FOI/EIR watch list

Ganesh Sittampalam made this Freedom of Information request to Information Commissioner's Office

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

The request was successful.

Ganesh Sittampalam

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your FOI procedures manual (linked from http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/f...) makes reference to a "Watch list" which was apparently at the time to be found on your intranet at the link http://icoportal/FOI GPE/documents/FOIEnforcementWatchList_006.doc

There is also a reference to an "Alert list" which I suspect is about the same document.

Please could I have a copy of the current version of this list (or both if they are actually different things)?

I am aware that you have previously refused to release the DP watch list under s31 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/di...). I would argue that in the case of a watch list relating to FOI and EIR cases, the public interest balance is much more strongly in favour of disclosure; this information relates to public authorities not (mainly) private entities, and in addition the FOI/EIR enforcement process is already significantly in the public domain because all DNs and the outstanding cases list are available. I also doubt that self-reporting by public authorities is a significant factor in cases being brought to your attention.

If this does get released, I would also ask that you consider publishing updates to it routinely, or failing that provide advice on how frequently repeated requests for the latest version would be appropriate.

Yours faithfully,

Ganesh Sittampalam

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

27th August 2009

Case Reference Number IRQ0266393

Dear Mr Sittampalam

Request for Information

Thank you for your correspondence dated 26 August 2009.

Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  We will respond by 24 September 2009 which is 20
working days from the day after we received your request (allowing for
August bank holiday).

Yours sincerely

Iman Elmehdawy

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: [email address]
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radA9AC5_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

2 Attachments

Link: [1]File-List

22nd September 2009

Case Reference Number IRQ0266393

Dear Mr Sittampalam

Further to our acknowledgement dated 27 August 2009, we are in a position
to respond to your request for information.

On 26 August 2009 you requested the following information:

Your FOI procedures manual (linked from
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/f...)
makes reference to a "Watch list" which was apparently at the time
to be found on your intranet at the link http://icoportal/FOI
GPE/documents/FOIEnforcementWatchList_006.doc

There is also a reference to an "Alert list" which I suspect is
about the same document.

Please could I have a copy of the current version of this list (or
both if they are actually different things)?”

I can confirm that the “Watch List” and “Alert List” referred to
are in fact the same document. However, we no longer hold such a list
because, as the volume of our enforcement activity increased, it became
impractical and we no longer considered it to be a suitable method for
recording and monitoring our activities. In its place we developed a
spreadsheet holding similar information which records the instances in
which the Enforcement team engaged with a public authority. This
spreadsheet is known as the ‘Enforcement Action Log’. Such engagement
is based on evidence of systemic, repeated or serious non-compliance with
the Act, the EIR or non-conformity with the associated Codes of Practice,
in accordance with our Enforcement Strategy. This strategy defines the
framework of our FOI enforcement activities. Typical issues which may make
such engagement necessary are:

- serious or repeated failures to meet the requirements of
section 10 (1)

- regular and / or unwarranted extensions to the time for
compliance (e.g. Public Interest Test), with particular emphasis on those
which exceed the [2]Commissioner’s guidance

- serious or repeated failures to issue refusals notices which
comply with section 17

- regular and / or unwarranted extensions to the timeframe for
internal reviews, with particular emphasis on those which exceed the
[3]Commissioner’s guidance

- failure to have an internal review procedure in place, or the
failure to operate that procedure in accordance with the recommendations
of the section 45 Code of Practice

- internal review procedures of more than one stage

- repeated or serious application of blanket, or obviously
inappropriate exemptions (or exceptions)

- repeated failure to engage with the ICO’s investigations, or
repeated delays in that engagement

- repeated failure to explain why exemptions (or exceptions)
apply

- repeated failures to explain the balance of public interest
when qualified exemptions (or exceptions) have been applied

- evidence that the authority is failing to take its
responsibilities seriously

- record management failures (section 46 Code of Practice)

- evidence that an authority does not have a sufficient
understanding of the Act, the EIR or the Codes of Practice

When patterns of repeated or systemic incidences of poor practice are
identified, the Enforcement Team consider whether intervention is
appropriate. The team may also intervene in a single case, provided the
issues are sufficiently serious. Such intervention is recorded in the
enforcement action log.

