigations by the SRA on complaints made concerning the
activities of ACS:Law (especially, but not limited to, complaints
about timeliness)?
2) How many letters to your office, with relation to complaints
about investigations of ACS:Law have not received a response within
30 days of receipt?
3) What action has your office taken to remedy complaints
concerning the speed of investigations of the SRA in these
matters?:
Specifically;
What targets have been set for the SRA on timeliness with relation
to ACS:Law related complaints?
What action has been taken to ensure these targets are adhered to?
What action has been taken to encourage faster remedy of complaints
given the majority of those relating to Davenport Lyons have taken
the SRA more than a year to complete? (see linked FOIA request to
SRA)
4) What action does your office commit to take to ensure that
ACS:Law related complaints do not pass the 12 month target
previously set by the OLSCC (a related office) in the previous two
years? (From the SRA's data, over 50 complaints will pass 12 months
in July)
5) What action does your office take to ensure that the SRA are
regularly updating complainants with the progress of their
complaints, and the action taken to remedy the aforementioned?
Yours faithfully,
John Fletcher
From: Legal Services Ombudsman
Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman
2 June 2010
Mr J Fletcher
By e-mail [[FOI #34978 email]]
2 June 2010
Dear Mr Fletcher
Thank you for your e-mail of 11 May 2010 requesting information in
relation to SRA timeliness in ACS: Law complaints. Your request has been
passed to me because I have responsibility for handling requests under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
You have requested all correspondence with the SRA, ACS:Law and
individuals limited to complaints concerning ACS:Law or the involvement of
the SRA in investigating ACS:Law.
On this occasion I can neither confirm nor deny that the Office of the
Legal Services Ombudsman (OLSO) holds the information you are seeking.
This is due to the information, if it were held, being exempt from
disclosure under Sections 40, 43 and 31 of the FOIA.
The duty in Section 1(1)a) of the FOIA to confirm or deny whether OLSO
holds the information you are seeking does not apply, by virtue of Section
40(5) (personal information), Section 43(3) (commercial interests), and
Section 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. You should not take this as
any indication that the information you requested is or is not held by
OLSO.
Section 40(2) of the FOIA provides that information is exempt from
disclosure if the disclosure would breach one or more of the Data
Protection Principles. For example, if disclosure would breach the fair
processing principle, as the data subject had a reasonable expectation
that OLSO would hold the information in confidence.
Section 40(5) of the FOIA provides that the duty to confirm or deny
whether OLSO holds the information does not arise where confirming or
denying whether the information was held would be in breach of one or more
of the Data Protection Principles.
Section 43(2) of the Act provides that information is exempt information
if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial
interests of any person.
Section 43(3) provides that the duty to confirm or deny whether OLSO holds
the information does not arise in relation to information that, if it were
held, would or would be likely to prejudice the interests mentioned in
Section 43(2).
Section 31(1)(g) of the Act provides that information is exempt
information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes
specified in Section 31(2). For example; for the purpose of ascertaining
whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance
of any enactment (eg the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) exist or may
arise.
Section 31(3) provides that the duty to confirm or deny whether we hold
the information does not arise in relation to information that, if it were
held, would or would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned
in Section 31(1).
As I explained above you should not take this letter as an indication that
the information is, or is not, held by OLSO.
In relation to the numbered paragraphs of your letter;
1&2. Please see the comments above.
3,4&5. This is not the role of the Ombudsman. She does not set targets
for the SRA. The Office of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner
(which closed at the end of March 2010) was a totally independent office
from OLSO. OLSO did not assume the responsibilities and roles previously
held by the OLSCC and under the Legal Services Act 2007 will itself be
closing.
In this respect you may find the website of the Legal Services Board
(LSB) useful. Internet: [1]http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/
As part of our obligations under the FOIA, the Office has an independent
review process. If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may write
to request an internal review. The internal review will be carried out by
someone who did not make the original decision, who will re-assess how the
Office handled the original request.
If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email
to the Legal Adviser at the above address.
If you remain dissatisfied with an internal review decision, you have the
right to apply to the Information Commissioner's Office under Section 50
of the FOIA. You can contact the Information Commissioner's Office at the
following address:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Internet: [2]https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...
Yours sincerely
Kath Welton
Corporate Services Manager
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/
2. https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us...
From: John Fletcher
2 June 2010
Dear Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Office of the Legal
Services Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'SRA Timeliness in
ACS:Law complaints'.
I am extremely disappointed that my entire request has been
rejected, and that it has taken till nearly the end of the deadline
to respond. The law states you must respond quickly and no later
than 20 working days after request submission. It makes no sense to
respond so late after the request if a rejection is being tendered.
I also believe that the exemptions that you have applied to prevent
data release are overreaching and make a bit of a mockery of the
freedom of information process.
I contest the rejection of my request and submit for an internal
review. In order to progress this review rapidly, I have enclosed
my objections to your response.
