Employees IN ANY WAY associated with Common Purpose and DoI

Waiting for an internal review by Information Commissioner's Office of their handling of this request.

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Please supply the the names and ranks/grades, departments and job titles of all employees in your organisation who are IN ANY WAY associated with Common Purpose.

Please also supply copies of any Declarations of Interest your employees may have made relating to an association with Common Purpose.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

11 May 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0311840

Dear Mr Walker

Request for Information

Thank you for your correspondence dated 10 May 2010, entitled “Employees
IN ANY WAY associated with Common Purpose and DoI”.

Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  We will respond by 08 June 2010 which is 20
working days from the day after we received your request.

Should you wish to respond to this email please be careful not to amend
the information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the
information is added directly to your case. However, please be aware that
this is an automated process; the information will not be read by a member
of our staff until your case is allocated to a request handler.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Walsh

Internal Compliance Officer

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radCCE6A_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List

8th June 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0311840

Dear Mr Walker

Further to our acknowledgement dated 11 May 2010 we are now in a position
to respond to your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act.

On 10 May 2010 you requested the following information:

“Please supply the the names and ranks/grades, departments and job
titles of all employees in your organisation who are IN ANY WAY
associated with Common Purpose.

Please also supply copies of any Declarations of Interest your
employees may have made relating to an association with Common
Purpose.”

In response to the first part of your request “Please supply the names
and ranks/grades, departments and job titles of all employees in your
organisation who are IN ANY WAY associated with Common Purpose”,
unfortunately we are not able to provide you with the information you have
requested. I will explain in more detail below why this is the case, but
in brief, section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) makes
clear that a public authority (such as the Information Commissioner’s
Office – the ICO) is not obliged to comply with an FOIA request if the
authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the ‘appropriate limit'. The ‘appropriate limit’ for the
ICO, as determined in the ‘Freedom of Information and Data Protection
(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004’ is £450. We have
determined that £450 would equate to 18 hours work.

 

To be able to establish whether any staff member has an association in
“any way” with Common Purpose, we would have to look at all
employees’ personnel files. For example an association could be
mentioned on a job application that may have reference to any previous
training or event attended by a staff member before joining the ICO. There
may be several internal applications on an individual staff member’s
file. 

We have currently 349 members of staff. Therefore, assuming that the
search of each Personnel file would take approximately 5 minutes to
complete (and it is certain that some searches would take much longer than
that), this would equate to over 29 hours worth of searching.  This is in
excess of the 18 hours which would accrue a charge of £450.  It is for
this reason, and in accordance with section 12 of the FOIA, that we are
not obliged to comply with your request for information.

However, if you are able to narrow the scope of your request we may be in
a position to provide the information free of charge.  I should point out
that any reformulated request you may wish to make to the ICO will be
treated as a new FOI request, and the 20 working day time limit will begin
again.

Please note that we have already provided you with information about ICO
employees who attended Common Purpose courses under case reference number
IRQ0311760.

In response to the second part of your request “any Declarations of
Interest your employees may have made relating to an association with
Common Purpose” please find below a link to a document on our website
entitled “ICO Register of Interests”.

[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

The Register of Interests is completed by the Information Commissioner and
members of his Management Board. The Register is made publicly available
to provide information to the public about relevant interests that might
influence the judgment and deliberations of these individuals. Please find
below a link to the entries available on our website

[3]http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/who_we_ar...

The entries on the Register do not make reference to Common Purpose, as
such no information is held in relation to the second part of your
request.

I hope you find the above of assistance.

If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to
request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your
request has been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Team
at the address below or e-mail

[4][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please write
to the Case Reception Team, at the address below or visit the
‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information
Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

 

A copy of our review procedure is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Iman Elmehdawy

Internal Compliance Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad54D48_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/who_we_ar...
4. mailto:[email address]

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Information Commissioner’s Office's handling of my FOI request 'Employees IN ANY WAY associated with Common Purpose and DoI'.

............

Please review the decision not to provide me with information on the grounds that it would take longer than 18 hours or cost more than £450.

As the records already show that employees have not made Declarations of Interest, it would be both quick and cheap to send a global email to the 349 members of staff ( plus management and board members ) asking each to provide the information requested.

Per person, this would be but a few seconds to ask for the information and a few seconds to collate into a single file. Bearing in mind that the vast majority of replies will be 'none', the whole process would take a fraction of the 18 hours allegedly estimated.

On these grounds, I ask for a review.

.................

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/em...

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

9th June 2010

Case Reference Number RCC0316587

Dear Mr Walker

Thank you for your correspondence dated 8 June 2010.

This correspondence will now be treated as a request for review of your
recent request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We will respond by 6 July 2010 which is 20 working days from the day after
we received your recent correspondence.  This is in accordance with our
internal review procedures.

If you wish to add further information or evidence to your case please
reply to this email, being careful not to amend the information in the
‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the information is added
directly to your case. However, please be aware that this is an automated
process; the information will not be read by a member of our staff until
your case is allocated to a request handler.

Yours sincerely

Iman Elmehdawy

Lead Internal Compliance Officer

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad91287_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

28th June 2010

Case Reference Number RCC0316587

Dear Mr Walker

Your request for an internal review of the handling of your information
request has been passed to me to undertake. I have carefully considered
all the relevant information, including your request and your request for
review. You request for internal review only focused on the first part of
your original request and in respect of this I have reached the following
findings.

The response you received conveyed that Section 12 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) was applicable in relation to your request. 
It was explained that to locate the information that you were seeking
would take over the 18 hours cost of compliance limit. 

You requested “Please supply the the names and ranks/grades, departments
and job titles of all employees in your organisation who are IN ANY WAY
associated with Common Purpose”.

I have reconsidered this alongside your request for review and have
concluded that we were incorrect to apply section 12 and that in fact we
do not hold the information you are seeking.  You were seeking a complete
list of all staff associated in anyway with Common Purpose. Whilst this
information may have been volunteered as part of a job application or
application for transfer or promotion it is not information we would or
would have any need to record for our business purposes.  Therefore where
such information was not volunteered we would not seek to collect it and
therefore would not hold a complete list of employees ‘associated in any
way’.  Furthermore whilst I note your suggestion about sending an all
staff e-mail to collate this information this would in fact be creating
new information in order to response to your request.  We are under no
requirement to create new information to response to request for
information.

I hope this provides you with clarification.  If you are dissatisfied
with the outcome of the review you may make a section 50 complaint to the
ICO.

Complaints procedure

Information on how to complain is available on the ICO website at:
[2][2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

By post: If your supporting evidence is in hard copy, you can fill in the
Word version of our complaint form, print it out and post it to us with
your supporting evidence. A printable Freedom of Information Act
complaints form is available from the ICO website. Please send to:
Case Reception Unit
Customer Service Team
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

By email: If all your supporting evidence is available electronically, you
can fill in our online complaint form. Important: information included in
the form, and any supporting evidence will be sent to us by email.

Yours sincerely

Charlotte Powell

Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad6783F_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Section 50 complaint

I have grounds to pursue the issue.

At first, the request was refused on the grounds of cost.

i.e. the ICO WAS PREPARED to give me the information, but for the cost.

I have now provided the ICO with a means of obtaining the information, but within the legal cost limit, ie sending emails to employees.

This means that, to be consistent with the original decision, the information must be provided.

Now the ICO say it is 'new' information.

It is not 'new' at all.

The information is there, with the employees, if not volunteered on their applications.

Therefore, the ICO has erred in law.

I request a reversal of the decision.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

5th July 2010

Case Reference Number FS50320587

Dear Mr Walker,

Your information request to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

Thank you for your correspondence dated 28 June 2010 in which you make a
complaint about the ICO’s 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 complaint 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,

Jenny Sanders

Sent on behalf of

Mr Andrew White

FoI Triage Team Leader

Information Commissioner’s Office

                                                                                     

Service Standards

July 2010

Written complaints and enquiries – how we deal with them

How long it takes us to deal with your case will depend on whether we are
able to accept your complaint or enquiry and how complex it is. We have
produced the attached guide to help explain the different types of cases
we deal with and how we progress them.

Below is information about how long it currently takes us to deal with ALL
the complaints we receive under the legislation we regulate.

Written complaints about DP and PECR

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Type of complaint | % of complaints |% of complaints |% of complaints |
| |dealt with within| dealt with | dealt with |
| |30 calendar days | within 90 | within 180 |
| | of receipt |calendar days of|calendar days of|
| | (Mostly dealt | receipt | receipt |
| |with by our Case | | |
| | Reception Unit) | | |
|--------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------|
|Data Protection Act | 41 | 75 | 91 |
| or Privacy and | | | |
| Electronic | | | |
| Communication | | | |
| Regulations | | | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Written complaints about FoI and EIR

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Type of complaint | % of complaints |% of complaints |% of complaints |
| |dealt with within| dealt with | dealt with |
| |30 calendar days | within 180 | within 365 |
| | of receipt |calendar days of|calendar days of|
| | | receipt | receipt |
| | (Mostly dealt | | |
| |with by our Case | | |
| | Reception Unit) | | |
|--------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------|
| Freedom of | 27 | 79 | 91 |
| Information Act or | | | |
| Environmental | | | |
| Information | | | |
| Regulations | | | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Calls to our helpline

Our helpline advisers aim to provide a helpful and knowledgeable service
and in the most cases your enquiry will be dealt with by the first person
you speak to.