The information released to you

In response to your request, we have released to you a redacted version of
the current enforcement action log (please see attached document). The
version released to you contains eight fields, as follows:

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Field |Contents |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Authority/CMEH Reference|This shows the name of the public authority |
| |(listed alphabetically) and the reference |
| |allocated by our internal case handling system.|
| | |
| | |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Enforcement Issues |The practice issues the enforcement team have |
| |identified and raised with the authority. |
| | |
| | |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Contact Initiated |The date the Enforcement team contacted the |
| |public authority. |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Action |The action taken by the Enforcement officer. |
| | |
| | |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Status |The status of the case (e.g. closed) |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Further Notes |Additional contextual information the |
| |Enforcement officer considers relevant. |
| | |
| | |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Lead Officer |The initials of the officer with lead |
| |responsibility for the enforcement case. |
| | |
| | |
|------------------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|Severity |An internal severity rating – a key is |
| |included within the spreadsheet. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Please see a list of abbreviations and references at the end of this
email.

 

Exempt Information

Any records in the enforcement action log that relate to public
authorities currently being considered by the ICO as open enforcement
cases have been redacted as we consider section 31 (1) (g) and Section 31
(2) (c) of the Act to apply.

Section 31 (1) (g)

Section 31 (1) (g) reads:

31 (1) 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).

We consider the relevant subsection of this exemption to be (2) (a) ‘the
purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the
law’.

The Commissioner has a duty to ensure that the regulation he has
responsibility for is adhered to, and in so doing a considerable
proportion of his work (and the work of his staff), is concerned with
ascertaining whether authorities have failed to comply with the law. In
the context of your request, we are specifically referring to the
statutory requirements placed upon authorities by the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

We consider that the release of information which demonstrates which
elements of the Act, the Regulations or the associated Codes of Practice a
particular authority has failed to adhere to would prejudice our ability
to carry out this work effectively. In the context of the Commissioner’s
FOI Enforcement Team, and the enforcement action log which is the subject
of your request, we consider that full disclosure would:

- Dissuade authorities from acting with candour when approaching
the Commissioner about difficulties they may be facing in meeting the
requirements of the legislation. For example, officers within authorities
may approach the Commissioner pro-actively to highlight their concerns. We
note that your request questions whether self-reporting by public
authorities is a significant factor in cases being brought to our
attention and in response we can advise that for the most part it is not.
However staff within authorities do pro-actively share information with us
whilst a case is ongoing. For example, if we were to write to an authority
to express our concerns about their compliance with section 10 (1), an FOI
Officer may respond by addressing this matter and in addition, proactively
outlining other issues which were not previously known to us. Such
exchanges are an important source of information and can provide examples
of poor practice above and beyond that demonstrated in individual section
50 (1) cases.

- Dissuade authorities from engaging positively with the
Commissioner. A substantial proportion of the compliance encouraged by his
FOI Enforcement Team is done so without the need for regulatory
intervention and we consider that the premature release of information
which details an authority’s current shortcomings may prejudice the
Team’s ability to carry out such work going forward.

Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, we consider that disclosure of
the full enforcement action log would prejudice our ability to carry out
future formal regulatory action as it would indicate the authorities at
which intervention is being considered. For this reason, we also consider
section 31 (2) (c) to apply.

Section 31 (2) (c) reads ‘the purpose of ascertaining whether
circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any
enactment exist or may arise’.

The public interest test

As you may know, section 31 is a qualified exemption and we must therefore
consider whether the public interest in withholding the information
outweighs that in disclosing it. In this case the public interest factors
in favour of disclosing the information you have requested in full are:

- Increased transparency over the way in which the ICO monitors
authorities’ compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the
Environmental Information Regulations.

- Increased transparency over the way in which the ICO monitors
authorities’ compliance with the Codes of Practice associated with the
Act and the Regulations

 

- Additional transparency (above and beyond the details of
failures made public in practice recommendations or Decision Notices) in
the way the ICO monitors specific public authorities of particular
interest to members of the public. This includes those who may consider
themselves to have been directly affected by the actions of a particular
authority in response to a request they have made, or those authorities
who have already attracted media attention as a result of their failings.

- Publication of the information in full would help to
demonstrate that the Commissioner is complying with the duties placed upon
him in overseeing the Act, the Regulations and the associated Codes of
Practice, and that he is therefore providing the level of public service
expected of him.

Public interest factors in favour of withholding the requested information
are:

- There is an expectation that the Commissioner will ensure that
details he receives about public authorities in the course of his
investigations remain confidential. This is echoed in section 59 (1) (a)
of the Data Protection Act (as amended) which reads ’59 (1) No persons
who is or has been the Commissioner, a member of the Commissioner’s
staff or an agent of the Commissioner shall disclose any information which
– (a) has been obtained by, or furnished to, the Commissioner under the
purposes of the information Acts’.