I note that all three sections provided as reason for exemption are
considered 'qualified' exemptions under the Freedom of Information
Act. This means that all three exemptions are subject to a public
interest test (Section 2, esp 2(3)). There is no evidence that this
has been carried out. Further:
You have claimed that the number of complaints, and the timeliness
of OLSO response to complaints is covered under the commercial
interests exemption (section 43). I fail to see how OLSO can claim
any commercial use for the number of complaints received by your
body. I thus believe this exemption to be spurious in this case. I
also fail to see any potential commercial impact to the release of
the number of complaints given these are insubstantiated. It does
therefore not apply to 1) nor 2) requested. Additionally, as
already stated, this exemption must be assessed in the public
interest for the documents held.
You have further claimed exemption under section 31. This exemption
appears more clear cut, in that information related to a person
would be exempt under 31(2). I also do not consider the number of
complaints received to be held 'for the purpose of ascertaining
responsibility'. Therefore this exemption does not apply to the
figures requested in 1) and 2). The documents held must be subject
to the public interest test before the exemption is valid.
The final exemptions claimed are those under sections 40(2) and
40(5) which relate to the data protection act. I note that my
request specifically stated that redactions within documents may be
necessary to meet the obligations of your office under the Data
Protection Act (1998). I have asked for information related to a
legal services company and not any single individual. As such, I
have not asked for any information which pertains solely to an
individual which might be subject to a data protection act
exemption. After appropriate redaction to remove names of
individuals before the information is supplied to me, the data
should no longer fall under this exemption. Should you decide it is
still in any way relevant a public interest test must be applied to
this section in all exemptions other than the 'data protection
principles'. I believe that these would be met even in data release
as there is no individually identifiable or substantiated
information held by the OLSO in these cases.
Whilst I understand your response to questions 3, 4 and 5, I am
disappointed that you state there is no connection between OLSCC
and OLSO. The head of both agencies was the same person, and whilst
OLSO are not tasked with maintaining timeliness of complaint
responses, it appears to me that there is no body able to hold the
SRA to account in this area now. Further, whilst the OLSO is not
independently assessing timeliness, I would be interested to know
who investigates complaints specifically made in relation to this
aspect of performance of the SRA. If this is not yourself, who is
now responsible for investigating these complaints?
In summary, after public interest tests are performed I fully
expect answers to questions 1) and 2) as I fail to see any possible
reason these could fall within the specified exemptions. I am also
expecting your office finds it possible to release some documents
requested after redaction to remove the relevant personable
information which you believe should be removed.
I await the outcome of your internal review with interest, and hope
your department honours the true intent of the Freedom of
Information Act by offering to release some data after review.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sr...
Yours faithfully,
John Fletcher
From: Legal Services Ombudsman
Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman
24 June 2010
Mr J Fletcher
By e-mail [[FOI #34978 email]]
24 June 2010
Dear Mr Fletcher
Thank you for your e-mail dated 2 June 2010 where you requested
information about `SRA Timeliness in ACS: Law complaints.'
A review has now been conducted and the decision contained in Mrs Welton's
e-mail dated 2 June 2010 is upheld for the following reasons:-
Your request has been handled under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). Section 1 of the Act places two duties on
public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section
1(1) (a) of the Act is to confirm or deny whether the information
specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to
disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.
As stated in Mrs Welton's letter dated 2 June 2010 the Office of the Legal
Services Ombudsman (OLSO) can neither confirm nor deny that it holds
information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Act does
not apply by virtue of the exemptions mentioned in that letter; ie
Sections 40, 43 and 31 of the Act.
This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that any information that
would meet your request exists or does not exist.
Sections 40, 43 and 31 are qualified and as you say require OLSO to carry
out a public interest balancing test before they can be relied on. In
respect of these qualified exemptions Mrs Welton determined that, in all
the circumstances in the case, the public interest in maintaining
exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in
confirming whether OLSO holds the information. I consider Mrs Welton's
decision in this regard to be a reasonable one.
Factors favouring compliance with Section 1(1) (a) (to confirm or deny)
It is appreciated that members of the public will naturally be interested
in the activities of law companies and the service they provide; and that
confirmation or denial might lead to a better informed public.
Factors favouring the need to neither confirm or deny (NCND)
To confirm or deny if this information does or does not exist would in
itself identify whether or not complaints had been received by OLSO in
connection with the activities of ACS:Law. The information could carry the
risk of being misconstrued, creating assumptions about the activities of
the lawyer(s) which could affect the commercial interests of the company.
(I should point out that OLSO primarily deals with complaints about the
professional body's handling of a complaint about a lawyer and not about
the lawyer itself).
You have also asked who investigates complaints about the SRA. OLSO
investigates individual complaints about the SRA's handling of complaints
about lawyers.
Mrs Welton has already referred you to the Legal Services Board website.
You may also find the website of the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC)
useful in respect of the new complaint-handling system which is being
introduced under the Legal Services Act 2007.
[1]http://www.officeforlegalcomplaints.org....
I am sorry that I have not been able to be more helpful to you. If you are
not content with the outcome of this internal review decision, you have
the right to apply to the Information Commissioner's Office under Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. You can contact the Information
Commissioner's Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Rob Bartram
Legal Adviser
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.officeforlegalcomplaints.org....
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence