ICO withdrawing services from member/s of the public - a Martin McGartland request

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Information Commissioner’s Office should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

18 January 2018

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Could the ICO please provide me with full details relating to the ICO procedure/s, including those which are followed, - from start to finish, when dealing with cases of withdrawing services from member/s of the public.

I would also like details of;

1. How many times during the previous 3 years have the ICO withdrawn services from member/s of public?

I would like part 1 of this request broken down, to;

- January 2015 to January 2016
- January 2016 to January 2017
- January 2017 to January 2018 (or up until date of this request)

2. This part relates to part 1 of the request. Have there been any challenges, including legal, relating to withdrawn of services by members of the public?

If there has, please supply further details for this part of the request;

a, How many?
b, Grounds of each challenge?
c, Outcome of each challenge, E.g. decision stayed same, reversed or rescinded etc?

3. Who within the ICO is responsible for dealing with withdrawn of services cases. Name/s please?

4. What type of information and evidence does the ICO, the decision maker/s, who deal with withdrawn of services cases, consider when dealing with such cases?

5. What safeguards do the ICO have in place to ensure that decisions withdrawn services are not decided on false and or misleading information?

Please supply further details for this part of the request;

a, If, after decision to withdraw services had already been made, it was proven that the decision was based on false and or misleading information .... Would the decision be rescinded. If not, why not?

6. How many ICO staff are involved in the decision making process when dealing with cases to withdraw services. And how does that process work, E.g. decision maker makes his/her decision.... passed to line manager etc?

7. Regards part 6 of this request. What internal records, forms, documents are required to be completed by all decision makers who are involved in withdraw services cases?

Please supply further details for this part of the request;

a, Please supply details of all/any forms, documents that are required to be completed by all staff, decision makers;

b. Please give details of how the reasons for each decision and the rationale of each staff member, decision maker is recorded when services are withdrawn, Also, what type/name of form, document is that information recorded?

8. Please supply me with a copy of ICO standard letter that is sent to member/s of the public informing them that services have been withdrawn.

9. Once the ICO make decision to withdraw services from member/s of the public, do the ICO give details of;

a, The period services are withdrawn, i.e. 3, 6 months ... 1 year etc? If they do not, please explain how the person whom services have been withdrawn can expect to be aware of when, what date ICO services will once again be available to them?

b. Please explain what right of appeal is available to any person who has had services withdrawn. Also, who can they appeal to, who deals with such appeals?

Please note, I am not requesting any personal information regards this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

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

 

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

14 February 2018

 

Case Reference Number IRQ0721340

 

Dear Mr McGartland

Information request

I write in response to your email of 18 January 2018 in which you
submitted a request for information to the Information Commissioner’s
Office (ICO). Your request has been dealt with in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
 
Your request
 
“Could the ICO please provide me with full details relating to the ICO
procedure/s, including those which are followed, - from start to finish,
when dealing with cases of withdrawing services from member/s of the
public.
I would also like details of;

1. How many times during the previous 3 years have the ICO withdrawn
services from member/s of public? I would like part 1 of this request
broken down, to; - January 2015 to January 2016 - January 2016 to January
2017 - January 2017 to January 2018 (or up until date of this request)

2. This part relates to part 1 of the request. Have there been any
challenges, including legal, relating to withdrawn of services by members
of the public? If there has, please supply further details for this part
of the request; a, How many? b, Grounds of each challenge? c, Outcome of
each challenge, E.g. decision stayed same, reversed or rescinded etc?

3. Who within the ICO is responsible for dealing with withdrawn of
services cases. Name/s please?

4. What type of information and evidence does the ICO, the decision
maker/s, who deal with withdrawn of services cases, consider when dealing
with such cases?

5. What safeguards do the ICO have in place to ensure that decisions
withdrawn services are not decided on false and or misleading information?
Please supply further details for this part of the request; a, If, after
decision to withdraw services had already been made, it was proven that
the decision was based on false and or misleading information .... Would
the decision be rescinded. If not, why not?

