Health and Safety Concerns.

Dear Ormiston Academies Trust,

The Ormiston website shows that during a Board Meeting in March 2019, the published minutes show that, when discussing Health and Safety matters (in Section 5 of the minutes), - 'PH {Paul Hann, Chair} asked why a few academies have areas of non-compliance?'

The minutes then show that:

'There was a discussion about the various issues and how they are
being addressed. It was concluded that the feedback at the next
board meeting should be that these issues have been rectified. '

I would like to make the following Freedom of Information requests.

The current online published minutes are in a document dated 25-11-2019. However this document appears to be an altered version of an earlier document (approved 11-07-19 and dated 19-08-2019) which shows more detail of this and other conversations that occurred during the March 2019 board meeting as follows:

'PH {Paul Hann, Chair}' asked ' – why is everyone else doing compliance and not CNS {City of Norwich School}? '

'JMi {James Miller, National Director Estates and Technology}' replied '– short staffed – action plan in place to deal with it. Needs to be addressed asap – support and coaching package been put into place to support staff member that needs to do the work'

The conversation then proceeds as follows:

'IB {Ian Brookman, Trustee} – are they falling below a floor standard? Or are the fire service being picky'
'JMi {James Miller, National Director Estates and Technology} – bit of both. '
'IB – who does our fire safety risk assessments in other schools, '
'JMi {James Miller, National Director Estates and Technology} outsourced – flagged because actions from outsourced assessments were not completed.'
'AJ {Andrew Jones, Trustee} – Why are they not doing food hygiene certification, confined spaces etc. Understand there might be a lead time but they should not keep coming up
as red on the risk assessments.'
'JMi – there is detail in the report about why but potentially could be stronger.'
'PH – Feedback for next board meeting that CNS are now compliant.'
'NH {Nick Hudson, CEO and Trustee} – I wouldn’t want us to be sent any FOI requests on this for all of our academies as this would be difficult.'
'JMi - shall take a stronger stance.'

The full detail conversation in the earlier released minutes can be seen in the document archived at:

http://web.archive.org/web/2021110914553...

The later altered version as currently published on the Trust Website can be seen at:

http://www.ormistonacademiestrust.co.uk/...

Archived at:

http://web.archive.org/web/2019112613030...

As, in the minutes of subsequent board meetings, there does not seem to be any subsequent mention of the CNS becoming compliant as requested by Paul Hann; request (1) under the FOI please could the Trust provide copies of the reports as mentioned by Nick Hudson in the discussion, for the CNS for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and if available 2021 to date.

Request (2) under the FOI please could the Trust confirm if the CNS are now compliant or remain non-complaint.

Request (3) under the FOI, please could the Trust advise if the CNS have become compliant, at which date did they become compliant.

Request (4) under the FOI, if the CNS remain non-compliant, is there an action plan to address this?

For any corrections, inaccuracies or clarifications of the FOI request please don't hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

Gary

Dear OAT - Data Protection Officer,

Thank you for your response, to my Freedom of Information request made on the 9th November 2021. Within your response you state:

"Our view is that the name you have provided for this request is not
currently valid under Section8 (1) (b) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 as you have not provided enough of your real name to give a
reasonable indication of your identity."

You then provide a link to ICO guidance on making FOI requests (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...). Which clarifies:

"Paragraph 21

For a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of their real
name to give anyone reading that request a reasonable indication of their
identity."

In response to your request, his is to confirm my full real name is Gary Symonds. Please acknowledge receipt of this clarification to my request and confirm you will now process as a valid FOI request.

Yours faithfully,

Gary Symonds

Dear Ormiston Academies Trust,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ormiston Academies Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Health and Safety Concerns.'.

I would like to request an internal review of the Ormiston Academies Trust response to my FOI request.

Within my review request there are a number of sources of external information with Internet links quoted. Due to the dynamics of Internet information resources, with information constantly updated, renewed, or deleted, where a resource link is quoted an archive of the active link at the time is presented within annotations to the request in order to preserve the validity of quoted resources in effect at the time of the request.

Where personal information such as names of personnel not already published within the quoted policy documents or Board Minutes they are redacted.

Prior to going into the detail why I request an internal review, I would like to address the final paragraph of the initial response to my FOI by the OAT DPO which was as follows:

“In past communications we have sent to you we have made clear that the
number of FOIA requests you have made (together with the significant
number of requests under the EU GDPR and UK GDPR; complaints; and the
substantial volume of ancillary correspondence) is imposing a grossly
oppressive burden on OAT. I respectfully ask that you pause to consider
the concerns we have previously aired to you before submitting further
requests.”