- To serve the public effectively, the Commissioner must maintain
the trust and confidence of the authorities he regulates and ensure that
their co-operation is maintained. Co-operation from authorities may be
adversely affected if details of their current dealings with the ICO were
to be made public. This would in turn prejudice the Commissioner’s
ability to deliver the levels of service required of him. For example, if
the Commissioner could no longer rely on the informal co-operation of
authorities he may be forced to resort to regulatory intervention such as
the use of Information Notices (section 51 (1) of the Act) more often. Use
of such measures diverts staff resource, and may have a cost implication
for the ICO. This would have a detrimental impact upon the level of
service the Commissioner was able to provide to the public he serves.  

- It is vital that authorities can be open and honest about any
difficulties they are experiencing, without fear that any such issues will
be made public prematurely. We consider that publication of the full
enforcement action log may dissuade authorities from being open and honest
with the Commissioner going forward. For example, authorities may no
longer proactively approach the Commissioner about the problems they are
facing or may not be as honest about such difficulties, prejudicing his
ability to promote observance of the Act and the Codes of Practice
(section 47 (1) of the Act).  

Having considered all of these factors, we have decided that the public
interest in maintaining the exemptions to disclose the information on open
enforcement cases outweighs the public interest in releasing it. Whilst
all of our public interest considerations carry weight, our primary
concern is that release of the information in full would prejudice the
ability of the Commissioner to carry out his functions effectively. We are
therefore unable to provide you with a full copy of the enforcement action
log.

It may be helpful for you to know that the ICO is currently considering
whether it would be appropriate to routinely publish this redacted version
of the enforcement action log. We are also considering the frequency at
which this may be done. In the meantime, you can of course request the log
again although we would advise that due to the small size of the
enforcement team (currently 3 members of staff) and the time taken to
progress enforcement cases to a closed state, it is unlikely to have
changed significantly in 3 months.

I hope the above is of assistance to you.

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

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager

Information Commissioner’s Office

List of abbreviations and references

DN Decision Notice
IC Information Commissioner
IN Information Notice
IR Internal Review
OM Other Matters
PA Public Authority
PIT Public Interest Test
PR Practice Recommendation
PS Publication Scheme
RM Records Management
RN Refusal Notice

Any other initials are likely to be initials of Enforcement officers.

Reference numbers:

ENF0XXXXXX (7 digits):    Enforcement case – CMEH reference number

 

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/radF5DA3_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
4. mailto:[email address]

Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation ()

Marking this as rejected because all they sent was the closed enforcement cases, whereas what I was after was a list of authorities they're currently keeping an eye on.

Not sure whether to ask for an internal review or not. I'd expect that most enforcement cases are initially triggered by s50 complaints, so I'd have thought they could disclose at least the authority names (which is the main thing I'm interested in) without revealing anything that the authority told them voluntarily.

Matthew Davis left an annotation ()

Yes I think you should appeal. It is not as if disclosing the names of those being monitored is going to influence the investigation.

Matthew Davis

Ganesh Sittampalam

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please could I have an internal review of this request.

Firstly, most of the arguments you give above suggest that the willingness of public authorities to share information with you would be compromised if you then published that information. I believe that in the case of information generated by complaints about authorities, or by you directly, those arguments do not apply. For example, I do not accept that you should redact the names of any authorities where you have initiated an investigation into them. Similarly for any details of the investigation that do not arise from information received from the authority.

Secondly, I question whether revealing that authorities are under investigation would prejudice their cooperation with you. Another possible effect would be that they would seek to resolve the situation as fast as possible to mitigate the embarrassment caused. This is an extra public interest argument in favour of release of all the information.

Another public interest argument is that if a public authority were asked directly under FOI about enforcement action by you, it is unlikely that they would be able to withhold the information. Indeed, some authorities have previously released correspondence with you about such action, e.g. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/11...
If I can get the information by FOIing every public authority, then the only effect of you keeping it secret is to waste everyone's time, and thus surely it would be in the public interest to release it?

Finally, I ask that you limit any redactions that are sustained after this review to the bare minimum. For example the dates and severity flags would be of interest even if the names of the authorities are redacted, and if you choose to also redact those then please at least leave each row in the spreadsheet marked so I can count the number of authorities under investigation.

Yours faithfully,

Ganesh Sittampalam

Matthew Davis left an annotation ()

Ganesh,
Great appeal. The logic of your arguments seems indisputable - lets see what the ICO has to say about it.
Matthew

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

30th September 2009

Case Reference Number RCC0271533

Dear Mr Sittampalam

Thank you for your correspondence dated 25 September 09.