6. How many ICO staff are involved in the decision making process when
dealing with cases to withdraw services. And how does that process work,
E.g. decision maker makes his/her decision.... passed to line manager etc?

7. Regards part 6 of this request. What internal records, forms, documents
are required to be completed by all decision makers who are involved in
withdraw services cases? Please supply further details for this part of
the request; a, Please supply details of all/any forms, documents that are
required to be completed by all staff, decision makers; b. Please give
details of how the reasons for each decision and the rationale of each
staff member, decision maker is recorded when services are withdrawn,
Also, what type/name of form, document is that information recorded?

8. Please supply me with a copy of ICO standard letter that is sent to
member/s of the public informing them that services have been withdrawn.

9. Once the ICO make decision to withdraw services from member/s of the
public, do the ICO give details of; a, The period services are withdrawn,
i.e. 3, 6 months ... 1 year etc? If they do not, please explain how the
person whom services have been withdrawn can expect to be aware of when,
what date ICO services will once again be available to them? b. Please
explain what right of appeal is available to any person who has had
services withdrawn.

Also, who can they appeal to, who deals with such appeals? Please note, I
am not requesting any personal information regards this request.”

Our response

In this instance, we are refusing your request under section 14(1) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
 
This refusal has been made having carefully considered the ICO’s published
guidance on the application of section 14 FOIA:
 
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

We do have a full response explaining our reasons – however, we don’t
think it would be appropriate for us to communicate this to you via the
WDTK website. Please contact the Information Access Team at the following
address: [2][email address] confirming a personal email or
postal address and we will provide a copy to you.

Finally, we should inform you that as we are relying on section 14 (1), we
will not, in reliance on section 17 (6), provide any further
acknowledgements or refusal notices in response to any further requests.

Review Procedure

If you are not satisfied that your request for information has been dealt
with correctly, please write to the Information Access Team at the address
below, reply directly to this email (with the reference number contained
within the square brackets left intact), or email us at
[3][ICO request email], quoting the reference number
IRQ0721340.

Your request for a 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.

Ultimately if you are not satisfied that your request for information 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
relevant legislation.  To make such an application, please write to our
Customer Contact Team at the address below, or visit the ‘Report a
Concern’ section of our website.
 
A copy of our review procedure is available here
[4]https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...
 
Yours sincerely

Ian Goddard
Lead Information Access Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF
T. 01625 545823  F. 01625 524510  [5]ico.org.uk  [6]twitter.com/iconews
Please consider the environment before printing this email

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[ICO request email]
4. https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...
5. http://ico.org.uk/
6. https://twitter.com/iconews

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

14 March 2018

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Sure you already have my email address. Now STOP playing these silly games that you often play when it concerns me, my cases. By the way ... the real (only) reason when ICO don't want to put their reply out in public is because they relied on false, misleading and damaging information in making their Flawed, unlawful decision to withdraw services from me. It is noted that they did so when I began requesting ICO internal information and documents (including but not limited to, staff emails, notes, minutes, decisions etc and other records).

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

14 March 2018

To Whom It My Concern:

This is a copy of ICO (Ian Goddard's) reply... a reply that should have, but was not, sent to this (WDTK page) where the FOI request was made. As can be seen from the text of the ICO email; (their reply) there is no reason whatsoever (other than embarrassment to ICO) that the reply could not have been sent to this WDTK page.

For the record, as with previous ICO correspondence, the following email includes false and misleading content that the ICO cooked up, invented regarding me, my requests. I am clear that this was done for no other reason than to prevent me from making FOI requests such as this.

The ICO also relied on the same false, misleading information (lies about me) to reach their flawed and unlawful decision to withdraw services from me.

I have copied the text from the ICO email of today and pasted it below;

The email sent to me today (14 March 2018) by the ICO:

Case Reference Number IRQ0721340

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your email of 14 March requesting the full version of our response to your information request of 18 January 2018 that was made through the whatdotheyknow.com (WDTK) website. Please find this below.