For reference, when I received the initial response to my FOI, I submitted an 'Information Rights Concern' to the Ormiston Academies Trust Data Protection Officer via an email as I was concerned that response revealed personal information. This I believed to be the correct formality. I believe the OAT DPO response will be in the public interest to whatdotheyknow.com users.

A copy of the full response is at the link:

https://myarchived.link/OAT-Response-12-...

I made the request in compliance with the OAT Data Protection and Freedom of Information Policy, which is a policy authored by Laurence Boulter, Data Protection Officer for the OAT. An archive copy of the policy in effect at the times of my requests is located at this link:

https://myarchived.link/oat-data-protect...

the OAT DPO offers adviced that goes on to say:

“During a discussion with the ICO on 20/12/2021:

The ICO have advised that we take this opportunity to make clear to you that any responses we may feel we need to make to any request you may make using the WDTK website will be placed in the public domain.”

“In a communication from WDTK received on the22/12/2021:

WDTK confirmed that 'Requests made via our service should be treated in the same way that you would treat any other requests.”

As the UK DPA requires public authorities to have “appointed a DPO based on their professional qualities and expert knowledge of data protection law and practices. “ and the OAT DPO also confirms that advice was sought from the Information Commissioners Office I therefore believe I can assume the advice given by OAT DPO Laurence Boulter in the response is expert and authoritative advice and submit my request for internal review accordingly.

The response from the DPO to my information concerns then goes on ask “for you exercise restraint if you are to avoid further application of Section 14 {of the Freedom of Information Act}”.

However I'm not aware of any record of a 'Section 14 application' to any of my requests to date.

For the purpose of this review request, as with any request, for good practice where quotes from documents or correspondence are made in my requests, a link to a full copy of that document or correspondence is included. At times some of my requests have been on behalf of third parties, including children, so I have been very careful to remove any reference within quoted correspondence that could identify third parties or children.

In view of this need to 'avoid further application of Section 14' I believe it is now incumbent on me to supply, within this review request the background, supported with documentary evidence, of some of the previous requests to support that this request is not vexatious but intended to ensure transparency in regulatory compliance of an Academy Trust regarding the H&S safeguarding of children - based on statements made in publicly available records. This can then be supplied to the ICO if necessary on the basis the OAT DPO appears to have announced, in correspondence, the possibility of an intention to “apply an extension of the current application of Section 14 {FOI Section 14(1) vexatious request}” to this request.

The request was initiated because of information recorded in a number of documents, circulated in the public domain, of conversations and statements made by Trustees and Executive staff recorded in OAT meeting minutes (both Board Minutes as well as the Audit and Risk Sub Committee Minutes). These appear to indicate ongoing areas of concern regarding Health and Safety arrangements, not only at the one Academy specifically mentioned by Paul Hann, Chair of Trustees in the March 2019 Board Minutes (i.e.The City of Norwich School CNS) but appears to be Health and Safety arrangements in general as later meetings minutes show.

For clarity the link regarding document behind the initial concern is repeated below:

http://web.archive.org/web/2021110914553...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND TO SOME PREVIOUS REQUESTS REFERRED TO BY OAT DPO:

The OAT DPO will recall that in 2018, following an incident where a child was subject to significant harm whilst in the care of OAT at the City of Norwich School, an Ormiston Academy, an FOI request was made for the full Health and Safety Policy in effect at the time. The main policy and the supporting policies in question can be viewed at this archived link:

https://myarchived.link/OAT-Health-and-S...

It can be seen that Section 18 on Page 36 of the main policy clearly states:

“Sub-policies
The attached sub-policies make up the overall City of Norwich School Health and Safety Policy to which each academy must have regard.”

The complete list of sub-policies is made on pages 2 & 3 of the main H&S policy where it does state:

“The following sub-policies form the rest of the City of Norwich School Health and Safety Policy” - making them a legal part of the H&S contract.

However an FOI for elements of the sub policies resulted in the CNS initially refusing to acknowledge their existence responding

“I hope this clarifies that we cannot pass to you {the sub-policies} POL-ICE02 or POL-PEG01 as these were never adopted by this Academy and we do not have them to share.”

The response from the CNS is at link:

https://myarchived.link/CNS-email-re-sub...

By subsequently reporting this to the ICO the OAT Company Secretary, in office at the time, did later acknowledge to the ICO their existence but then stated that:

“For clarity, this does not mean the City of Norwich School was following these policies or had adopted them, or was holding them.”

For context the full email is archived at:

https://myarchived.link/email-OAT-Compan...

The above case is an example of how, following resistance by the OAT to provide access to the policies ICO intervention resulted in the OAT confirming in writing that although the main H&S policy stated “must” have regard to sub-policies and the OAT themselves admitted to the ICO the H&S policies were mandatory but also at the same time the OAT confirmed the City of Norwich School did not follow the mandatory requirements of the main H&S policy.