Where this is not possible we may need to transfer your call to someone
better placed to help you. If we need to call you back we will aim to do
so the same business day or at a time more convenient to you.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |Average number of seconds|
|----------------------------------------------+-------------------------|
| Average waiting time before speaking to a | 1min 00 seconds |
| helpline adviser | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Requests regarding notification under the Data Protection Act

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Type of request | Turnaround time in working days |
|-------------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| For a new notification | 10 |
|-------------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| To renew a notification | 8 |
|-------------------------------------+----------------------------------|
| To change or alter a notification | 8 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Complaints about our service

If you are unhappy with any aspect of the service we have provided, please
see our case review and service complaints policy.  This is available
from our website, or you can ask our Helpline to send you a copy on 0303
123 1113.

Explaining the different complaints and enquiries we deal with

We are able to deal with a great many of the complaints and enquiries we
receive quickly. However, for a variety of reasons, some cases take
longer.

Complaints and enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and
the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs).

Cases we can deal with quickly

These include:

o most enquiries about the application of the FoIA or EIRs;
o complaints where we need more information from you;
o complaints about a public authority failing to respond to your request
for information on time or in an appropriate fashion; and
o complaints that fall outside the Information Commissioner's remit and
we are not required to investigate.

Cases of this nature are dealt with by our Case Reception Unit. Our aim is
to deal with these cases within 30 calendar days of receipt. The
percentage of all the cases we complete which are dealt with in this way
is shown in column 1 of the FoI and EIR complaints table. This information
is updated on the first day of every month.

Non-complex cases or cases where a precedent exists

 

If your case is accepted but cannot be dealt with by our Case Reception
Unit we will write to you to confirm this and your case will be passed to
one of our FoI casework teams. We will then consider whether the issues in
your case can be dealt with using previous case law or precedent.

 

We expect cases of this nature to be dealt with in between 30 and 180
calendar days of receipt. Most of these cases are represented in column 2
of the FoI and EIR complaints table.

Complex cases

If your case raises issues for which there is no previous case law or
precedent, it will be placed in a queue to be allocated to a caseworker.

Regrettably, the number of cases in this queue is unacceptably high at the
moment. We are doing all that we can with the resources available to
reduce the number of cases in this queue and therefore reduce the length
of time we take to deal with each case and reach a decision.

The average wait time for one of these cases to be allocated to a
caseworker is currently over 180 calendar days from the date we receive
it. These cases represent approximately 20% of the complaints we receive.
If your case falls into this category our FoI Casework Team will write to
you to explain this and will keep you updated. Most of these cases are
represented in column 3 of the FoI and EIR complaints table.

Complaints and enquiries under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the
Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECRs).

Cases we can deal with quickly

 

These include:

o most enquiries about the application of the DPA and PECRs;
o cases where we need more information from you;
o cases where an assessment can be made relatively quickly and we do not
feel the matters raised require further consideration or investigation
by the ICO in line with our corporate aims and priorities; and
o cases that fall outside the Information Commissioner's remit and we
are not required to investigate.

Cases of this nature are dealt with by our Case Reception Unit. Our aim is
to deal with these cases within 30 calendar days of receipt. The
percentage of all the cases we complete which are dealt with in this way
is shown in column 1 of the DP and PECR complaints table. This information
is updated on the first day of every month.

Complex cases

If your case cannot be dealt with by our Case Reception Unit it will be
placed in a queue to be allocated to a caseworker. Cases of this nature
usually take between 30 and 180 days to deal with and are therefore
represented in columns 2 and 3 of the DP and PECR complaints table.

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radB8797_files/filelist.xml

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

What is happening with this case?

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

new casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). This is
an automated acknowledgement; please do not reply to this email.

If your email was a reply to an email we sent you it has now been attached
to your case and will be read when your correspondence is allocated to a
case officer.

If your case has already been allocated, the case officer will be in
contact when they have considered your email.
If your email was not a reply to an email from us it will be considered by
our Customer Contact Department and we will respond to you as soon as
possible.

If you need more help, please contact our Helpline on 08456 30 60 60 or
01625 545745 if you prefer to use a national rate number or visit the
Contact us page of our website.

Yours sincerely

Customer Contact Department
The Information Commissioner's Office

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

31st March 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0312445

Dear Mr Walker

I am writing in connection with the complaint you have made under section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The complaint relates to the
outcome of an information request made to ICO.

The information request was for:

‘the names and ranks/grades, departments and job titles of all
employees in your organisation who are in any way associated with Common
Purpose.’ 

I have been advised that the CommissionerÂ’s view is that the outcome
of the internal review communicated to you on 28 June 2010 was incorrect
and that section 12(1) applies to your request.

Section 12(1) states that:

‘Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.Â’

Section 16(1) places a duty on a public authority to provide advice and
assistance to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for
information to it.

I am writing to provide some further advice and assistance and suggest
some examples which you could consider to refine your request. The
examples focus on defining the type or purpose of any contact.  Those
examples are:

· Information relating to staff that may have had contact with
Common Purpose in relation to cases handled by the Operations Department.
A suggested timeframe would be since the Operations Department was formed
(1/4/10).

· Information held relating to staff that may have had contact
with Common Purpose in a training capacity and held by the Learning and
Development Department. We note you received this information on 8 June
2010.  However we could perform searches to provide any new
information.

· Information relating to staff at the 2 most senior grades (G
and H) relating to any contact with Common Purpose in their capacity as an
employee of the Information Commissioner.

I must stress that there is no obligation to create new information as a
result of an information request but rather to provide any recorded
information. 

If you would like to consider refining your request in any of the ways
suggested or provide alternative ways then please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Bett

Head of Internal Compliance        

     

 

  

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radE1457_files/filelist.xml

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Thank you for your response.

I do not accept that Section 12.1 is engaged.
You have not explained anew why you believe that the cost of processing the FoI request would allegedly exceed the prescribed limit as your original claim in this regard was explained away.
In any case, for your organisation, you have several avenues available to you that would already have this information.

For example, as suggested on 8 June 2010, you could send a corporate / global email to employees asking for the information.

On 28 June 2010 you said that you were incorrect to apply Section 12.1

I disagree that the ICO would be creating new information, as it would simply be collating information that was already internal to the organisation, and held by your employees.

I made this point in my reply to you of 28 June 2010.

It has taken you until 31 March 2011 to address this issue.

This is an unacceptable wait of NINE MONTHS.
This request has been ongoing for over TEN months.

To an independent outsider, it would appear that the ICO itself is attempting, unlawfully, to circumvent the very laws it was created to uphold.

You now say that your response of 28 June was incorrect, and that Section 21.1 does apply.

On 28 June 2010 you were informed of the process that could be used to process the FoI request easily, quickly, and well within the proscribed limit.

Please provide the information originally requested, i.e. employees associated in any way with Common Purpose.

As part of your response, please indicate whether anyone associated with Common Purpose in any way has been involved with the processing of any of this thread of FoI requests.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

new casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). This is
an automated acknowledgement; please do not reply to this email.

If your email was a reply to an email we sent you it has now been attached
to your case and will be read when your correspondence is allocated to a
case officer.

If your case has already been allocated, the case officer will be in
contact when they have considered your email.
If your email was not a reply to an email from us it will be considered by
our Customer Contact Department and we will respond to you as soon as
possible.

If you need more help, please contact our Helpline on 08456 30 60 60 or
01625 545745 if you prefer to use a national rate number or visit the
Contact us page of our website.

Yours sincerely

Customer Contact Department
The Information Commissioner's Office

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

8th April 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0384529

Dear Mr Walker

I am writing in response to your e mail sent to me and dated 31 March
2011.

I understand that a decision notice is in the process of being served 
in relation to your section 50 complaint with the reference number
FS50320587. This decision notice relates to the information request which
was the subject of my letter.

In your e mail of 31 March 2011 you have made a new information request
which states: 

‘Please indicate whether anyone associated with Common Purpose in any
way has been involved with the processing of any of this thread of FOI
requests.Â’

We have interpreted your request as any individual associated with Common
Purpose in any way has been involved with the processing of your section
50 complaint reference number FS50320587 and associated information
request and internal review.   

Your new request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and has been allocated the case reference number
IRQ0384529.  We will respond by 4 May 2011 which is 20 working days
from the day after we received your request.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Bett

Head of Internal Compliance

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radCFE0E_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

5 April 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0311840

Dear Mr Walker

I am writing in response to your e mail sent to me and dated 31 March
2011.

I understand that a decision notice has been served in relation to your
section 50 complaint with the reference number FS50320587. This decision
notice relates to the information request which was the subject of my
letter.

In your e mail of 31 March 2011 you have made a new information request
which states: 

‘Please indicate whether anyone associated with Common Purpose in any
way has been involved with the processing of any of this thread of FOI
requests.Â’

We have interpreted your request as any individual associated with Common
Purpose in any way has been involved with the processing of your section
50 complaint reference number FS50320587 and associated information
request and internal review.   Please confirm that our
interpretation of the scope of your request is correct.

