How the ICO selects authorities for monitoring - Part II

The request was successful.

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

This is in relation to how you select Public Bodies (PB's) for timeliness monitoring exercises. (https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak... )

In a previous request, FOI Case Reference Number IRQ0662946 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h... ) you dealt with PB's monitored based on the criterion/heuristic where you've "received in the region of 4 to 8 or more complaints citing delays within a specific authority within a six month period".

The document "How the Information Commissioner’s Office selects authorities for monitoring" (https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak... ) mentions another 'rule of thumb' that you use when selecting PB's for monitoring:

"(for those authorities which publish data on timeliness) – it appears that less than 85% of requests are receiving a response within the appropriate timescales."

1) Please provide the names of the PB's you have monitored based on this criterion/heuristic.

2) The monitoring period of the PB's in (1).

3) I am aware from FOI Case Reference Number IRQ0662946 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h... ) that your latest analysis was conducted in October 2016.

i) Please provide the month/year of all the analysis conducted, dating back to the first instance for which you hold a record.

ii) what is the month/year of the analysis conducted immediately prior to October 2016.

iii) for that particular analysis in part (ii), please provide the names of the PB's that have a timeliness response rate of less than 85%. [1]

iv) For the analysis immediately prior to October 2016, using the responses to 3 (iii) and (1), please provide the PB's that HAVE NOT undergone a monitoring exercise, even though their response rate was below 85%.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Navartne

[1] - less than 85% of requests were responded to within the 'appropriate timescales'. Please specify the timescales. e.g. within 20 workings days.

AccessICOinformation, Information Commissioner's Office

Thank you for contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office. We confirm
that we have received your correspondence.

 

If you have made a request for information held by the ICO we will contact
you as soon as possible if we need any further information to enable us to
answer your request. If we don't need any further information we will
respond to you within our published, and statutory, service levels. For
more information please visit [1]http://ico.org.uk/about_us/how_we_comply

 

If you have raised a new information rights concern - we aim to send you
an initial response and case reference number within 30 days.

 

If you are concerned about the way an organisation is handling your
personal information, we will not usually look into it unless you have
raised it with the organisation first. For more information please see our
webpage ‘raising a concern with an organisation’ (go to our homepage and
follow the link ‘for the public’). You can also call the number below.

 

If you have requested advice - we aim to respond within 14 days.

 

If your correspondence relates to an existing case - we will add it to
your case and consider it on allocation to a case officer.

 

Copied correspondence - we do not respond to correspondence that has been
copied to us.

 

For more information about our services, please see our webpage ‘Service
standards and what to expect' (go to our homepage and follow the links for
‘Report a concern’ and ‘Service standards and what to expect'). You can
also call the number below.

 

If there is anything you would like to discuss with us, please call our
helpline on 0303 123 1113.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office

 

Our newsletter

Details of how to sign up for our monthly e-newsletter can be found at
[2]http://www.ico.org.uk/tools_and_resource...

 

Twitter

Find us on Twitter at [3]http://www.twitter.com/ICOnews

 

The ICO's mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest.
To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to
our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment),
please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies without
passing to any third parties.

If you'd like us to communicate with you in a particular way please do let
us know, or for more information about things to consider when
communicating with us by email, visit ico.org.uk/email

References

Visible links
1. http://ico.org.uk/about_us/how_we_comply
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/tools_and_resource...
3. http://www.twitter.com/ICOnews

Information Commissioner's Office

27 February 2017

 

Case Reference Number IRQ0665444

 

Dear Mr Navartne,

I write in response to your email of 30 January 2017 in which you
submitted an information request to the ICO. Your request has been dealt
with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I have set out each
aspect of your request below followed by our response.
 
I should first explain that we have considered the aggregate cost of us
responding to this request and your previous request on this subject,
received by us on 12 January 2017 and dealt with under our case reference
IRQ0662946. We estimate that the cost of us complying with these two
requests has exceeded the cost limit at section 12 of the FOIA. However on
this occasion we have decided not to refuse this request.
 
You may be aware that section 12 of the FOIA allows a public authority to
refuse to comply with a request where it estimates that the cost of
complying with the request will exceed the ‘appropriate limit’. The
‘appropriate limit’ for the ICO, as determined in the Freedom of
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations
2004 is £450. We have determined that £450 would equate to 18 hours work.
Section 12 allows us to aggregate requests where we have received two or
more requests for the same or similar information.
   