The legitimate use of the functionality of the Information Acts is not always limited to successfully obtaining information from an organisation - but by using the legal processes of the Information Acts it can also be established that information does not exist within an organisation by their own acknowledgement – even when it legally or contractually should or must exist.

Academy Trusts are not only legally bound by a variety of laws and mandatory regulations concerning safeguarding, finances and education standards – the Trustees are also accountable and contractually bound, via a funding agreement, with the Secretary of State to ensure compliance with a variety of laws and mandatory regulation/guidance that includes the safeguarding of children.

The Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014, which applies to academies, requires a number of standards such as those that concern the welfare, health and safety of pupils (part 3 of the regulations) and those that concern the quality of leadership in the management of schools (part 8).

A link to the legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014...

A link to the guidance for the legislation:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

This is why, although on occasions the OAT were adamant to the ICO that certain documents or information didn't exist or were not followed within the organisation, when it was felt they legally or contractually should have existed and been followed, it resulted in a complaint to the relevant regulatory authorities (e.g. Dept of Education and Ofsted – who lawfully must take investigatory action. Hence the information requests were often linked to a subsequent complaint to those regulatory authorities when it was felt there was a non-compliance with regulations.

A link to the ICO investigation and report (ICO Case Reference: FS50735105 for the above) is viewable on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute Law reports website here:

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/20...

{In the links the name of the Company Secretary in post at the time is redacted as it is understood their leaving the OAT was announced at the subsequent Board Meeting in Dec 2018}.

As a result of the acknowledgement by the OAT that the CNS didn't fully follow the OAT documented H&S requirements, a concern was raised with Ofsted and subsequently an H&S audit was instructed by them to be undertaken by Norfolk County Council's Children's Services unit Education Quality Assurance & Intervention Service.

This is because valid Health and Safety Policies are one of the mandatory policies academies must have. That is a legal and contractual obligation:

Link to statutory Policies for Schools and Academies:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

Full context supplied in the email from Norfolk County Council Children's Services is at this link:

https://myarchived.link/email-from-NCC-C...

By having a main policy that included references to sub-policies “to which each academy must have regard” the OAT invalidated large parts of their own H&S arrangements by claiming the sub-policies were not mandatory and were not held or followed. However in paragraph 19 of the ICO report the ICO mentions that in emails to the ICO the OAT advised that “the suite of mandatory health and safety policies previously written by Handsam” …..

As a result the OAT were required to cooperate with the Education and Skills Funding Agency regarding the provision of updates of the subsequent audit report recommendations as per the OAT statement:

“We have complied with three recent requests from ESFA regarding [child's name redacted] injury … We have fully cooperated with ESFA providing updates on completion of the report recommendations.”

Full context provided at this link:

https://myarchived.link/email-OAT-cooper...

Therefore in that instance I believe the information requests were not vexatious but were justified, in the public interest and child safeguarding, in order to ensure the safeguarding of children attending Ormiston Academies Trust schools is properly maintained. I feel this should not be considered as 'imposing a grossly oppressive burden on OAT' as the OAT DPO feels to mention in response to my FOI request but I view as a positive benefit for children when they are under the responsibility of the OAT. From the result of my initial requests to the OAT, followed by ICO involvement and the subsequent concern raised to the ESFA, the OAT were required to review their H&S arrangements and update the DfE accordingly.

The current FOI request is based on factual records, placed into the public domain, of a number of conversations involving senior figures of responsibility in the OAT (including Trustees and the Chair of Trustees) expressing concerns regarding the H&S compliance of it's academies.

The OAT will also recall that further requests were made including Freedom of Information and a Subject Access requests regarding child safeguarding records. The OAT will recall that the response to that request was a refusal letter, dated 9th June 2020, from the CEO and Trustee, Nick Hudson, who refused the requests as follows:

“We have therefore made the decision to no longer respond to future information requests from you. Please be advised that any further correspondence from you will be read and filed without acknowledgement. “

Full context provided in this link:

https://myarchived.link/NH-letter-9-June...

This resulted in another complaint to the ICO. Unfortunately due to the recently introduced GDPR, the ICO were under considerable pressure with a backlog of cases hence it did take several months for the case to be processed. However it can be seen from the ICO report regarding the FOI requests that the OAT were told by ICO:

“The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to issue an adequate refusal notice in response to the request and has therefore breached section 17 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation
- Issue a response, under the FOIA, to the request.
If and to the extent that the Trust wishes to refuse the request, it should issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
The Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.”