Your new request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and has been allocated the case reference number
IRQ0384529.  We will respond no later than 20 working days after the
date we received your clarification.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Bett

Head of Internal Compliance

   

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad3C8D8_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List

28th April 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0384529

Dear Mr Walker

I refer to your request for information and the two emails which were sent
to you acknowledging this request both dated 8 April 2011. I apologise for
the administrative error which resulted in both e mails being sent to you.
The second e mail sought clarification that our interpretation of the
scope of your information request was correct. Under the circumstances I
am providing the following response. If you have any concerns about the
interpretation I have made please let me know.

I have dealt with your request in accordance with Section 1 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).   

You asked us for the following: “please indicate whether anyone
associated with Common Purpose in any way has been involved with the
processing of any of this thread of FOI requests.”

For the avoidance of doubt I have interpreted your request as: “please
indicate whether anyone associated with Common Purpose in any way has been
involved with the processing of your request for information with the case
reference number IRQ0311840, the subsequent internal review with the case
reference number RCC0316587 and the subsequent section 50 complaint with
the case reference number FS50320587.” 

Searches have been carried out and I have identified the following
recorded information which falls within the scope of your request.

Iman Elmehdawy was the case officer who handled your information request
(case number IRQ0311840). She was also the case officer who dealt with
another information request relating to Common Purpose. Iman Elmehdawy
spoke to an employee of Common Purpose in relation to that request. The
recorded information which falls within the scope of your request is a
note of that conversation.

  

I have spoken to [Redacted]. He is ok with
the disclosure of the body of his email to
Dace Clancy. However, he does not want his
23/06/2010 09:51 Iman Elmehdawy name, skype address, phone number and
email to go out.I confirmed with him that
a note to this effect will be put on the
case.

Details of this information request are available via the following
link.  

[2]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/da...

Please note that I have redacted the name of the individual who spoke to
Iman Elmehdawy under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act by
virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) of the same Act. 

This information relates to an identifiable individual and therefore
constitutes their ‘personal data’.

I have therefore considered whether the disclosure of this personal data
is subject to the exemption at section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (by virtue of s40 (3)(a)(i)).

If the disclosure of the personal data would contravene any
of the eight data protection principles contained within the Data
Protection Act 1998 the exemption at section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 will apply.

It is unlikely that it would be within the expectations of this individual
that their name be put into the public domain, as they will have provided
these details for use by the ICO in dealing with a specific case.
Therefore disclosure would be in contravention of the first Data
Protection Principle. This requires personal data to be processed
‘fairly and lawfully’. It is therefore appropriate for us to
withhold this information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). This section of the
Act states:-

“(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is
also exempt information if

a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection
(1), and

b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

(3) The first condition is –

a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a)
to (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of
the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene – i. any of
the data protection principles …”

I can confirm that you have been provided with all the recorded
information which falls within the scope of this new request. If you are
dissatisfied with the response you have received to this new request and
wish to request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how
your request has been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance
Department at the address below or e-mail
[3][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please
write to the First Contact Team, at the address below or visit the
‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of
Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

 

A copy of our review procedure is attached.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Bett

Head of Internal Compliance   

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad071FC_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/da...
3. mailto:[email address]

Dear Lesley Bett,

Thank you for your recent response.

I would like a review of this response, as some of the information provided has caused serious concern.

It was very disturbing that your Iman Elmehdawy had contacted Common Purpose as part of the processing of FoI requests.

It is to be hoped that my personal details were not disclosed to Common Purpose at any time, as I had no prior knowledge that I would be mentioned to Common Purpose, nor would I have given my consent even if asked.
One reason I am concerned is because Common Purpose have been rebuked, both in the press and by the ICO, for unlawfully gleaning the personal details of requesters of information from local authorities and institutions that might have involved Common Purpose. Then, having unlawfully obtained these personal details, Common Purpose then created a spreadsheet of FoI requests to these third parties, which was distributed nationally, accompanied by a defamatory, libellous and untrue series of malicious accusations and allegations against the requesters.
To make matters worse, Common Purpose then falsely claimed, after having been rebuked, that they were given permission to do so from the ICO itself. Common Purpose also falsely said that it had stopped unlawfully gleaning the personal details of requesters, but this is still going on to this day.
Not only have Common Purpose issued a directive to its members/associates/graduates/etc that they are to be informed of any FoI requests, but also that the local authorities and institutions be 'helped' with compiling any responses to the FoI requests, which has been seen as meaning the provision of excuses to avoid lawful disclosure.
So, I hope that the ICO understands my concern.
Please confirm whether or not my name was mentioned to Common Purpose during the processing of any of my FoI requests.

The interweb records email correspondence between ICO personnel and Common Purpose.
For example, Common Purpose emailed David Clancy on 13 April 2010:
"Would you be able to update me on the progress of your ongoing investigation into the use of our data?
Grateful if you could give me a call. I have also left a message with your colleague Damien."
It is clear that Common Purpose have an undue, if not inappropriate, sensitivity to the lawful release of information, as well as concerns that they themselves are the subject of an investigation into the improper use of information.
The ICO records six complaints findings of 'compliance unlikely' against Common Purpose and its use of personal data, but also says 'remedial action taken'. However, other than claims to have taken remedial action, the errant behaviour continues unabated, which brings into question as to why the ICO has not monitored that compliance has ensued.
Please confirm whether or not 'Damien' has any association with Common Purpose.

It is also disappointing that the issues raised in my correspondence of 31 March have not been properly addressed.
I have provided the reasons as to why the ICO decision not to provide me with the information requested were incorrect on the part of the ICO. In fact, I have provided my reasons twice, firstly on 28 June 2010, yet it would appear that I have been ignored in this respect. I would like a review of the Decision Notice that applied to the refusal.

I would like the ICO to review its decision not to provide me with the name of the person within Common Purpose contacted by the ICO. I believe that the decision to refuse disclosure was wrong. It would appear that the refusal is based solely on the say-so of the Common Purpose employee, yet no valid reason has been given.
Common Purpose is a Charity, and as such it has a greater expectation of openness and transparency than, for example, a private company.
The employees of Common Purpose, in their normal dealings with the clients, customers or members of the public, would, under normal conditions, fully expect that their names and employment positions would be made available in the public domain. As front-facing employees, they would have never had any expectation of anonymity. In any case, as is seen publicly on the Common Purpose web site, attendees of Common Purpose are expected to agree that their names, employers and employment positions could be published by Common Purpose for their publicity purposes. It is therefore extraordinary, unreasonable, irrational, hypocritical if not perverse that a Common Purpose employee promotes personal secrecy in these circumstances

I would therefore ask that the ICO have another look at all my requests, and the responses of the ICO, and review in each case where the information has not been provided in full.

Yours sincerely,

John Walker

new casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). This is
an automated acknowledgement; please do not reply to this email.

If your email was a reply to an email we sent you it has now been attached
to your case and will be read when your correspondence is allocated to a
case officer.

If your case has already been allocated, the case officer will be in
contact when they have considered your email.
If your email was not a reply to an email from us it will be considered by
our Customer Contact Department and we will respond to you as soon as
possible.

If you need more help, please contact our Helpline on 08456 30 60 60 or
01625 545745 if you prefer to use a national rate number or visit the
Contact us page of our website.

Yours sincerely

Customer Contact Department
The Information Commissioner's Office

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

4th May 2011

Case Reference Number RCC0389422

Dear Mr Walker

Thank you for you email of today date request.

This correspondence will now be treated as a request for review of your
recent request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We will respond by 2 June 2011 which is 20 working days from the date we
received your recent correspondence.  This is in accordance with our
internal review procedures.

I also note your comments concerning the decision notice which was
recently served.  I have passed a copy of your correspondence to the
case officer.

Yours sincerely

Charlotte Powell

Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radE2D9F_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

02 June 2011

Case Reference Number RCC0389422

Dear Mr Walker

Your request for an internal review of the ICOÂ’s response of 28 April
to your information request dated 31 March 2011 has been referred to me.
Let me say at the outset that I have had no prior involvement in this or
any other matter relating to Common Purpose.

I have looked carefully at the history of this matter, the Decision Notice
of 5 April 2011, the request of 31 March, the ICOÂ’s response and your
email seeking a review of that response.

I do not accept that it was in any way inappropriate for Common Purpose to
be contacted by the ICO as part of other inquiries. The redaction of the
identity of the person spoken to was made in accordance with the
provisions of section 40 of the FOI Act, as detailed in Lesley BettÂ’s
letter to you, by reference to the data protection principles. The ICO
concluded that disclosure of the name, in contravention of the express
wishes of the individual concerned, was deemed not to be “fair”
for the purposes of the first data protection principle.

I note your disagreement with that conclusion. However, the express wish
of the individual concerned, even more than an objective assessment of
his/her reasonable expectation, is not something to be lightly overridden.
The individual concerned was responding to an enquiry by the ICO. They had
not approached the ICO. They were a third party in the matter. In these
circumstances their position does not equate with that of a
“front-facing” employee of a public authority.