Information request

I write in response to your email of 18 January 2018 in which you submitted a request for information to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Your request has been dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Your request

“Could the ICO please provide me with full details relating to the ICO procedure/s, including those which are followed, - from start to finish, when dealing with cases of withdrawing services from member/s of the public.

I would also like details of;

1. How many times during the previous 3 years have the ICO withdrawn services from member/s of public? I would like part 1 of this request broken down, to; - January 2015 to January 2016 - January 2016 to January 2017 - January 2017 to January 2018 (or up until date of this request)

2. This part relates to part 1 of the request. Have there been any challenges, including legal, relating to withdrawn of services by members of the public? If there has, please supply further details for this part of the request; a, How many? b, Grounds of each challenge? c, Outcome of each challenge, E.g. decision stayed same, reversed or rescinded etc?

3. Who within the ICO is responsible for dealing with withdrawn of services cases. Name/s please?

4. What type of information and evidence does the ICO, the decision maker/s, who deal with withdrawn of services cases, consider when dealing with such cases?

5. What safeguards do the ICO have in place to ensure that decisions withdrawn services are not decided on false and or misleading information? Please supply further details for this part of the request; a, If, after decision to withdraw services had already been made, it was proven that the decision was based on false and or misleading information .... Would the decision be rescinded. If not, why not?

6. How many ICO staff are involved in the decision making process when dealing with cases to withdraw services. And how does that process work, E.g. decision maker makes his/her decision.... passed to line manager etc?

7. Regards part 6 of this request. What internal records, forms, documents are required to be completed by all decision makers who are involved in withdraw services cases? Please supply further details for this part of the request; a, Please supply details of all/any forms, documents that are required to be completed by all staff, decision makers; b. Please give details of how the reasons for each decision and the rationale of each staff member, decision maker is recorded when services are withdrawn, Also, what type/name of form, document is that information recorded?

8. Please supply me with a copy of ICO standard letter that is sent to member/s of the public informing them that services have been withdrawn.

9. Once the ICO make decision to withdraw services from member/s of the public, do the ICO give details of; a, The period services are withdrawn, i.e. 3, 6 months ... 1 year etc? If they do not, please explain how the person whom services have been withdrawn can expect to be aware of when, what date ICO services will once again be available to them? b. Please explain what right of appeal is available to any person who has had services withdrawn.

Also, who can they appeal to, who deals with such appeals? Please note, I am not requesting any personal information regards this request.”

Our response

In this instance we have decided to refuse your request under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

This refusal has been made having carefully considered the ICO’s published guidance on the application of section 14 FOIA:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

Section 14 (1) FOIA states that:

‘14.—(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply
with a request for information if the request is vexatious.’

The ICO’s guidance explains that when deciding on whether or not a request is vexatious, the key question to be asked is, ‘…whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress’.

The guidance also states that ‘the context and history in which a request is made will often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious, and the public authority will need to consider the wider circumstances surrounding the request before making a decision as to whether section 14(1) applies.

In practice this means taking into account factors such as:

Other requests made by the requester to that public authority (whether complied with or refused).
The number and subject matter of those requests.
Any other previous dealings between the authority and the requester.'
There can be a number of indicators which point to a request being vexatious and as you can see a public authority is able to take into account its previous dealings with a requester.

We have taken into account the context and history of your dealings with us. In addition to the large amount of correspondence exchanged with you, since the start of the 2016/17 financial year we have, so far, completed 32 information requests and subject access requests from you, many of which were extensive in scope; as well as six FOI complaints, four data protection complaints and 4 further review requests. As explained in Mr Laing’s letter to you of 2 October 2017, it appears that every contact made with you results in further information requests or new complaints and this has been happening on and off for the last 10 years.

There does not appear to be any prospect of an end to this pattern of correspondence and the resources needed to be able to deal with your ongoing correspondence, complaints and requests is disproportionate and it causes an unjustified level of disruption to the ICO, to the detriment of other people and other matters that require our attention.