The ICO then went on to provide helpful advise and assistance to the OAT that they should address the matter of the refusal of the Trust to respond to an SAR:

“Other matters
Personal data
Whilst the Commissioner cannot compel it to do so as part of a decision notice issued under the FOIA, she would strongly advise the Trust to revisit those parts of the complainant’s correspondence of 11 May 2020 which would fall under data protection legislation and ensure that it has responded in accordance with that legislation. “

The above is documented on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website under 'ICO Case Reference IC-47115-D9T5' report provided at this link:

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/20...

The OAT did not issue a refusal notice but did then go on to provided responses to the FOI requests after being ordered to by the ICO, however unfortunately the OAT didn't follow the ICO further advice and assistance and failed to respond to the SAR within obligatory timescales and it then required a further complaint and subsequent intervention from the ICO in order to get them to do so. This was done in January 2021 when the ICO gave OAT 28 days to respond to the SAR request advising the OAT:

“As a regulator we look to organisations to effectively manage and resolve the data protection complaints they receive. When your customer comes to us to complain, they are in effect telling the regulator that they believe you are breaking the law. Reports of this kind are something that we will treat seriously and robustly. “

Full context in link:

https://myarchived.link/ICO-to-Ormiston-...

However, unfortunately, after 28 days a member of the OAT Executive wrote to me informing me there would still be a further delay past the 28 days ordered by the ICO. This is evidenced in the following link:

https://myarchived.link/SAR-Extension-to...

With such delays caused by the documented reluctance of the OAT CEO & Trustee to respond to the requests timely, and including further documented delays announced by an Executive staff member to delay my requests (around 9 months total from May 2020 to February 2021) close scrutiny of the response was made as to what could be the cause. When the information was finally received it was found to contain a report, authored by Norfolk County Council Children's Services (NCCCS) regarding a child safeguarding investigation. It was noticed that this document displayed evidence to have been altered from the original and enquiries with NCCCS did reveal that at some point content had been deleted from their original report in comparison to the one OAT provided.

As this was a child safeguarding investigation report created by NCCCS the alteration of it from the original became a matter of concern and this concern was raised with the ICO, Norfolk County Council Children's Services, the Regional Schools Commissioner and the Department for Education as well as Ofsted who have recently been contacted again as I understand an inspection of the CNS was conducted prior to the New Year.

Partial correspondence between ICO & OAT related to this matter is at the provided link below. It was necessary to use further SAR and FOI requests to identify the point at which the report was altered from the original. It transpired that the report was modified by the OAT Safeguarding Lead and Safeguarding Manager who, after further complaints to the ICO was later acknowledged to the ICO after the ICO advised: “Just to clarify it can be considered an offence, for a person to alter or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure of all or part of the information making the request.”

A copy of some of the correspondence between the ICO and the OAT about that case is shown. In order to safeguard the child concerned some information that identifies the child has been redacted but it can be seen that the OAT admitted that their Safeguarding Manager and Safeguarding Lead worked together to alter the information in the report in order to remove disclosure of “unprofessional” and “inappropriate” actions or behaviours that could “identify any other individual. This includes any actions or behaviours described about those individuals". This was taken to mean actions of third parties and after receiving the unmodified original report from the Norfolk County Council Children's Services and comparing it to the copy supplied by the OAT the identity was found to be of an OAT personnel.

Full context of the correspondence is at the following link:

https://myarchived.link/ICO-CASE-48751-Q...

This case highlights how important documents can end up being amended for some reason or another and the means of discovery can be a lengthy and complex process.

Another instance is ICO case reference RFA0872602 where documents consisting of notes taken during a safeguarding conversation regarding a rapidly developing medical episode involving a child whilst on OAT premises, the documents were later claimed to not exist. This again involved Information Requests and subsequent ICO involvement. Although the ICO stated that they had no authority to investigate the OAT claim that “likely that these {notes} were shredded shortly after the event” it did reveal a lack of compliance by the OAT with their own document retention policies. This is because the OAT Records Retention Policy requires safeguarding information to be retained until the child reaches 25 years of age: as per the requirements of the 'Keeping Children Safe in Education Statutory Guidance'. Hence there is now an entry in the OAT Child Online Protection Management System (CPOMS) that points to other records or information that no longer exist because they were 'shredded shortly after the event'.

A link to the KCSIE Statutory Guidance:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

A copy of the OAT Records Retention Policy is archived at the following link:

https://myarchived.link/OAT-record-reten...

An excerpt from the system that shows the Pastoral Manager (name redacted) confirms “handing all that was spoken about” to the Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher. According to the OAT response to the ICO, it was 'likely that these {notes} were shredded shortly after the event'.

Link to redacted copy of record: https://myarchived.link/pastoral-record-...

A copy of the relevant ICO Decision Notice (RFA0872602) is archived at this link:

https://myarchived.link/ICO-case-referen...