Furthermore, even if the disclosure of the identity of the individual were
regarded as “fair”, there is no applicable Schedule 2 condition in
play. There would be very little, if any, legitimate interest served by
the disclosure. I am therefore satisfied that disclosure would breach the
first data protection principle, and the exemption under section 40(2) of
the FOI Act applies. I therefore uphold the redaction of the name from the
information disclosed in response to your request.

I note your very great concern that your own identity might have been
disclosed by the ICO in the course of any communication with Common
Purpose. Let me assure you that neither your name nor any other personal
information was disclosed in any such communication during the processing
of any of your FOI requests.

Indeed it is not ICO practice or policy to disclose the name of FOI
requesters to third parties as this too might contravene the data
protection principles. In FOI terms, the ICO holds no information about
this. Of course, your name appears on the “whatdotheyknow” website
in relation to your FOI requests. The ICO is not responsible for that.

In the course of your email to Lesley Bett you also asked whether the ICO
colleague identified as “Damien” in earlier disclosed information
has any association with Common Purpose. This will be addressed separately
as a new request.

Finally, may I assure you further of the integrity of the ICO and its
officers in the handling of your information requests, complaints and
correspondence. Proving negatives is always challenging, but I am
confident that in the event of any conflict of interest arising for
individual employees in the course of our work, as does happen from time
to time, these are declared and handled appropriately.

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this review you may make a
section 50 complaint to the ICO. In that event your complaint will also be
dealt with by someone who has had no previous involvement in the matter.

How to complain

Information on how to complain is available on the ICO website at:

[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

By post: If your supporting evidence is in hard copy, you can fill in the
Word version of our complaint form, print it out and post it to us with
your supporting evidence. A printable Freedom of Information Act
complaints form is available from the ICO website. Please send to:

First Contact Team
Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

By email: If all your supporting evidence is available electronically, you
can fill in our online complaint form. Important: information included in
the form, and any supporting evidence will be sent to us by email.

Yours sincerely

Graham Smith

Deputy Commissioner

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radF58DB_files/filelist.xml
2. blocked::http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List

02 June 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0394957

Dear Mr Walker

I am writing further to your correspondence of 04 May 2011, directed to my
colleague Lesley Bett.

Within your correspondence you referenced the following email from Common
Purpose to David Clancy (on 13 April 2010):

"Would you be able to update me on the progress of your ongoing
investigation into the use of our data? Grateful if you could give me a
call. I have also left a message with your colleague Damien."

In that context you then asked:

“Please confirm whether or not 'Damien' has any association with
Common Purpose”.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

The individual in question would appear to be Damian Moran, who is
employed as an Investigations Officer. I can confirm that the ICO does not
hold any recorded information regarding an association between Mr Moran
and Common Purpose.

If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to
request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your
request has been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Team
at the address below or e-mail [2][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please
write to the Case Reception Team, at the address below or visit the
‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of
Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

 

Yours sincerely

Andrew Walsh

Lead Internal Compliance Officer

Information CommissionerÂ’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

T. 01625 545363 [3]www.ico.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad808E9_files/filelist.xml
2. mailto:[email address]
3. blocked::http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Dear Graham Smith,

Thank you very much for your response, which is much appreciated.

I note that you infer that it was the CP graduates/personnel who had explicitly said that they did not want to be identified.
This raises questions of why they want to be so secretive, what do they have to hide, or what are they frightened of, and, for each reason, what evidence could possibly exist to justify such a position.

You have said that you justify your decision on the grounds that they are not 'front-facing' personnel, and so can expect anonymity. On my part, I have referred to their expressed expectations when they applied to Common Purpose, on condition of understanding that consent for disclosure is a prerequisite. We will have to 'agree to disagree' on this point.

What would be helpful is whether or not you would have disclosed their names if they were front-facing personnel. Without me knowing their employment positions I am unable to determine whether or not their names are justifiably withheld on this basis. If you could provide their employment positions this would also be helpful.

You have, quite correctly, made reference to the Data Protection Act and its principles, then applied these to Common Purpose. Here is where, again, you can be helpful.

It is known that Common Purpose unlawfully gleaned the personal details of requesters to national institutions and local authorities, via their 'graduates' placed within these organisations, who had been directed by Common Purpose to alert them whenever someone asked a question that referenced Common Purpose. Having unlawfully collected and collated this personal data, Common Purpose then created a spreadsheet of requests, including the personal details of requesters. This spreadsheet was then distributed nationally to the national insitutions and local authorities that had Common Purpose graduates / supporters. Accompanying this spreadsheet was a defamatory and libellous cover letter making false accusations against the requesters, and advising the public bodies to either class the FoI requests about Common Purpose as vexatious, or seek advice from Common Purpose, who would 'help' them to process the FoI request.

The above is well known, and has been published.
Common Purpose have admitted what they have done.
However, by use of somewhat tortuous semantics, Common Purpose then claimed that, although they had been in touch with the ICO, they were not only acting on good advice from the ICO, but that the ICO had actually given them their consent to do as they did.

This is clearly wrong.
What appears to have happened is that Common Purpose asked the ICO for advice on what it could do when FOI requests were made DIRECTLY to Common Purpose itself. In such cases, the creation of a spreadsheet would be reasonable, but not its distribution.
However, Common Purpose have taken this alleged advice from the ICO as giving ICO permission for Common Purpose to create a spreadsheet of the personal details of requesters who place their requests about Common Purpose to public organisations.
It beggars belief that the ICO would advise a Charity to break to break the law.
In these circumstances, Common Purpose is the third party, and the public body has the sole responsibility for processing the FoI requests, for which it has no powers of derogation, and is expected to fulfil its statutory obligation without undue influence, interest or control from Common Purpose imposing its agenda beyond its lawful authority.
It is proposed that this conflation on the part of Common Purpose is, at best, deceitful.

Since the above episode, Common Purpose have said that they have stopped the illegal practice. However, it is widely known that the personal details of requesters have continued to be supplied to Common Purpose, who in turn have offered 'advice', for imposition via their graduates, within the host organisations.

Now, with apologies for the rather long explanation, here is where the ICO can help.

Would the ICO please provide, redacted as required, copies of any and all correspondence and exchanges between the ICO and Common Purpose wherever it related to advice about Data Protection issues or on how to process FoI requests.

I thank you again for your help so far, and look forward to your earliest reply.

Yours sincerely,

John Walker

new casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). This
is an automatic acknowledgement to tell you we have received your email
safely. Please do not reply to this email.

If your email was about a new complaint or request for advice it will be
considered by our Customer Contact Department. One of our case officers
will be in touch as soon as possible.

If your email was about an ongoing case we are dealing with it will be
allocated to the person handling your case.

If your email was about a case you have already submitted, but is yet to
be allocated to one of our case officers your email will be added to your
original correspondence and will be considered when your case is
allocated.

If you require any further assistance please contact our Helpline on 0303
123 1133 or 01625 545745 if you prefer to use a national rate number.

Thank you for contacting the Information Commissioner's Office

Yours sincerely

ICO Customer Contact Department

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

14th June 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0395597

Dear Mr Walker

Request for Information

Further to your e-mail of 2 June addressed to Graham Smith, Deputy
Information Commissioner at the Information CommissionerÂ’s Office
(ICO), the penultimate paragraph contained a further request for
information held by the ICO relating to correspondence exchanged between
the ICO and Common Purpose.  Specifically, you have asked:

Would the ICO please provide, redacted as required, copies of any and all
correspondence and exchanges between the ICO and Common Purpose wherever
it related to advice about Data Protection issues or on how to process FoI
requests.

As before your request has been passed to the Internal Compliance
Department, and is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 under the new reference number shown above.  We
will therefore respond to your request by 30 June, which is 20 working
days from the day after we received your request.

Should you wish to reply to this e-mail please be careful not to amend the
information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that your
reply is added directly to your case. However, please be aware that this
is an automated process; the information will not be read by a member of
our staff until your case is allocated to a request handler.

Yours sincerely

Antonia Swann

Lead Internal Compliance Officer

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Tel: 01625 545894

[2]www.ico.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad559A2_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

29th June 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0395597

Dear Mr Walker

Request for Information

Further to my acknowledgement of 14 June 2011, I can confirm that we have
located and collated all the information held by the Information
CommissionerÂ’s Office (ICO) which falls within the scope of your
request, which was contained within your e-mail to Graham Smith, Deputy
Commissioner, of 2 June 2011.

However, having considered the matter further we take the view that the
exemption at section 31(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the
FOIA) is likely to apply to the information we hold.  Section 31
broadly applies to information which, if disclosed, may “prejudice
Â… the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2)”.  The relevant purposes
referred to in subsection (2) are “(a) the purpose of ascertaining
whether any person has failed to comply with the law” and “(c) the
purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify
regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may
arise.”. 

As you may be aware the FOIA obliges us to respond to requests promptly,
and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving the
request.  However when a qualified exemption applies to the information
and the public interest test is engaged, section 10(3) of the FOIA allows
the time for response to be longer than the 20 working days, and a full
response must be provided within such time as is reasonable in all
circumstances of the case. 

Whilst we always aim to make all decisions within 20 working days,
including cases where we need to consider where the public interest lies
in respect of a request for exempt information, we have not yet reached a
decision on where the balance of the public interest lies in this
case.  Therefore, as we estimate that it may take up to an additional
20 working days to take this decision we aim to provide you with a full
response your request for information by Thursday 28 July 2011. 