This correspondence will now be treated as a request for review of your
recent request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(IRQ0266393).

We will respond by 23 October 2009 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

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad46215_files/filelist.xml

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

23rd October 2009

Case Reference Number RCC0271533

Dear Mr Sittampalam

I refer to your request for an internal review of the ICO’s response to
your request for information, our reference IRQ0266393. I have reviewed
the withheld information, the ICO’s response to your request and the
further representations you have made when asking for this review.

I have concluded that there is some further information that should be
disclosed to you. My approach is that redactions should be kept to a
minimum, as you have specifically asked in the final paragraph of your
email. That is clearly the correct approach when it is necessary to
withhold some, but not all of the requested information.

I find that the ICO considered the correct exemption in this case. In my
view that is the only one which could apply to the information we hold.
However, I think there is more information which could be disclosed
without causing prejudice to the ICO’s relevant functions under section
31, namely ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify
regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment (here the FOI Act) exist
or may arise.

The key issue here is the identification of the public authorities in
respect of which the ICO is considering taking action. I agree with the
view, for the same reasons as originally stated, that identifying them
while a case is still “live” and a decision has yet to be taken as to
whether formal regulatory action is warranted would be likely to be
prejudicial within the terms of section 31(2)(c). I also consider that the
correct factors in favour of disclosure and in favour of maintaining the
exemption were considered in this case and that, where prejudice has been
established, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs
that in disclosure, again for the same reasons as originally expressed.

However, I do no not think it prejudicial to the ICO’s functions to
identify the kind of issues the ICO is considering in these live cases or
the action (in brief summary) it has taken on those cases. I also think we
can identify the type of public authority involved in each case, for
example NHS Trust, local authority, police force. My approach would also
reveal the number of live cases as at the time of your request, which is
something you have specifically asked to be considered on review. But
crucially it would not reveal the identity of the particular authority in
each case.

Finally there are some cases which remain open for monitoring where we
have already taken the action of issuing a practice recommendation under
section 48 of the Act. These are already in the public domain and should
have been included in the initial response to the request.

I am therefore arranging for further information to be disclosed to you in
line with this decision and you should have this within the next seven
days.

If you are not satisfied with the outcome of this review , 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

Graham Smith

Deputy Commissioner

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad626EA_files/filelist.xml

John Cross left an annotation ()

I have categorised this as still waiting for internal review as the extra information has not yet been sent.

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

Link: [1]File-List

28th October 2009

Case Reference Number RCC0271533

Dear Mr Sittampalam

As you may recall, our original response to your request of the 26 August
2009 explained that whilst we do not hold a current ‘Watch’ or
‘alert’ list, we do hold and operate a spreadsheet known as the
Enforcement Action Log. This Log was partially released to you on the 22
September 2009.

Following your request for review undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner
for FOI, Mr Graham Smith, it has been decided that some additional
information should be released to you. This information is attached. The
format in which it is released reflects the layout of our original
response to you, but contains only open or reopened Enforcement Cases. At
the time of your request, there were 36 open enforcement cases recorded in
the log.

The Enforcement Action Log is a working document which evolves as cases
progress and as circumstances change. Where possible, it is updated
retrospectively but there are occasions whereby the information it
contains may not fully reflect the current situation at a given authority.
With this in mind, I would draw your attention to the entry for Greater
Manchester Police*, against which it is explained that the authority has
not confirmed that the recommended internal review timescales had been
adopted with immediate effect. Whilst this was correct at the time of
entry, the situation has since changed and the live version of the log has
been amended to reflect this. Further, the final entry in the attached
log**, makes reference to guidance produced by the Association of Chief
Police Officers (ACPO). It may be helpful if I explain that since the
inclusion of this entry, the ACPO guidance in question has been revised
with input from the ICO and we expect that this will address some of the
problems identified in this and other cases.

Withheld information

As you will see from the attached documents, a number of redactions have
been made. These redactions reflect the Deputy Commissioner’s finding
that section 31 (2) (c) was correctly applied to some of the requested
information. So you are able to see where the redactions have been made
they are clearly marked with the following labels:

‘Name Redacted’

‘Date Redacted’

‘Details Redacted’

‘Case Reference redacted’

‘Location Redacted’

‘Website Redacted’

Although the majority of the names of authorities for which there is an
open or reopened enforcement case have been withheld, we have indicated
the sector for each of the open cases. The relevant designations are:

‘Local Authority’

‘Central Government’

‘Police’

‘Fire & Rescue Authority’

‘NDPB’s & Others’ (Non-Departmental Public Bodies)

‘Education’

‘NHS Trust’

Information provided

We have provided you with:

· a summary of the enforcement issues for each of the open or
re-opened entries (as they appear in the log)

· details of the action taken

· the current status of the case

· the initials of the lead officer for each of the cases

· the severity rating for each case

We have also provided you with the names of authorities against which
there are open cases, in those circumstances where the action taken is
already publically known. These are marked in bold for your ease of
reference.  As the Deputy Commissioner noted in his review, this
information should have been provided to you as part of our initial
response and we would like to apologise for our oversight in this regard.