It does show that the although legislation and CNS policies indicating compliance with legislation meant that CNS would or should have kept the notes it was the ICO opinion not evidence that it held the notes at the time of the request. That is the OAT acknowledged to acting in non-compliance of their own records retention policy as any safeguarding documents (including notes of meetings) must be stored until the child reaches 25.

The above all demonstrate the validity of my previous requests and that they raised child safeguarding concerns as well as H&S concerns at the time. It also demonstrates once again how a request can elicit confirmation that documents or information are not held {e.g. shredded} when legally and contractually they should be held.

BOARD MINUTES:

Regarding the DPO claim that the Board Minutes referenced were not Board Minutes but personal notes of the Clerk to the Board:

Quote from response:

“The document contains notes taken by the Clerk of the Board which were later to be edited and published as the minutes of the meeting. As such these notes were personal notes and not intended to be read by anyone else other than the Clerk of the Board.”

The document clearly states that they are Board Minutes albeit ones that are altered in relation to the current copy displayed on the OAT website. There is no reference to the content being personal notes of the Clerk to the Board. For reference the Board Minutes document shows that the Clerk to the Board is Sunita Yardley-Patel.

Sunita Yardley-Patel is also the OAT Head of Governance, and the current OAT Company Secretary as well as being a director/trustee of the Shine Academies hence I question the notion that someone of such high rank would not be aware of Company Law or the requirements of the Academy Trust Handbook regarding the importance of correctly documenting Board Meetings. Hence I retain the belief the document quoted is a Board Meeting minutes document.

Regarding the claim that the report presented by James Miller (National Director of Estates and Technology) and commented on by Trustees as mentioned in the minutes was not a report but a presentation: the Companies Act 2006 requires: “Every company must cause minutes of all proceedings at meeting of it's directors to be recorded. The records must be kept for ten years from the date of the meeting.” This will also apply to any reports or presentations. (I believe in the case of Academy Trusts the retention period is for the lifetime of the Academy Trust).

The Academy Trust Handbook states:

2.51 The trust must make available for public inspection:
- the agenda for every meeting of the trustees, local governing bodies and committees
- the approved minutes of each meeting
- any report, document or other paper considered at each meeting {this should include presentations, electronic or otherwise}.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

The need to retain any reports or presentation used during Board Meetings is because decisions and statements will be made on those reports/presentations so accountability is required. Dr Paul Hann, the Chair of the Trustees made the decision to announce that he wished for “Feedback for next board meeting that CNS are now compliant”. That decision and other statements made during the meeting would have been based on the report/presentation provided by James Miller, National Director of Estates and Technology I believe.

The Academy Trust Handbook also requires Academy Trusts to appoint a 'Governance Professional (Clerk to the Board)' whose role is to:
contribute to the efficient functioning of the board by providing:
- guidance to ensure the board works in compliance with the appropriate legal and regulatory framework, and understands the potential consequences of non-compliance
- independent advice on procedural matters relating to operation of the board
- administrative and organisational support.”

There is no mention in the minutes of the Clerk to the Board (Sunita-Yardley-Patel) pointing out that the report being mentioned was a transitory presentation. Now any later reference to those Board Minutes would show Trustees Dr Paul Hann, Ian Brookman and Andrew Jones making recorded statements and a decision based on a report/presentation that no longer exists, this would make any audit of them difficult. One of the requirements of Academy Trusts from the DfE is that Board Meeting minutes should be retained for inspection by representatives of the Secretary of State but now the OAT acknowledges that the minutes of March 2019 now contain an important discussion that refers to evidence of a report/presentation that has been overwritten and now no longer available. Concerns raised in the meeting were not limited to the CNS, the Ormiston Bushfield Academy was also mentioned as stated by Ian Brookman (Trustee) - “IB – longer established academies – Bushfield, shouldn’t have big blocks of red – they need to sort it out”

Link here: http://web.archive.org/web/2021110914553...

There are other examples which can be provided to support that any other information requests were valid but I will await any 'Section 14 Vexatious Request' refusal from the OAT DPO as that will require the intervention of the Information Commissioner's Office when they can be supplied to the ICO and other relevant authorities if needed.

Regarding the rest of the response to my FOI. I will repeat each request item for clarity and detail if the response is accepted or requested for review:

 1. Under the FOI please could the Trust provide copies of the reports as mentioned by Nick Hudson in the discussion, for the CNS for the years
2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and if available 2021 to date. 
 
Response 1. Data not held by the Trust. 