Responding to your requests has required manual searching of our records
and this has taken a significant amount of time. In processing this
request we have had to undertake all of the manual searches we previously
carried out to respond to your earlier request (IRQ066294) again. Whilst
we have not refused your request on cost grounds on this occasion we
should be clear that we may choose to aggregate the cost of any future
requests you may make to us where this is appropriate.
 
Your request
 
“This is in relation to how you select Public Bodies (PB's) for timeliness
monitoring exercises.
(https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...)

In a previous request, FOI Case Reference Number IRQ0662946
(https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...
) you dealt with PB's monitored based on the criterion/heuristic where
you've "received in the region of 4 to 8 or more complaints citing delays
within a specific authority within a six month period".

The document "How the Information Commissioner’s Office selects
authorities for monitoring"
(https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
) mentions another 'rule of thumb' that you use when selecting PB's for
monitoring:

"(for those authorities which publish data on timeliness)” it appears that
less than 85% of requests are receiving a response within the appropriate
timescales."

1) Please provide the names of the PB's you have monitored based on this
criterion/heuristic.

2) The monitoring period of the PB's in (1).”
 
Our response
 
We hold recorded information indicating this criterion was engaged for the
public authorities listed below monitored during the periods shown. 
 
1 January to 31 March 2014

Cabinet Office
Crown Prosecution Service

1 May - 31 July 2014

BBC
Essex Police

1 February - 30 April 2015

Salford City Council
 
1 September to 30 November 2015

Ministry of Justice

Your request

“3) I am aware from FOI Case Reference Number IRQ0662946
(https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...)
that your latest analysis was conducted in October 2016.

i) Please provide the month/year of all the analysis conducted, dating
back to the first instance for which you hold a record.”
 
Our response
 
We hold analysis reports for the following time periods;
 
Six months up to 31 March 2013
Six months up to 30 June 2013
Six months up to 30 September 2013
Six months up to 31 December 2013
Six months up to 31 March 2014
Six months up to 30 June 2014
Six months up to 30 September 2014
Six months up to 31 December 2014
Six months up to 31 March 2015
Six months up to 30 June 2015
Six months up to 30 September 2015
Six months up to 31 December 2015
Six months up to 31 March 2016
Six months up to 30 June 2016
Six months up to 30 September 2016
Six months up to 31 December 2016
 
Your request

“ii)what is the month/year of the analysis conducted immediately prior to
October 2016.”
 
Our response
 
The analysis report immediately prior to October 2016 covered the six
month period up to 30 June 2016.

“iii) for that particular analysis in part (ii), please provide the names
of the PB's that have a timeliness response rate of less than 85%.”
 
The information featuring in that analysis report about public authorities
that had a timeliness response rate of less than 85% is taken from
published Cabinet Office statistics on this subject covering the period
January to March 2016. You can view this information here:
 
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics...
 
You will see the public authorities with response rates below 85% in that
period were:
 
Scotland Office
National Savings and Investments
Royal Mint
 
It may be of interest if I add that none of these public authorities met
either of the other ‘rules of thumb’ we use described in our document ‘How
the information Commissioner’s Office selects authorities for monitoring’
that you refer to in your request and we have not undertaken formal
monitoring of these public authorities.

“iv) For the analysis immediately prior to October 2016, using the
responses to 3 (iii) and (1), please provide the PB's that HAVE NOT
undergone a monitoring exercise, even though their response rate was below
85%”

As advised above none of the authorities listed above were subject to
formal monitoring. We publish details of those public authorities we have
formally monitored on our website here
[2]https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/mon....
 
This concludes our response to your request. I hope the information
provided is helpful.
 
Next steps / review procedure
 
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 Information Access team
at the address below or e-mail [3][ICO request email].

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 visit
the ‘Concerns’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act
or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.
 
A copy of our review procedure is available here
[4]https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...

Yours sincerely
 
Steven Johnston
Lead Information Access Officer
 

The ICO's mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest.
To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to
our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment),
please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies without
passing to any third parties.

If you'd like us to communicate with you in a particular way please do let
us know, or for more information about things to consider when
communicating with us by email, visit ico.org.uk/email

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics...
2. https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/mon...
3. mailto:[ICO request email]
4. https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...