It is clear that you are dissatisfied with the recent decision, as conveyed in the aforementioned letter from Mr Laing, that we will not register complaints related to certain matters or repeat complaints from you. We recognise that you have strong views about the way we operate and that you consider that the information you have requested is necessary for you to assess the way we have handled your complaints and why and how the above decision was made.

However, our view, based on the evidence of our contact with you to date, is that provision of this information is extremely unlikely to resolve anything to your satisfaction and that responding to your requests generates more correspondence. This does not result in any resolution and usually ends up in a cycle of futile correspondence. We also believe that these requests serve no serious purpose in terms of their wider public interest and are an attempt to re-open your grievances and matters we consider to be closed. The FOIA is not the appropriate route to attempt to reopen your concerns. As was explained to you in Mr Laing’s letter (and reiterated to you in Helen Ward’s letters of 22 December 2017 and 19 January 2018), the appropriate remedy if you remain dissatisfied with how we have dealt with you, or any of your closed cases, is to complain to the PHSO (or the Tribunal in respect of any decision notices issued).

Finally, we should inform you that as we are relying on section 14 (1), we will not, in reliance on section 17 (6), provide any further acknowledgements or refusal notices in response to any further requests on these matters.

This concludes our response to your request.

Review Procedure

If you are not satisfied that your request for information has been dealt with correctly, please write to the Information Access Team at the address below, reply directly to this email (with the reference number contained within the square brackets left intact), or email us at [email address], quoting the reference number IRQ0721340.

Your request for a 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.

Ultimately if you are not satisfied that your request for information 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 relevant legislation. To make such an application, please write to our Customer Contact Team at the address below, or visit the ‘Report a Concern’ section of our website.

A copy of our review procedure is available here
https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...

Yours sincerely

Ian Goddard
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF
T. 0330 4246823 F. 01625 524510 ico.org.uk twitter.com/iconews
Please consider the environment before printing this email

ENDS

Dear ICO, I am requesting a review of this request. I would like the review to be dealt with via the What do they know website. This is a FOI request and NOT a SAR.

Martin McGartland

Information Commissioner’s Office

15 March 2018

 

Case Reference Number RCC0732515

 

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your recent request for an internal review of our response
to your information request, dealt with under the case reference
IRQ0721340.
 
You can expect us to respond in full by 16 April 2018. This is 20 working
days from the date we received your request for internal review. If, for
any reason, we can’t respond by this date, we will let you know and tell
you when you can expect a response.
 
If you have any questions please contact me using the new RCC case
reference number above or by replying to this email and leaving the
subject field unchanged.
 
Yours sincerely

Ian Goddard
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF
T. 0330 4246823  F. 01625 524510  [1]ico.org.uk  [2]twitter.com/iconews
Please consider the environment before printing this email

References

Visible links
1. http://ico.org.uk/
2. https://twitter.com/iconews

Information Commissioner’s Office

16 April 2018
 
Case Reference Number RCC0732515

Dear Mr McGartland,
 
Thank you for your correspondence of 14 March 2018 in which you confirmed
that you would like us to review our handling of your request dealt with
by Mr Goddard under reference number IRQ0721340. I have been asked to
review the way in which we handled your request for information.
 
Background

On 18 January 2018 you asked for the following information:
 
“Could the ICO please provide me with full details relating to the ICO
procedure/s, including those which are followed, - from start to finish,
when dealing with cases of withdrawing services from member/s of the
public.
I would also like details of;

1. How many times during the previous 3 years have the ICO withdrawn
services from member/s of public? I would like part 1 of this request
broken down, to; - January 2015 to January 2016 - January 2016 to January
2017 - January 2017 to January 2018 (or up until date of this request)

2. This part relates to part 1 of the request. Have there been any
challenges, including legal, relating to withdrawn of services by members
of the public? If there has, please supply further details for this part
of the request; a, How many? b, Grounds of each challenge? c, Outcome of
each challenge, E.g. decision stayed same, reversed or rescinded etc?