I would like to ask the DPO to review this response. This is because in the minutes James Miller, National Director for Estates and Technology categorically states “JMi – there is detail in the report about why but potentially could be stronger. “ and although the DPO states the mention of the report is based on a presentation to the Board which the OAT DPO states was subsequently overwritten, the information sources to create that presentation would or should remain in existence. The ICO has stated that public authorities and requesters should cooperate to resolve FOI requests hence, as my reason for the FOI is to determine the state of H&S arrangements within the OAT I believe there should be some type of documentary evidence in existence. If James Miller overwrote the report/presentation then the information used to compile that report should have some existence.

Clearly from the incident where senior staff of the OAT acknowledged to knowing at least one of their academies (CNS) was not following, adopting or holding crucial sub policies I feel there is an identification in the weakness of the management of H&S arrangements. To re-iterate what the the previous OAT Company Secretary stated regarding an FOI for H&S policies “ For clarity, this does not mean the City of Norwich School was following these policies or had adopted them, or was holding them”

Therefore I am seeking evidence of compliance with H&S law given that Board meeting gave reason for Dr Paul Hann to express concern that the CNS were “not doing compliance”.

I understand that Ofsted had conducted an inspection of the City Of Norwich School just prior to the New Year.

 2. Under the FOI please could the Trust confirm if the CNS are now
compliant or remain non-complaint 
 Response 1. CNS are compliant. 

Please could the OAT provide documentary evidence of compliance. e.g. latest fire reports , Mazar reports etc. as mentioned in the Audit and Risk Committee meeting on the 9th June 2021 where it was stated:

“ML {Mark Lunn, Internal Auditor, Mazars} gave key headlines from the Internal Audit report and highlighted that since the last Audit and Risk committee, Mazars have issued the final payroll audit reports of seven academies, with draft reports being issued to two academies. The Estates and CLFP report have also both been issued in final. ML {Mark Lunn, Internal Auditor, Mazars}confirmed the Health and Safety audit has been deferred to October 2021. The Trustees expressed concern in delaying the Health and Safety.“

Link to the document: https://myarchived.link/minutes-of-ar-co...

Within the March 2019 Board Meeting minutes Ian Brookman (Trustee) asks (of the CNS) are they falling below a floor standard? Or are the fire service being picky. To which James Miller replied “bit of both”. The fire service may disagree they were “being picky” given the site accommodates in excess of 1500 school children aged 11 to 16.

What I seek is documentary evidence of compliance not an unsupported statement by the OAT DPO.

 3. Under the FOI, please could the Trust advise if the CNS have become
compliant, at which date did they become compliant. 
 Response 1. Data not held by the Trust 

Please could the OAT review this response. This is because within an Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on the 24th February 2021: “The Trustees noted there are still minor compliance issues across some academies and that this is disappointing.“ Hence I believe there is information held somewhere in order for that statement by the Trustees to be made.

Later in the meeting it is recorded
:
“The Trustees expressed concern at estates compliance issues and considered the position to have deteriorated despite engaging Bellrock and Concerto in this area. The Trustees questioned Ormiston Academies Trust (OAT)’s success in managing suppliers.”

“The Trustees asked that James Miller (OAT National Director of Estates and Technology) gives an update at the next OAT Board on the management of Bellrock and gives assurance that basic compliance tests are in place. CEO agreed to the above.”

Meeting minutes at link: https://myarchived.link/minutes-of-ar-co...

To date there is no mention in subsequently published board meeting minutes of James Miller (OAT National Director of Estates and Technology) giving an update or reassurance that basic compliance tests are in place.

A link to the OAT web presence for Board Minute is at http://www.ormistonacademiestrust.co.uk/...

Clearly the Trustees also have expressed ongoing concerns regarding H&S as recently as June 2021.

During an Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on the 9th June 2021 the contractor 'Mazars' representative advised: “ML confirmed the Health and Safety audit has been deferred to October 2021.”

To which “The Trustees expressed concern in delaying the Health and Safety”

The National Director of Finance (Jo Dawson) “confirmed that the Health and Safety audit was planned to take place in Autumn 2021.”

Therefore this audit should have been undertaken by now and any results confirmed. Could the OAT please provide the results the mentioned audit in the absence of other reports that the OAT DPO states no longer exist?

Link to meeting minutes:

https://myarchived.link/minutes-of-ar-co...

 4.  Under the FOI, if the CNS remain non-compliant, is there an action
plan to address this? 
Response 1. There is an action plan in place at CNS. 

Thank you for providing this information. Please could the OAT supply a copy of that action plan under this FOI.

I look forward to helpful co-operation, advice and assistance. If there is any clarification or correction needed please don't hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Gary Symonds

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

Yours faithfully,

Gary

Dear OAT - Data Protection Officer,

Thank you for the response to my Freedom of Information Request. The response was received on the 9th February 2022.