 

I apologise for this delay, but we will certainly respond to your request
as soon as possible, and certainly within this timeframe. 

Yours sincerely

Antonia Swann Lead Internal Compliance Officer

Information CommissionerÂ’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

T. 01625 545894  F. 01625 524510  [2]www.ico.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad2F941_files/filelist.xml
2. blocked::http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Information Commissioner's Office

2 Attachments

Link: [1]File-List

11th July 2011

Case Reference Number IRQ0395597

Dear Mr Walker

I write with reference to your request for information of 2 June 2011 and
further to our acknowledgment letters of 14 and 29 June 2011.  We are
now in a position to respond.

As you know we have dealt with your request in accordance with your
‘right to know’ under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA), which entitles you to be provided with a copy of any
information ‘held’ by a public authority, unless an appropriate
exemption applies.

Request

Would the ICO please provide, redacted as required, copies of any
and all correspondence and exchanges between the ICO and Common
Purpose wherever it related to advice about Data Protection issues
or on how to process FoI requests.

Information Held

I can confirm that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) holds
recorded information which falls within the scope of your request. 
Attached to this response are redacted versions of some of that
information.

Information Withheld

Some correspondence between Common Purpose and the ICO has been withheld
as it is exempt from disclosure under Section 44 of FOIA which places
prohibitions on disclosure.  Section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA states;

‘(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure (otherwise
than under this Act) by the public authority holding it -

(a) is prohibited by or under any enactmentÂ’

The enactment in question is the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and
specifically Section 59 of the DPA. Section 59 states that neither the
Commissioner nor his staff shall disclose;

“any information which :

(a)has been obtained by, or furnished to, the Commissioner under or for
the purposes of the information Acts.

(b)relates to an identified or identifiable individual business, and

(c) is not at the time of disclosure, and has not been available to the
public from other sources,

unless the disclosure is made with lawful authority.”

The prohibition is intended to ensure that those providing information to
this office may be confident that the Commissioner will handle their
information in an appropriate manner and will only disclose information
where it is necessary to do so. 

Where there is no lawful authority for the disclosure of information
obtained or furnished to the Commissioner under or for the purposes of the
Information Acts, section 59 DPA will act as a statutory prohibition on
disclosure for the purposes of section 44 FOIA.   On consideration
of the information contained in these letters and the confidential nature
in which it was provided we have concluded that we have no lawful
authority to release it under FOIA.

We have also withheld in its entirety a copy of a meeting note which
details a visit from ICO to Common Purpose and sections of Andrew
Laing’s letter of 6 November 2009.  This information is exempt
under section 31(1)(g) of FOIA.

The exemption at section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA refers to circumstances
where the disclosure of information “would, or would be likely to,
prejudice – … the exercise by any public authority of its
functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).” 

The purposes referred to in sections 31(2)(a) and (c) are –

“(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to
comply with the law” and

 “(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would
justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise
…”    

Clearly, these purposes apply when the Information Commissioner is
visiting an organisation to establish whether they have complied with any
of the legislation which the Commissioner regulates.

However, this exemption is not absolute.  When considering whether to
apply it in response to a request for information, there is a ‘public
interest test’.  That is, we must consider whether the public
interest favours withholding or disclosing the information.   

In this case the public interest factors in disclosing the letter are
–

· increased transparency in the way in which the Common Purpose
responded to the ICOÂ’s enquiries during the visit

· increased transparency in the way in which the ICO conducts
investigations

The factors in withholding the letter are –

o the public interest in maintaining organisations trust and confidence
that the details discussed during such visits will be afforded an
appropriate level of confidentiality.
o the public interest in organisations being open during such visits
from the ICO about the way they have handled compliance with
legislation without fear that all the detail will be made public.
o the public interest in maintaining the ICOÂ’s ability to conduct
the investigation into complaints concerning whether a breach has
occurred, as it thinks fit,

Having considered all of these factors we have taken the decision that the
public interest in withholding a copy of the meeting note outweighs the
public interest in disclosing it. 

Furthermore, where information was provided to the ICO during the meeting
this information would also be exempt under Section 44 of FOIA for the
reasons set out above.

Finally, where redactions have been made to the provided information and
unless stated otherwise, these redactions have been made under Section 40
of FOIA by virtue of Section 40(3)(a)(i).  

Section 40(2) of (FOIA) allows a public authority to withhold information
from a response to a request under the FOIA when the information requested
is personal data relating to someone other than the requestor, and its
disclosure would contravene one of the Data Protection principles.

The information that has been redacted within the information is
information relating to the details of individual complaints. We consider
that when individuals make complaints to the ICO they do not anticipate or
expect the details of their complaints, or any actions taken by the data
controller concerned or the Information Commissioner in connection with
their complaints, to be disclosed to anyone else.  Therefore, we
consider that such a disclosure would be unfair and in breach of the first
Data Protection principle which states that – “Personal data shall
be processed fairly and lawfully …”

I hope this information is of some interest and assistance.  However,
If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to
request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your
request has been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance
Department at the address below or e-mail
[2][email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please
write to the First Contact Team, at the address below or visit the
‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of
Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

 

A copy of our review procedure is attached.

Yours sincerely

Charlotte Powell

Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad9E0C8_files/filelist.xml
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Charlotte Powell, Case Reference Number IRQ0395597

Thank you for your reply.

1 This letter has several intentions:

- To request a review of your earlier response

- This letter must be brought to the personal attention of Christopher Graham.

- To request that all material that has been produced in redacted form be revisited and resent in substantially unredacted form, if not completely unredacted

- To request that the material that you said was withheld be reconsidered for disclosure

- To require that material that should have been disclosed, and was not, should now be disclosed

- To provide evidenced explanations for why material has been unlawfully omitted

- To provide the information as requested in the supplementary questions.

2 It is very disappointing that the ICO has produced so few documents.

This is all the more disappointing when it is considered that, on the Internet, within replies by the ICO itself, and even within the pages of this web site, there is material that could have, and should have, been disclosed as part of the response to my request for information.

3 That ALL documents that have been either redacted or withheld should be reviewed for full disclosure is requested on the following grounds:

- It is not accurate to make a blanket supposition that ALL requesters have indicated a wish to remain anonymous.

- where people put their names on the public web sites, making requests, as Common Purpose itself has conceded, they have every expectation that their names would be made public

- many other requesters have placed material online, so they too have indicated no wish for anonymity.

4 Common Purpose is a registered charity, and, as such, it has an extra duty of responsibility to demonstrate openness and transparency, so there is much less legitimacy to claim anonymity when redacting names of Common Purpose.

There is such a plethora of unredacted Common Purpose correspondence on the internet that continuing with the secrecy is futile.

5 Much of this FoI request concerns itself with the unlawful acquisition of the personal details of requesters by Common Purpose via its ‘graduates’ in public authorities who illegally passed on those personal details, at the direction of Common Purpose, who then collected, collated, and distributed those personal details of requesters, accompanied by an accusatory and defamatory cover-letter that made false accusations.

6 Where is the Common Purpose distribution list, as given to the ICO, even in redacted form, showing that Common Purpose were distributing their unlawfully gleaned personal details of requesters nationally, accompanied by the defamatory and libellous cover-note making false accusations against individual requesters?

As the ICO had conducted an investigation, they MUST have received this document, which currently has up to about 200 ( two hundred ) local authority names on it.

Please provide that list, which is known to have been in existence since March 2007, until it was ‘outed’ in April 2008.

7 Common Purpose falsely claimed that it only had the names of the requesters on the list. This is an absolute lie. One requester, via a third party, obtained a copy of the list showing name, address and telephone number, as well as the details of the request to the public authority. One overly-redacted version has been found on the internet.

Please provide that list, redacted as appropriate.

8 Common Purpose falsely claimed that it had ceased its practice.

There is proof that the illegal garnering of the personal details of requesters was still going on throughout 2010, and no indication whatsoever of the illegal practice having stopped, despite what Common Purpose said to ICO Byrne in 2009.

The ICO has determined that Common Purpose broke the law when it unfairly processed personal information about requesters.

Where are the documents from Common Purpose to the ICO showing that Common Purpose had contacted these names to apologise for their unlawful actions? ( See also below )

If the ICO was conducting an enquiry, it MUST have such documents.

Please provide those documents.

9 Because the ICO has conducted an inquiry, it MUST have the documents showing precisely how, when and why Common Purpose created that list of requesters.

Please provide this information.

10 What Common Purpose was and continues to do doing is ‘blagging’ personal data.

In the past week there have two important announcements made by senior personnel:

Christopher Graham, BBC, 12 July at 1923hrs: with respect to the unlawful gleaning of personal details: “Prison Works”

Nick Clegg, 15 July: “People found guilty of obtaining personal details by deception – known as ‘blagging’ – should be jailed”

This principle MUST be applied to Common Purpose and EVERY graduate or Common Purpose officer who colluded in the unlawful collection, collation and distribution of the personal details of requesters.

Please provide an explanation as to why the ICO’s own directives have not been followed.