3. Who within the ICO is responsible for dealing with withdrawn of
services cases. Name/s please?

4. What type of information and evidence does the ICO, the decision
maker/s, who deal with withdrawn of services cases, consider when dealing
with such cases?

5. What safeguards do the ICO have in place to ensure that decisions
withdrawn services are not decided on false and or misleading information?
Please supply further details for this part of the request; a, If, after
decision to withdraw services had already been made, it was proven that
the decision was based on false and or misleading information .... Would
the decision be rescinded. If not, why not?

6. How many ICO staff are involved in the decision making process when
dealing with cases to withdraw services. And how does that process work,
E.g. decision maker makes his/her decision.... passed to line manager etc?

7. Regards part 6 of this request. What internal records, forms, documents
are required to be completed by all decision makers who are involved in
withdraw services cases? Please supply further details for this part of
the request; a, Please supply details of all/any forms, documents that are
required to be completed by all staff, decision makers; b. Please give
details of how the reasons for each decision and the rationale of each
staff member, decision maker is recorded when services are withdrawn,
Also, what type/name of form, document is that information recorded?

8. Please supply me with a copy of ICO standard letter that is sent to
member/s of the public informing them that services have been withdrawn.

9. Once the ICO make decision to withdraw services from member/s of the
public, do the ICO give details of; a, The period services are withdrawn,
i.e. 3, 6 months ... 1 year etc? If they do not, please explain how the
person whom services have been withdrawn can expect to be aware of when,
what date ICO services will once again be available to them? b. Please
explain what right of appeal is available to any person who has had
services withdrawn.

Also, who can they appeal to, who deals with such appeals? Please note, I
am not requesting any personal information regards this request.”

In this instance, we refused your request under Section 14(1) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Review
   
Section 14(1) FOIA provides that:

‘Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.’

In applying Section 14 (1), Mr Goddard has taken into account the ICO’s
guidance on ‘Dealing with vexatious requests’ which explains that when
deciding on whether or not a request is vexatious, the key question is,
‘…whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified
level of disruption, irritation or distress’.  The guidance also states
that ‘the context and history in which a request is made will often be a
major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious’.  I am
satisfied that in applying Section 14(1), Mr Goddard has taken into
account the context and history of your dealings with the ICO and that he
has established that your request is likely to cause a disproportionate
level of disruption to the ICO.  I therefore agree with Mr Goddard’s
decision to refuse your request under Section 14(1) of FOIA.  
 
Next steps

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review you can make a
formal complaint with the ICO in its capacity as the regulator of the
Freedom of Information Act. Please follow the link below to submit report
your complaint:

[1]https://ico.org.uk/concerns/

Yours sincerely

Anulka Clarke
Head of Assurance.
 

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/concerns/

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

24 April 2018

Case Reference Number RCC0732515 -

Dear Anulka Clarke (Head of Assurance),

As you will be very well aware this request was made on the What Do They Know page (as above) and you, ICO have once again, as ICO did last time last time, emailed your flawed internal review decision to my personal email account.

This is clearly being done by you/ ICO (your bosses) to attempt to conceal details about this case and also, I am clear, for reasons of embarrassment to yourself, your bosses and ICO.

I trust that you, ICO will now add, publish your internal review reply on this page without delay (as you, ICO should have done). This message has also been emailed to ICO casework (although I am aware that Jon Manners and Co have been catching and directing all/any emails I send to ICO without my consent. I have also made complaint/s but ICO refuse to investigate ). I have copied it to Jon Manners too.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

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

 

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

Martin McGartland left an annotation ()

Not again??? The ICO are once again emailing replies (in this case their Flawed internal review decision - see reply below) to my personal email account. This is despite the request having been made on the What Do They Know (WDTK) page (as above). I have today written to them and asked that they publish their reply on the WDTK page.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On April 16, 2018 3:40 PM, <casework@ico.org.uk> wrote:

16 April 2018
 
Case Reference Number RCC0732515

Dear Mr McGartland,
 
Thank you for your correspondence of 14 March 2018 in which you confirmed that you would like us to review our handling of your request dealt with by Mr Goddard under reference number IRQ0721340. I have been asked to review the way in which we handled your request for information.
 
