Deleted material from website

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, General Optical Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear General Optical Council,

1. Please send me the text of any part of your website regarding eye examinations during the Covid-19 epidemic which has been altered, edited, redacted or deleted between 1st March 2020 and current date.

2. Please Inform me how many times the GOC has been reprimanded or otherwise disciplined in any way under the FOI for failure to comply with requests under the FOI act in a timely manner.

Yours faithfully,

Seth Belson

Dear General Optical Council,

You have not responded to my lawful enquiry. To avoid action against you please reply within 3 working days. I also require an explanation for your non-compliance.

Yours faithfully,

Seth Belson

Freedom of Information, General Optical Council

Dear Mr Belson,

Thank you for your email.

I would like to apologise for the delayed response. This has been due to recent issues within our Information Governance resource.

Your request is currently being processed as a priority and we will endeavour to respond to your request within the next 7 days.

In the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions.

Kind regards

Wayne Elliott | Information Governance Manager
General Optical Council | 10 Old Bailey | London | EC4M 7NG
Switchboard: +44 (0)20 7580 3898 | Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7871 0408

At the General Optical Council we are responsible, forward thinking and principled. Read our mission and values online.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr. Elliot,

Another two months has gone by without a satisfactory reply from you, in breach of the FOI.

IT is disgraceful that a statutory body charged with upholding legal structures surrounding a health care profession and with the power to sanction others for their actions should show such a blatant disdain for the law. Perhaps you think that, a a GOC registrant, I am afraid to upset you in case you decide to bring some case against me by way of revenge. If so, you are mistaken.

If I have not received a full and satisfactory response from you within 72 hours of this email I will have no hesitation in referring the matter formally to the ICO, who are already aware of this case and the GOC’s reputation in general. I also feel that this is a matter of public concern and will issue a press release detailing the Council’s behaviour.
I also require an internal review to be carried out by the Council into its information governance procedures.
Yours sincerely,

Seth Belson

Freedom of Information, General Optical Council

Dear Mr Belson,

Apologies for the delayed response.

I believed the response had already been sent to you.

The outcome of your request is as follows:

1. Please send me the text of any part of your website regarding eye examinations during the Covid-19 epidemic which has been altered, edited, redacted or deleted between 1st March 2020 and current date.

Please be advised that, unfortunately the provision of the requested information would exceed the appropriate cost limit under Section 12, which is currently £450. This equates to 18 hours of staff time at £25 an hour. This is because the information requested is not easily retrievable as we do not hold this information in a readily accessible format. To locate and retrieve this information would require a manual search of all individual records. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, an authority is allowed to refuse a request where to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit.

2. Please Inform me how many times the GOC has been reprimanded or otherwise disciplined in any way under the FOI for failure to comply with requests under the FOI act in a timely manner.

Please can you clarify what is meant by 'reprimanded or otherwise disciplined' and also can you specify a time frame. This will assist the GOC with providing you with an appropriate response.

Kind regards

Wayne Elliott | Information Governance Officer
General Optical Council | 10 Old Bailey | London | EC4M 7NG
Switchboard: +44 (0)20 7580 3898 | Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7871 0408

At the General Optical Council we are responsible, forward thinking and principled. Read our mission and values online.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr. Elliot,

1. I do not accept your response. It seems inconceivable to me that you have been able to make an adequate inquiry into this matter in two hours since I sent you an email which you have felt you could no longer ignore. I cannot adequately describe to you the damage you are doing to the reputation of the Council by prevaricating so long and then hiding behind a provision which clearly does not apply in this case. I repeat my assurance that this will be brought to the attention of the ICO in the form of an official complaint if you continue to obstruct this reasonable request. They will require you to justify the claim you make regarding the number of hours you have miraculously calculated to be necessary to fulfil this.

2. The terms 'reprimanded or otherwise disciplined' are used in the normal sense of their usage in English. A dictionary such as those used for GCSE English may assist you. Once again, you are advised not to try to justify this obstruction of the law by this obvious tactic of pretended lack of understanding of a simple sentence. The time frame involved is the last four years.

3. I require you to conduct a review of why this matter has taken so long before you have contacted me. I would expect this matter to have been escalated to a level rather higher than the one you obviously occupy, and I am therefore copying this to the office of Lesly Longstone as it is she who will be ultimately answerable to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Seth Belson

Freedom of Information, General Optical Council

Dear Mr Belson,

Thank you for your email.

Please be advised that the your initial request was previously reviewed by senior management and it was estimated that to provide you with that information would exceed the statutory cost limit. As I mentioned in my previous email, it was thought that the response had been previously sent to you, which it had not and for which I have apologised. As such, I sent you a copy of what was initially decided hence why I was able to reply so quickly.

It may be possible for the GOC to provide you with information within the cost limit if you are able to refine your request, for example to a shorter timeline or possibly a particular part of the website (the latter I would need to check).

In regard to my request for clarification, this was completely legitimate as the Information Commissioners Office who oversee how public bodies manage data does not issue 'reprimands' or 'discipline' but rather notices, for example complaints notices and decision notices. The outcome of these notices can differ depending upon how they progress. If you are able to be more specific about the type of communications with the ICO you require information about this will assist the GOC with providing you with an appropriate response.

I do appreciate that you have had to wait a long time for your response which may not have been the outcome you would have preferred but it would be appreciated if you could refrain from using an offensive tone when communicating with us.

I look forward to receiving your refined request and/or clarification

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Kind regards

Wayne Elliott | Information Governance Officer
General Optical Council | 10 Old Bailey | London | EC4M 7NG
Switchboard: +44 (0)20 7580 3898 | Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7871 0408

At the General Optical Council we are responsible, forward thinking and principled. Read our mission and values online.

show quoted sections