11 Because the ICO conducted an investigation, the ICO MUST have copies of the Common Purpose’s documents showing that it had contacted each of the individuals whose rights they had trammelled, apologising to each.

Please provide these documents, even in redacted form.

Also, the ICO MUST have the directive from Common Purpose to all Advisory Boards telling them to cease the illegal practice. ( - even though we have the documents that Common Purpose continued for at least a year, and that the exchange of details about requesters continues to this day. )

Please provide the Common Purpose directive instructing their members to cease the unlawful practice.

12 Common Purpose had created an illusion that its breach of the Data Protection Act with respect to requesters was a one-off incident. It was not, and is not. At the very least, the ICO MUST have received from Common Purpose copies of the emails it sent to authorities and its Advisory Boards directing that Common Purpose be provided with the personal details of requesters who ask of the local authorities any information relating to Common Purpose.

Please provide copies of those emails.

13 In addition, there are emails from Common Purpose graduates within these organisations instructing staff to pass on personal details, and interchanges between Common Purpose and the authorities acknowledging receipt, advising refusal on the grounds of vexatiousness, in turn on the basis of false allegations of anyone asking a question must be a part of a campaign. As the ICO had conducted an enquiry, it MUST have received the substantive evidence, in each case, to support the accusations made by Common Purpose against requesters.

Please provide that evidence.

14 Common Purpose were criticised by the Ministry of Justice ( MoJ ) for their illegal behaviour, making it clear that Common Purpose had no right to be unlawfully gleaning the personal details of requesters who placed their requests with public authorities. Common Purpose KNEW that they were acting illegally, yet continued to send out the illegal spreadsheet for about a further eight months. Common Purpose meanwhile were telling FoI practitioners that they had been in touch with the MoJ, and that they had received advice from the MoJ, implying that they had permission to do what they were doing. However, records show that Jack Straw’s investigation showed that NO advice had been given by the MoJ to Common Purpose about FoI, and that there was one letter concerning ( illegal ) DPA activity. The ICO, as it has conducted an investigation, MUST have the MoJ letter, and the Common Purpose reply. Please provide that letter and the reply.

15 One of the personal names on the list was that of a private person whose name had NEVER, and has NEVER, appeared on the internet in this context. According to Common Purpose, this private individual was a most prolific requester. In fact, the individual had only made ONE request.

In a completely separate incident involving another individual from Sheffield, information was refused on the grounds that the individual had made many such requests, when in fact it the FIRST request that the individual had ever made about Common Purpose. Meanwhile, BOTH have been falsely associated with the Common Purpose-sourced allegation of there being some sort of national campaign, without ever offering an iota of evidence supporting the false accusations against those independent individuals.

As the ICO had conducted an investigation, it MUST have raised these issues with Common Purpose.

Please provide the documents relating to these issues.

16 As a requester, MY NAME would be expected to be on the Common Purpose illegal list of requesters. At the very least, given that the ICO allegedly conducted an investigation, I would have expected that Common Purpose would have volunteered that list to the ICO and would have returned a copy of that list to me. I am entitled to know precisely to whom my personal details were transmitted, along with the (redacted) copy of the list of requesters and the list of those to whom it was distributed.

Please provide a copy of the list to whom my personal details were unlawfully distributed.

17 Here is a reference to one heavily redacted copy of the illegal list:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/53...

It does not take much trawling to discover the names of requesters.

This is but one example proving that Common Purpose were passing around the personal details of requesters.

Why did the ICO NOT prosecute?

18 For effective remedial action, I am entitled to know that Common Purpose rescinded that list from all those to whom it was distributed, apologised to each person whose Data Rights they unlawfully breached, and informed each of their victims what they had done.

Please provide the evidence, which MUST be held by the ICO, that this remedial action was carried out.

19 Because the ICO carried out an investigation, it MUST have seen the minutes of Common Purpose Advisory Board meetings that discussed this issue.

Please provide those minutes or explain why the ICO did not acquire them.

20 Common Purpose have indicated that what they were doing had at least tacit support from the ICO. The spin was that the ICO had agreed that Common Purpose could keep a list of the names of requesters, it being assumed that this list was of requesters who had requested information of Common Purpose itself. However, and Common Purpose was not forthright in this regard, the ICO advice did NOT extend to condoning the illegal garnering of names of requesters who made their requests of the public authorities. As the ICO had conducted an investigation, it MUST have copies of these advice documents.

Please provide the advice that the ICO gave to Common Purpose in this regard.

21 Common Purpose claimed it was acting on advice from ICO Clancy – what advice was that? Please produce this advice.

22 The letter you provided, dated 03.12.09 ICO Byrne to Common Purpose Middleton states:

“Please find enclosed a copy of an email the ICO Assistant Commissioner for Casework sent to Sir David Bell dated 6th November 2009...”

Please send this email, more details of which are in the paragraph below.

23 Please refer to the email dated 6 November 2009, from ICO Andrew Laing to Common Purpose Sir David Bell.

The email is in response to a letter received by the ICO from Sir David Bell.

It should have been already been provided in your response to me.

As requested above, please provide the letter, unredacted.

24 Please provide an explanation as to why your ICO Laing wrote to Common Purpose Bell at all, given that there were already two officers assigned to the case.

25 It must also be queried why, on an operational issue, why the Chair of the Common Purpose organisation is personally involved. The explanation why Common Purpose Bell wrote directly to the ICO is required, and should be contained within the letter that Common Purpose Bell wrote to the ICO.

Please provide the explanation.

On page 3 of this letter from ICO Laing it says that ICO Clancy briefed ICO Byrne.

Please provide the details of that briefing.

26 Page 3 of this letter from ICO Laing also says that ICO Byrne wrote to ‘you’. Please clarify whether ‘you’ refers to Common Purpose Middleton or Common Purpose Bell.

If the latter, please provide a copy of that letter.

27 Without explanation, the only reasonable conclusion is that Common Purpose Bell was attempting to use his influence, interest and control beyond his legal authority so as to minimise if not contain any adverse publicity accrued to Common Purpose consequent upon the exposure of its illegal activities with respect to Data protection issues, i.e. Common Purpose Bell had embarked upon a damage limitation exercise for reputation, public perception, and image control purposes.

28 In any case, as with the general request that the ICO review ALL its redactions and omissions and decision to withhold material, please provide this letter of ICO Laing to Common Purpose Bell unredacted.

Is there any connection between ICO Laing and Common Purpose Bell?

29 The letter dated 23 October 2009 from Common Purpose Julia Middleton to ICO Victoria Byrne says, on page 4 “Common Purpose has no objection to this letter being released in full....” The letter is heavily redacted. Please produce this letter, in full, unredacted.

30 Why did you not provide the emailed document from D. Clancy to Common Purpose dated 13.04.10 at 11:24 ?

How many other documents has the ICO been hiding ?

31 Please refer to a previous FoI request at

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

This clearly demonstrates that the ICO knew that Common Purpose was not complying with the DPA, and the ICO conceded that there was no evidence of remedial action at the time.

Pursuant to my original request, therefore, please provide copies of the exchanges between the ICO and Common Purpose showing that Common Purpose had been required to provide the evidence of remedial action having been completed.

If such material does not exist, please provide an explanation as why the ICO failed to ensure compliance.

32 It is impossible to imagine, in the current climate about the unlawful acquisition of the personal details of private citizens, a bigger abuse of the public’s trust than a complete abrogation of duty by the very public authority created to ensure that such abuses not only did not happen, but that, if they did, then swift and stern action would be automatic.

33 This is provided for your information:

There is correspondence from Julia Middleton to Durham Constabulary and to North Yorkshire Police. The FOI requests were declared vexatious only AFTER receipt of the Common Purpose spreadsheet and covernote from Common Purpose, and the refusal contained cut-and-paste extracts from the Common Purpose material. However, previous FoI requests to the same requestees, prior to the issue of the Common Purpose directive, were answered in full, and without objection.

34 I have compared and contrasted the responses you have given to me with those the ICO has given to Barry Hutton, ( BH ) on this web site. There are inconsistencies. It is not necessary to go into detail.

Also, is the ICO using a cut-and-paste / template response to me as with BH?

35 On the whatdotheyknow web site there is a request from a Barry Hutton on 1st March 2010 referencing communications on this issue. Here is what it said:

“Mr Tracy, Mr Clancey, Richard Thomas and Charlotte Powell were in
regular contact with Common Purpose ref data retention
Please send me all the recorded information sent from the above
named ICO staff to Common Purpose from the beginning of 2008”

The ICO replied:

“24th March 2010
Case Reference Number IRQ0299152

In response to your request, we have checked our manual and electronic
files and can confirm that we do not hold information in relation to your
request. The three named members of staff and the former Information
Commissioner, Mr Richard Thomas have not send letters/emails to Common
Purpose in relation to data retention.”

Mr Hutton clearly asked for ‘all recorded information’.

Please provide an explanation as to why his request not properly dealt with.

There was much information available at the time available to ICO Iman Elmehdawy, some of which has been provided to myself.

What is really going on between Common Purpose and the ICO ?

36 Please refer to the internet-published article by the Third Sector Magazine referring to the illegal passing of personal details or requesters to Common Purpose HQ, and note especially the response of Common Purpose.