I am dissatisfied with the responses I have received from the Ormiston Academies Trust and intend to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding the handling of my FOI.

I have marked the status of my request as "partially successful" as I have received some of the information requested. I believe this may close the request to any further responses/replies. In view that I am aware the ICO does have a backlog of cases to deal with it could be several months before any complaint is handled hence I have provided a link in annotations to the status of my request so I can update it accordingly:

https://myarchived.link/FOI-Complaint-to...

As a matter of ancillary information - in one of the OAT attachments to their response the OAT state:

"An FOI complaint was received due to a student receiving an injury during PE,
prompting a PE audit to be carried out.
A RIDDOR reportable accident has been reported to HSE and preventative
measures put in place at the academy"

I can confirm that during 2018 a child I represented was subject to two incidences on OAT premises that resulted in hospitalisation of the child and the OAT refused to treat the matters as RIDDOR reportable incidences.

Contact was made with the H&S Executive and their response confirming this is at this link:

https://myarchived.link/HSE-Response-18-...

Yours sincerely,

Gary

Dear OAT - Data Protection Officer,

Thank you for your response of the 16th November 2022 where, as a result of ICO intervention, the Trust has provided additional information in response to my FOI of the 9th February 2021. Due to my ongoing concerns about the Trust's handling of my request I have referred this matter back to the ICO, (ICO Case Number IC-162392-Y3G4).

For clarity a brief recap of the history of my FOIR is as follows:
09-11-21 - FOIR submitted requesting H&S reports for period 2017 to 2021.
09-12-21 - Response that "Data not held by the Trust".
09-02-22 - Response containing two documents relating to 2019 received as a result of RFIR.
16-11-22 - As a result of ICO intervention a further response containing 22 additional files covering the period 2017 to 2021 provided by the Trust.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Symonds

Dear Ormiston Academies Trust,

Apologies, in my reply today (18-11-22 07:08) I gave a brief recap of the history of my FOIR.

I incorrectly referred to my "FOI of the 9th February 2021", however just to rectify - the first FOIR was submitted on the 9th December 2021 and not the 9th February 2021.

Yours faithfully,

Gary Symonds

Dear OAT - Data Protection Officer,

Thank you for your latest response to my FOIR first made on the 9th November 2021.

Your latest response states that the ICO have contacted the Ormiston Academies Trust (the Trust) advising as follows:

"the ICO have notified us that we failed to provide an original copy of an
improvement report from 2017."

You then provide a copy of an improvement report from 2017 as a response to me.

For a brief recap of my request as follows:

09-11-21 - FOIR submitted requesting H&S reports for period 2017 to 2021.
09-12-21 - Response that "Data not held by the Trust".
09-12-21 - Response that my FOIR imposes a "grossly oppressive burden on the OAT [the Trust]".
09-02-22 - Response containing two documents relating to 2019 received as a result of RFIR.
16-11-22 - As a result of ICO intervention a further response containing 22 additional files covering the period 2017 to 2021 provided by the Trust.
24-01-23 - As a result of further ICO intervention a further response containing one document covering a period 2017 provided by the Trust.

Firstly I would like to point out that paragraphs within the Trust's Articles of Association, that is an agreement signed by the Trust and the Secretary of State, declares as follows:

“124. Subject to Article 125, the Trustees shall ensure that a copy of:
a. the agenda for every meeting of the Trustees;
b. the draft minutes of every such meeting, if they have been
approved by the person acting as chairman of that meeting;
c. the signed minutes of every such meeting; and
d. any report, document or other paper considered at any such
meeting, are, as soon as is reasonably practicable, made available at every
Academy to persons wishing to inspect them"

A copy of the Trust's Articles of Association can be viewed on the Trust's website at the following URL:

https://www.ormistonacademiestrust.co.uk...

Therefore if my FOIR for reports or documents considered at such meetings is considered to be a "grossly oppressive burden" on the Trust then that is a matter for the Trust to complain to the Secretary of State for imposing that condition as a contractual obligation on the Trust, and I believe not a valid complaint to publicly state to myself for exercising my constitutional right to make such an FOIR.

I'm also concerned that the latest response does not correlate to concerns I had raised to the ICO on the following dates:

15th February 2022 - first complaint to ICO raised.
30th March 2022 - Confirmation from ICO that case reference IC-162392-Y3G4 allocated to my complaint.
24th October 2022 - Confirmation that ICO Case number IC-162392-Y3G4 allocated to investigation.
16th November 2022 - The Trust provided further responses as a result of ICO intervention.
17th November 2022 - Concerns raised to ICO that a full response is still not received from the Trust.
21st November 2022 - Confirmation from the ICO that the investigation (IC-162392-Y3G4) will continue.
13th December 2022 - Request form the ICO regarding the provision of evidence that documents are mentioned in the Trusts Board minutes.
13th and 15th December 2022 - evidence and concerns regarding some supplied documents sent to the ICO.