Each of the named authorities has been issued with a practice
recommendation in relation to either the section 45 or section 46 Codes of
Practice. Two of the authorities named, the Department of Health and
Nottingham City Council, have received one of each. Each of the
recommendations can be viewed online and for your ease of reference we
have supplied the relevant links below:

Department for Communities and Local Government

Section 45

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

Department of Health

Section 45

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

Section 46

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

Greater Manchester Police

Section 45

[5]http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/free...

Liverpool City Council

Section 45

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

Ministry of Defence

Section 45

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

National Offender Management Service

Section 45

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

Nottingham City Council

Section 45

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

Section 46

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

As we explained in our original response to you, we are currently
considering whether it would be appropriate to routinely publish a
redacted version of the enforcement action log and if so the frequency at
which this should be done.

I hope this information is helpful. In the event that you are dissatisfied
with the response, 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, or
visit the ‘Complaints’ section of our website to make a Freedom of
Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online

Yours sincerely

Iman Elmehdawy

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad27353_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
4. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
5. http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/free...
6. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
7. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
8. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
9. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
10. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation ()

FS50281493

Ganesh Sittampalam

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

I have just become aware of your new policy for regulatory action (http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/free...), in which you state "The Commissioner intends to publish the names of those authorities being monitoring[sic] on a regular basis". In view of this, would you be willing to reconsider the redactions in this response?

As you will be aware I have asked for a decision on this case from the ICO in its capacity as regulator and I am still waiting for action on that formal case, but it seems that your change of policy might provide an opportunity for an informal resolution at this point.

Yours faithfully,

Ganesh Sittampalam

new casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

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 Service Team. We will respond to you as soon as possible or
within 30 calendar days.
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.

Yours sincerely

Customer Service Team
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

22nd July 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0325075

Dear Mr Sittampalam

Thank your for your e-mail dated 21 July 2010 in which you make a new
request for a copy of our enforcement action log.

Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  We will respond by 18 August 2010 which is 20
working days from the day after we received your request.

Should you wish to reply 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 request.  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/radB7C4A_files/filelist.xml

Ganesh Sittampalam

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Thanks for your email, but I think you misunderstood. My original request is currently awaiting formal investigation as a s50 complaint. In view of your recently announced policy, I was suggesting that you should now revisit your response (in your capacity as the public authority), instead of waiting for the s50 investigation.

I was not making a fresh request for the log.

Yours faithfully,

Ganesh Sittampalam

Information Commissioner's Office

Link: [1]File-List

3rd August 2010

Case Reference Number IRQ0325075

Dear Mr Sittampalam

Dear Mr Sittampalam

I write with reference to your e-mail dated 23 July 2010 in which you
provided some clarification concerning your correspondence regarding a
previous request for information that you made to this office in August
2009.

Firstly it may be helpful to provide some clarification on the scope of
the new regulatory action policy and how that then relates back to your
previous request. 

The policy sets out the areas of poor performance the ICO is committed to
tackling and explains the regulatory tools available. However the new
policy specifically targets timeliness. The enforcement action log which
was the focus of your orginal request monitors compliance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 generally rather than focusing just on Section 10
issues. 

The Commissioner intends to publish the names of those authorities being
monitored concerning Section 10 concerns on a regular basis.  This was
not intended as a commitment to publish the enforcement action log however
in light of this we are reconsidering the information which fell in the
scope of your original request, at the time you made your request, as a
way of informally resolving your complaint to the Commissioner. 

Therefore, in line with your recent e-mail we are now not treating this as
a new request for information but will contact you shortly to advise
whether we are able to provide you with any additional information from
the enforcement action log.  We will close the case under the above
reference IRQ0325075 and will process this request under your original
request number IRQ0286098.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Yours sincerely

Charlotte Powell

Internal Compliance Manager

Yours sincerely

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/rad8E0CB_files/filelist.xml

Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation ()

They've now sent all the information, but directed it to a related request: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/en...