37 Finally, I note that the quality of responses to this FoI request, as with others made in the public domain, whenever concerning Common Purpose, are not of the standard to which a citizen is entitled to expect.

38 I therefore request that whoever conducts the review is appointed personally by Christopher Graham, who shall be contacted in due course.

Yours sincerely,

John Walker.

new casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). This
is an automatic acknowledgement to tell you we have received your email
safely. Please do not reply to this email.

If your email was about a new complaint or request for advice it will be
considered by our Customer Contact Department. One of our case officers
will be in touch as soon as possible.

If your email was about an ongoing case we are dealing with it will be
allocated to the person handling your case.

If your email was about a case you have already submitted, but is yet to
be allocated to one of our case officers your email will be added to your
original correspondence and will be considered when your case is
allocated.

If you require any further assistance please contact our Helpline on 0303
123 1133 or 01625 545745 if you prefer to use a national rate number.

Thank you for contacting the Information Commissioner's Office

Yours sincerely

ICO Customer Contact Department

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

27th July 2011

Case Reference Number RCC0406926

Dear Mr Walker

Thank you for your correspondence dated 24 July 2011.

This correspondence will now be treated as a request for review of your
recent request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We will respond by 19 August 2011 which is 20 working days from the day
after we received your recent correspondence.  This is in accordance
with our internal review procedures.

If you wish to add further information or evidence to your case please
reply to this email, being careful not to amend the information in the
‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the information is added
directly to your case. However, please be aware that this is an automated
process; the information will not be read by a member of our staff until
your case is allocated to a request handler.

Yours sincerely

Charlotte Powell

Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad52DE3_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

19th August 2011

Case Reference Number RCC0406926

Dear Mr Walker

I write with reference to your request for an internal review of your
recent request for information and further to our acknowledgement of 27
July 2011.

In our acknowledgement we indicated that you would receive a response by
19 August 2011. However, due to the number of enquiries raised within your
correspondence and annual leave within the office unfortunately it will
not be possible to complete this review by that date.

We will send a response by 5 September 2011 and please accept our sincere
apologies for this delay.

Yours sincerely

Charlotte Powell

Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad21DDF_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

14 September 2011

 

 

Case reference Number RCC0406926

 

 

Dear Mr Walker,

 

I write further to your correspondence of 24 July 2011 requesting a review
of the handling of your FOI request (reference IRQ0395597) and our
acknowledgement of 27 July. I apologise for the delay in responding.

 

The original request asked: ‘Would the ICO please provide, redacted as
required, copies of any and all correspondence and exchanges between the
ICO and Common Purpose wherever it related to advice about Data Protection
issues or on how to process FoI requests.Â’

 

I have been asked to review the decision and handling of your FOI request
in relation to the application of section 44 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA) by virtue of section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA); the application of section 31(1)(g) in relation to subsections
(2)(a) and (c) and the consideration of the public interest test; and the
application of section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i). These
exemptions were applied to certain information which was withheld in
response to your original request.

 

I am the principal policy adviser on FOI and can confirm that I have had
no prior involvement in the handling of your request. I would make the
point here that I have reviewed all of the documentation held relating to
your request. I have also conducted further searches to establish whether
the ICO holds any further recorded information falling within the scope of
your request. I can confirm that no further relevant information is held.

 

Additional observations and comments which you make in your letter
requesting this review cannot be addressed as part of the review as they
are not within the scope of an internal review of the handling of an FOI
request. I will however endeavour to respond to those matters in separate
correspondence if you would confirm an address for that correspondence.

 

The application of section 44 of the FOIA by virtue of section 59 of the
DPA.

 

The original response to your request advised that some of the withheld
information was being withheld under section 44 of the FOIA by virtue of
section 59 of the DPA. Section 44(1) of the FOIA states:

 

“Information is exempt information if its disclosure (otherwise than
under this Act) by the public authority holding it –

a)                 is prohibited by or under any enactment,

b)                 is incompatible with any community obligation, or

c)                  would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of
court.”

 

Section 44 of the Act provides that information is exempt from disclosure
under the FOIA if there is a statutory bar on disclosure. Sub paragraph
(a) is applicable to the ICO in this instance as there is a statutory
prohibition under section 59 of the DPA. 

 

In addition to the information itself, I have also considered the reason
it was provided to the ICO and the circumstances in which it was provided.
I have confirmed that it was provided in the course of the Commissioner
carrying out his functions, it therefore satisfies the requirement of
section 59(a) of the DPA ie it “has been obtained by, or furnished to,
the Commissioner under or for the purposes of the information Acts”.

 

The information in question also clearly relates to an identified business
and so satisfies the requirement of section 59(b) of the DPA ie it
“relates to an identified or identifiable individual or business”.

 

The final requirement of section 59 of the DPA, subsection (c), is that
the information “is not at the time of disclosure, and has not previously
been, available to the public from other sources”.

 

As the information in question meets all three criteria of section 59 of
the DPA its disclosure can only be made with “lawful authority”. In this
case there is no lawful authority to disclose as the information was
provided to us in confidence, a point which I have satisfied myself is
correct.

 

This provision, section 59 of the DPA, imposes a criminal liability on the
Information Commissioner and his staff for any disclosure of information,
without lawful authority, relating to living individuals or businesses
obtained or provided to the Information Commissioner for the purposes of
the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the
Acts).  By virtue of section 2(3) of the FOIA section 44 is an absolute
exemption and therefore no public interest test needs to be conducted.

 

For the reasons set out above I uphold the original finding in relation to
the application of section 44 of the FOIA.

 

The application of section 31(1)(g) in relation to subsections (2)(a) and
(c).

 

In relation to the information contained within a meeting note recording
details of a visit by the ICO to Common Purpose and sections of Andrew
LaingÂ’s letter of 6 November 2009, Charlotte Powell asserted that
disclosure of this information would or would be likely to prejudice the
exercise of the ICOÂ’s functions under section 31(1)(g) by virtue of the
purposes referred to in sections 31(2)(a) and (c).

 

Section 31(1)(g) provides that:

Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice-

(g)  the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the
purposes specified in subsection (2)

 

Section 31(2) provides that:

The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) include-

 

a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply
with the law, and

c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify
regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise

 

Section 31(1)(g) is a prejudice based qualified exemption. For the section
to be applied correctly it is firstly necessary to demonstrate that there
would be at least a real likelihood that disclosure would prejudice the
interest set out at section 31(1)(g). Secondly, if the likelihood of
prejudice can be demonstrated then I have to consider whether the public
interest in maintaining the exemption would outweigh the public interest
in disclosure in order to justify withholding the requested information.

 

The ICO exercises a number of statutory functions for the purpose of
ascertaining whether organisations have failed to comply with provisions
of the Acts and/or for the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances
exist or may arise which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of
those enactments.

 

A considerable amount of the ICOÂ’s regulatory work is concerned with
ascertaining whether organisations have complied with the statutory
obligations placed on them by the Acts.

 

Having reviewed the meeting note recording the details of a visit by the
ICO to Common Purpose and the unredacted version of Andrew LaingÂ’s letter
of 6 November 2009, I consider that disclosure of this information,
relating to the ICOÂ’s regulatory functions, would be likely to prejudice
those functions by inhibiting open dialogue between the ICO and
organisations.

 

In order for the ICO to be an effective regulator it must maintain the
trust and confidence of the organisations it regulates to ensure their
co-operation. The ICO can best do this by informal, open voluntary and
uninhibited exchange of information with these organisations. This
informal exchange of information and co-operation by organisations would
be likely to be adversely affected if details of those exchanges were made
public. This would result in the ICO being unable to provide an effective
service and as a consequence its regulatory functions would be likely to
be prejudiced. Such disclosures would be likely to result in organisations
being more guarded in terms of the information they voluntarily provided
to the ICO and the advice they sought if they thought this information
would be disclosed.

 

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the disclosure of the redacted
information would be likely to prejudice the ICOÂ’s regulatory functions.
In view of this I consider that section 31(1)(g) is engaged by virtue of
31(2)(a) and (c).

 

Having concluded that section 31(1)(g) is engaged, as it is not an
absolute exemption, I will now go on to consider the public interest test.

 

The Public Interest Test

 

In the response to you dated 11 July, the following public interest
factors were identified in favour of disclosing the redacted parts of
Andrew LaingÂ’s letter and the meeting note:-

 

·        increased transparency in the way in which the Common Purpose
responded to the ICOÂ’s enquiries during the visit

·        increased transparency in the way in which the ICO conducts
investigations

 

In addition to these I would add, that there is a clear public interest in
the ICO being open and transparent in relation to the way it conducts
itself with regard to its regulatory responsibilities under the relevant
legislation. Such openness and transparency helps to promote public
awareness and understanding of the ICOÂ’s regulatory functions.

 

There is also a public interest in the ICO publishing information which
would help to show that it is complying with its statutory duties by
overseeing the performance of organisations with reference to the relevant
legislation. The publication of this information would be evidence that
the ICO is providing an appropriate level and quality of public service
and would also demonstrate accountability.