As can be seen from the above, there has been some intervention by the ICO on this matter. I have previously been advised by the ICO that they have limited resources and I consider the actions of the Trust to force me to repeatedly request the intervention of the ICO imposes a grossly oppressive burden on the ICO's limited resources.

Therefore I would like to ask the Trust if the latest ICO intervention was only limited to the statement "the ICO have notified us that we failed to provide an original copy of an improvement report from 2017.". This is because that statement does not correlate to the further concerns I raised to the ICO on the 13th and 15th December 2022 regarding other outstanding documents as well as other matters.

Should you require the detail of my correspondence to the ICO please don't hesitate to ask.

I am now referring this matter back to the ICO with my ongoing concerns. In addition I believe it is now correct for me to bring this matter to the Department for Education at the same time. This is because following a complaint I had made to the DfE in 2021 concerning information rights concerns I understand the Trust provided a declaration to the DfE that such concerns would be addressed, however clearly over 14 months after my original request on this matter the actions of the Trust merit a further complaint to the DfE as well as Govt Ministers and MPs interested in the regulation of Academy Trusts.

Prior to me contacting the ICO could the Trust, as a matter of courtesy, now clearly state if they believe the latest response fully complies with my original FOIR made on the 9th November 2021 and the Trust now considers that matter closed or may I anticipate further responses? This is important to bring to the attention of the ICO as I believe the considerable efforts to bring this matter to a conclusion merits a request to the ICO for a Section 50 investigation, something I should also report to the DfE. Currently I have marked my FOIR as information remains "outstanding" on this request.

Yours Sincerely

Gary Symonds

Yours sincerely,

Gary

Dear OAT - Data Protection Officer,

Thank you for your response, I will await the ICO decision before bringing this matter to the attention of the Department for Education,

Yours sincerely,

Gary Symonds

Dear OAT - Data Protection Officer,

Further to correspondence on this FOIR, the ICO have reached a decision under Case Reference IC-162392-Y3G4. This is published on the ICO web site.

In view of the decision I have accepted one part as follows:

" Regarding the complainant’s concern that the Trust should hold
information if following protocol, this would not be something for the
Commissioner to consider.
Any concerns with the Trust’s performance should be raised with the
Trust directly or to the relevant ombudsman or regulator."

And believe it is appropriate to follow that advice and will contact the Department for Education as advised.

This is because the Trust's Articles of Association, published on the Trust's website do confirm as follows:

"..the Trustees shall ensure that a copy of:
a. the agenda for every meeting of the Trustees;
b. the draft minutes of every such meeting, if they have been
approved by the person acting as chairman of that meeting;"

The Companies Act 2006 requires such information to be retained for ten years from the date of the meeting.

The Trust has quoted to the ICO:

"The Trust also advised that any emails which are over 6 months old, are
also automatically deleted and as such are no longer held by the Trust. "

I have viewed the Trust's website for policies and found that there is a 'Records Retention Policy" which does confirm that Board Meeting Minutes should be retained for 10 years in accordance with the 2006 Act. The Trust's Articles of Association go further than that and stipulates as well as the minutes all documents should be retained as follows:

"..any report, document or other paper considered at any such meeting"

Therefore there is a contradiction in what the Trust has advised the ICO and what the Trust's Articles of Association stipulate the Trust must do.

I am aware from the 'Records Retention Policy' that there is a corresponding 'Email Retention Policy' and I have made an FOIR for that via WDTK on the 9th February 2023.

Currently the Trust (not via WDTK but via contact to my private email address) has refused the request.

I believe the above merits contact to the DfE.

On a second point I have raised an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) due to my concerns on the presentation of a document supplied, in February 2022.

I had previously made a supplementary FOIR via WDTK on the matter that I had concerns that some of the information requested was not visible (i.e contained in red-highlighted cells and not redacted but also not visible either).

The Trust's response at the time was that "there is no data under the red". I had recently submitted a concern on that FOIR response to see if the Trust wished to provide an alternative response, however I have now closed that FOIR due to a lack of response from the Trust.

However, as I have explained I had been passed information about that document that gives me cause to believe that there is data under the red.

I have attached a link to a document that provides the steps required to identify that data. It's a simplified version of a wider report with the technical details removed so anyone, regardless of technical knowledge, can verify the findings on the document itself:

https://myarchived.link/GS789/Document-I...

In view of the above, and pending ICO and DfE intervention, I believe it is correct to leave this FOIR as remaining open and only partially resolved.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Symonds