Background

On 18 January 2018 you asked for the following information:
 
“Could the ICO please provide me with full details relating to the ICO procedure/s, including those which are followed, - from start to finish, when dealing with cases of withdrawing services from member/s of the public.
I would also like details of;

1. How many times during the previous 3 years have the ICO withdrawn services from member/s of public? I would like part 1 of this request broken down, to; - January 2015 to January 2016 - January 2016 to January 2017 - January 2017 to January 2018 (or up until date of this request)

2. This part relates to part 1 of the request. Have there been any challenges, including legal, relating to withdrawn of services by members of the public? If there has, please supply further details for this part of the request; a, How many? b, Grounds of each challenge? c, Outcome of each challenge, E.g. decision stayed same, reversed or rescinded etc?

3. Who within the ICO is responsible for dealing with withdrawn of services cases. Name/s please?

4. What type of information and evidence does the ICO, the decision maker/s, who deal with withdrawn of services cases, consider when dealing with such cases?

5. What safeguards do the ICO have in place to ensure that decisions withdrawn services are not decided on false and or misleading information? Please supply further details for this part of the request; a, If, after decision to withdraw services had already been made, it was proven that the decision was based on false and or misleading information .... Would the decision be rescinded. If not, why not?

6. How many ICO staff are involved in the decision making process when dealing with cases to withdraw services. And how does that process work, E.g. decision maker makes his/her decision.... passed to line manager etc?

7. Regards part 6 of this request. What internal records, forms, documents are required to be completed by all decision makers who are involved in withdraw services cases? Please supply further details for this part of the request; a, Please supply details of all/any forms, documents that are required to be completed by all staff, decision makers; b. Please give details of how the reasons for each decision and the rationale of each staff member, decision maker is recorded when services are withdrawn, Also, what type/name of form, document is that information recorded?

8. Please supply me with a copy of ICO standard letter that is sent to member/s of the public informing them that services have been withdrawn.

9. Once the ICO make decision to withdraw services from member/s of the public, do the ICO give details of; a, The period services are withdrawn, i.e. 3, 6 months ... 1 year etc? If they do not, please explain how the person whom services have been withdrawn can expect to be aware of when, what date ICO services will once again be available to them? b. Please explain what right of appeal is available to any person who has had services withdrawn.

Also, who can they appeal to, who deals with such appeals? Please note, I am not requesting any personal information regards this request.”

In this instance, we refused your request under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

Review
   
Section 14(1) FOIA provides that:

‘Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.’

In applying Section 14 (1), Mr Goddard has taken into account the ICO’s guidance on ‘Dealing with vexatious requests’ which explains that when deciding on whether or not a request is vexatious, the key question is, ‘…whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress’.  The guidance also states that ‘the context and history in which a request is made will often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious’.  I am satisfied that in applying Section 14(1), Mr Goddard has taken into account the context and history of your dealings with the ICO and that he has established that your request is likely to cause a disproportionate level of disruption to the ICO.  I therefore agree with Mr Goddard’s decision to refuse your request under Section 14(1) of FOIA.  
 
Next steps

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review you can make a formal complaint with the ICO in its capacity as the regulator of the Freedom of Information Act. Please follow the link below to submit report your complaint:

https://ico.org.uk/concerns/

Yours sincerely

Anulka Clarke
Head of Assurance.

Martin McGartland left an annotation ()

25 Years of Serious CORRUPTION by Northumbria Police - from the very Top down - in the Martin McGartland cases ....
Read more:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/dufferpad/v...

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/search?content_ty...

Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=h...

.............................................

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org