 

The public interest factors identified in favour of maintaining the
exemption and for withholding sections of the letter and the meeting note
were –

 

o the public interest in maintaining organisationsÂ’ trust and
confidence that the details discussed during such visits will be
afforded an appropriate level of confidentiality.
o the public interest in organisations being open during such visits
from the ICO about the way they have handled compliance with
legislation without fear that all the detail will be made public.
o the public interest in maintaining the ICOÂ’s ability to conduct the
investigation into complaints concerning whether a breach has
occurred, as it thinks fit,

 

In addition to these, I would add that there is a clear public interest in
the ICO complying with the law. For example, there is an expectation that
the ICO will comply with section 59(1) of the DPA, referred to above, by
ensuring that details it receives about organisations in the course of its
investigations remain confidential. Section 59(1)(a) states, subject to
certain conditions:-

 

‘No person who is or has been the Commissioner, a member of the
CommissionerÂ’s staff orÂ…Â…Â….shall disclose information which -(a) has
been obtained by, or furnished to, the Commissioner under or for the
purposes of the information ActsÂ’.

 

In the light of this section there is generally an expectation on the part
of organisations that information which they disclose to the ICO will not
normally be disclosed. If the ICO were to disclose all such information in
every case this would undoubtedly hinder the flow of information in the
future. This would in turn prejudice the effectiveness and efficiency of
the ICOÂ’s regulatory functions.

 

Furthermore, there is a public interest in the ICO providing a cost
effective, timely and efficient regulatory function in relation to
organisations through co-operation and open dialogue to ensure compliance
with the relevant legislation. This co-operation would be likely to be
adversely affected if details of these informal and voluntary exchanges
with organisationsÂ’ were made public.

 

There is also a public interest in encouraging organisations to be open
and honest about any difficulties they are experiencing, without the fear
that such matters will be made public either prematurely or, where
appropriate, at all. I consider that disclosure of the information
redacted from the letter and that contained within the meeting note would
be likely to negatively impact on the ICOÂ’s ability to engage openly with
organisations which in turn would make it less likely that organisations
would proactively approach the ICO about problems they are experiencing.
In my view this would be likely to hamper the ICOÂ’s ability to regulate
effectively.

 

Having carefully considered the relevant factors both in favour of
disclosing the information and those in favour of maintaining the
exemption I have concluded that in all the circumstances of this
particular case the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the
exemption.

 

The application of section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i).

 

I have now reviewed all of the correspondence containing information
falling within the scope of your original request and my findings in
relation to the application of section 40(2) are set out below.

 

In relation to the application of section 40, in order to rely on the
exemption provided by section 40(2), the requested information must
constitute personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
Section 1 of the DPA defines personal data as:

 

‘…data which relate to a living individual who can be identified

a) from those data, or

b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or
is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

 

and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any
indication of the intention of the data controller or any other person in
respect of the individual.Â’

 

Having reviewed the correspondence and information referred to above I
find that the information which was redacted by Charlotte Powell, is the
personal data of the individuals it relates to. For clarity that means
that the redacted information comprises information which relates directly
to identifiable living individuals and constitutes their personal data.

 

Having established that this information constitutes the personal data of
third parties and therefore engages section 40(2) of the FOIA I then went
on to consider whether disclosure would breach any of the data protection
principles. I believe the relevant principle here is the first data
protection principle which requires personal data to be processed fairly
and lawfully. The relevant information has been provided to the ICO for
use in relation to its regulatory functions and I do not consider it would
be within the reasonable expectations of the individuals concerned that
their names and details would be put into the public domain, which is what
a disclosure under the FOIA would amount to. Disclosures under FOIA do not
take account of an individual requesterÂ’s circumstances or motives but
are to the world at large.

 

In light of my deliberations and for the reasons set out above I conclude
that the information referred to above, and redacted from our original
response because it was asserted it constituted third party personal data,
is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) by virtue of section
40(3)(a)(i).

 

Procedural matters

As part of my review of the handling of your request I have considered the
procedural requirements of the FOIA.

 

Your initial request was made on 2 June 2011, this was acknowledged on 14
June, and followed up by a further letter dated 29 June. The letter of 29
June, confirmed that information falling within the scope of your request
was held and explained that it was likely that section 31(1)(g) applied to
this information and that further time was needed to consider the public
interest test. You were advised that a full response would be sent by 28
July 2011. A full response was subsequently sent on 24 July. This response
constituted a refusal notice in relation to the withheld information, it
cited the relevant exemptions and included a consideration of the public
interest test. Disclosable information was also sent with the response.

 

In the circumstances, I acknowledge that the refusal notice was issued
late it should have been issued within 20 working days of the request,
this is a breach of section 17 of the FOIA. I also acknowledge that the
disclosed information should have been provided within 20 working days,
this is a breach of section 10(1) of the FOIA. Please accept my apologies
for these procedural breaches which we will endeavour to avoid in future
request handling.

 

I hope that you find this helpful. However if you are dissatisfied with
the outcome of this review you may make a section 50 complaint to the ICO.

 

How to complain

 

Information on how to complain is available on the ICO website at:

 

[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...  

 

By post: If your supporting evidence is in hard copy, you can fill in the
Word version of our complaint form, print it out and post it to us with
your supporting evidence. A printable Freedom of Information Act
complaints form is available from the ICO website. Please send to:

 

First Contact Team

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

By email: If all your supporting evidence is available electronically, you
can fill in our online complaint form. Important: information included in
the form, and any supporting evidence will be sent to us by email.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Gerrard Tracey

Principal Policy Adviser FOI 

 

 

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radEACEA_files/filelist.xml
2. blocked::http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Thank you for your reply, which is now receiving attention.

The address to which all outstanding supplementary information may be addressed is this web site, i.e. the same as all previous replies. There is no reason why this outstanding information cannot be sent immediately.

I shall return to you on the issues of what constitutes a Refusal Notice in due course.

Yours faithfully,

John Walker

new casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).  This
is an automatic acknowledgement to tell you we have received your email
safely.  Please do not reply to this email.

 

If your email was about a new complaint or request for advice it will be
considered by our Customer Contact Department.  One of our case officers
will be in touch as soon as possible. If you have sent us a complaint we
may need specific information from you before we are able to consider it. 
You can find out the type of information we would need from the
[1]complaints section of our website.

 

If your email was about an ongoing case we are dealing with it will be
allocated to the person handling your case.

 

If your email was about a case you have already submitted, but is yet to
be allocated to one of our case officers your email will be added to your
original correspondence and will be considered when your case is
allocated. Please note that further correspondence may not be viewed until
your case is allocated to a case officer.

 

If you require any further assistance please contact our Helpline on 0303

123 1133 or 01625 545745 if you prefer to use a national rate number.

 

Thank you for contacting the Information Commissioner's Office

 

ICO Customer Contact Department

 

Making a request for information held by the ICO?

For more information about the ICO’s handling of requests for
information please visit our [2]Information about us section of our
website.

 

Equality and Diversity

The Information Commissioner’s Office is committed to providing equality
for all and opposes all forms of unlawful or unfair discrimination. We
have produced a questionnaire to help us to produce a profile of our
customers. The questionnaire can be found on our [3]Equality and
Diversity webpage.

 

Our newsletter

Details of how to sign up for our quarterly newsletter can be found at
[4]Information Commissioner's Office enewsletter.

 

Twitter

Find us on Twitter at [5]http://www.twitter.com/ICOnews

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us.aspx
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/how_we_wo...
4. http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resource...
5. http://www.twitter.com/ICOnews

stygian left an annotation ()

On 24 July 2011 the requester raised 38 points for action.
The response provided does not itemise where each point has been addressed.
In addition, it can be seen that some points have been ignored, thus being in breach of the FoIA.
The requester is entitled to conduct his or her own review and where applicable ask for an itemised response to each of the points that have not been satisfactorily answered.
The requester could also refer the url of this request to the 1st Tier Tribunal for disposition.

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

It is VERY apparent to me that the ICO enjoy a VERY COSY relationship with Common Purpose.
It beggars belief that Mr Walker has not yet completed his simple benign FOIA request.
Quite frankly, I think the Transparency Accountability and Security(TAS) at the ICO is NOT seen to be working in Mr Walkers case history
FOIA request,hence, in all probability is AIN'T working.

Three (3) recent Upper Tribunal Cases to monitor carefully are:
1.Dransfield v ICO &Devon County Council
2.Ainslie V ICO & Dorset County Council
3.Mrs Craven v ICO and Dept of Energy

The UT is scheduled to give his decisions by Xmas.

All three cases are closely linked ref VEXATIOUS decisions and these 3 cases WILL have a PROFOUND AFFECT on FOIA Court Authorities.
More Power to your elbow Mr Walker.

Alan M Dransfield

Mike Thompson left an annotation ()

I found this FOI request very interesting, perhaps it may be prudent that ALL ICO Officers involved in this investigation declare their OWN interest in Common Purpose as their replies are biased and obviously evasive to the enth degree.

Common Purpose are obviously collating a list of persons , is this a blacklist like Ian Kerr was involved in, in which ICO prosecuted with a token fine !

stygian left an annotation ()

It is up to the original requester to decide whether or not to continue with this request.
What is becoming inceasingly clear is that the ICO has become the government's apologist and gatekeeper.

p cialfi left an annotation ()

What was the outcome of the investigation by the Information Commissioner ?