Software Licenses

Leo Wu made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Independent Complaints Reviewer
This authority is not subject to FOI law, so is not legally obliged to respond (manylion).

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Roedd y cais yn llwyddiannus.

Dear Independent Complaints Reviewer,

I would like to ask

Q1. Do you look after your own IT or is it outsourced?
Q2. How much did you pay in last financial year for software licenses?
Q3. How many computers users do you have?
Q4. When do you need to renew the contract with Microsoft for software licenses? What was the value of your last contract?
Q5. Do you currently measure software usage versus the number of licenses purchased? If so what is used for software usage metering?
Q6. Do you use a software asset management tool?
Q7. Please also provide details of IT Contracts Managers and any person(s) involved in IT Software procurement.

Yours faithfully,

Leo Wu

Good afternoon Mr Wu

Thank you for your email.

The Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) Office does not have its own IT department. Our IT is managed by and based within Land Registry, one of the public bodies which use the services provided by the ICR. Therefore we use Land Registry's IT resources.

Kind regards

Denyse St Rose
Office Manager and Investigations Officer
ICR Office

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Diana Smith anodiad ()

I find the response to this request worrying.
Surely there is a possible or probable conflict of interest that potentially could arise from the ICR 's reliance on the IT of Land Registry?
I previously and related to issues raised with both Land Registry and the ICR , had experience of a well known and local Estate Agents and Building Society , and my personal and sensitive financial information being passed to persons with a property on the books of the Estate Agent by the manager of the Estate Agents sharing such from the information systems of the Building Society .
As a supposed first contact for complaints against Land Registry, it could be perceived to be tacit agreement to then side with them over lodged complaints. I know for fact that the Financial Statement of Land Registry for the year 2009-2010 by Marco Pierleoni ( Chief Executive ), stated that there was only three complaints against Land Registry lodged by the UK Public with The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman as the next complaint tier after involvement of the ICR and of those three complaints he stated two were quickly dealt with; leaving only one complaint in the pipeline for that year. Somewhat damning when you realise the number of complaints for same / similar timeline in 2009 to the ICR was 114 with only 41 stated "some satisfaction" and the further recent admittance of one of Land Registry's solicitors, that twenty-two wrongly referred cases for judicial involvement ( litigation) , between March-October 2009 and fielded back by The Adjudicator to HM Land Registry to the ICR ( of whom they have no intentional involvement with ), to investigate Land Registry's passing unsuitable cases in this way. So sharing IT perhaps is not working in either protecting information rights or indeed privacy of property / land ownership? And the Law Gazette has reported on the 3 rd January 2018 that The Information Commissioners Office is delving into non-compliance by the Ministry of Justice for requested information requests , that in my own case , the MOJ proved to be the dumping ground of many of my lodged complaints involving Land Registry and the ICR. Does the phase revolving doors spring to mind?