PHSO 2016 Disclosure Log

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

PHSO 2016 Disclosure Log :

The PHSO internet site states:

'As part of our commitment to being open and transparent, we are publishing our information releases under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) once a quarter.
In our disclosure log you will find information we have provided in response to FOI requests which we feel will be of wider public interest. This includes information that is asked for frequently or information which is not available elsewhere on our website.
The information releases are grouped by business year and the month when the information was released. We will review our disclosure log every six months to make sure we remove any outdated information. We also aim to produce an archive of useful information releases from past business years.
If you cannot find what you are looking for, please visit our 'being open and transparent' page or use our site search in the top right corner.  
If you need any help, please contact the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team at [email address]'

Request:

Could you please provide the 2016 data log as it dies not appear to be on the PHSO's internet site.

NB Search only brings up: 2015 Disclosure Log

:::

Request Title/summary within scope.
I am writing to make an open government request for all the 
information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information 
Act 2000.
Please send me recorded information, which includes information 
held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten 
documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.
If this request is too wide or unclear, and you require a 
clarification, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I 
understand that under the Act, you are required to advise and 
assist requesters.(Section 16 / Regulation 9).
If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify 
all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I 
will also expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve 
the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to 
charge excessive fees.
If any of this information is already in the public domain, please 
can you direct me to it, with page references and URLs if 
necessary.
Please confirm or deny whether the requested information is held ( section (Section 1(1)(a) and consider whether information should be provided under section 1(1)(b), or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of the Act.
If the release of any of this information is prohibited on the 
grounds of breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with 
copies of the confidentiality agreement and remind you that 
information should not be treated as confidential if such an 
agreement has not been signed.
I would like the above information to be provided to me as 
electronic copies, via WDTK. The information should be immediately 
readable - and, as a freedom of Information request, not put in a PDF or any closed form, which some readers may not be able to access.
I understand that you are required to respond to my request within 
the 20 working days after you receive this letter. I would be 
grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received 
this request.

::::::::

Please consider the ICO's Decision on the provision original documents on file, rather than newly written letters of response.
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
This request does not require a letter, drafted by the external affairs department, or any other written input by reputational defence employees, and purporting to be the response to a FOIA request.

:::

Please note:

4. Staff responsibilities
4.1 PHSO has a corporate responsibility to identify and respond to requests for information as efficiently as possible, and within the statutory deadlines. It is the responsibility of all PHSO staff to identify and take appropriate action on information requests as soon as they are received. PHSO staff may also be required to assist the FOI/DP Team in locating information and ensuring the accuracy of the final response.
Page 4 of 8
Policy – PHSO Access to Information Policy v1.0

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'PHSO 2016 Disclosure Log?

Out of time

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

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear J T Oakley

 

Your information request (FDN-273972)

 

You have written to us asking us to process an internal review for a
request made on 31 October 2016 on the basis that it is ‘out of time’.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows public authorities twenty
working days to respond to requests.  If you have not received a response
to your request by 28 November 2016, please request an internal review at
that point. 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

 

From: Jt Oakley [mailto:[FOI #368284 email]]
Sent: 11 November 2016 09:49
To: InformationRights
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - PHSO 2016
Disclosure Log

 

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health
Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'PHSO 2016 Disclosure Log?

Out of time

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

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #368284 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit [7]http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
3. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
4. mailto:[FOI #368284 email]
5. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
6. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
7. http://www.symanteccloud.com/

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you.

And apologies - you are correct.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

FRAUD?

"'As part of our commitment to being open and transparent.."

What an utter farce!

Since 2012, 31 PHSO staff including a rotation of Directors and Deputy Ombudsman have refused to explain what data they were looking at when they failed to uphold my complaint about false profiling being shared about me by my former GP and NHS staff.

I had to take SERCO to court last year to discover that the PHSO, NHS and 27 Government Departments were all complicit in the cover up of the maladministration that led to my being wrongly accused of having 2 children in care in 2009

Members of the PHSO-the-facts pressure group are supposed to be giving oral evidence to PACAC next month - but really - is ANYONE truly listening in Parliament or bothered?!

 #lawcommipo

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Correct Fiona-

Here's the evidence of just how 'independent' PACAC is.

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/asset...

It's a laudatory example of how PACAC Defines the work of the ombudsman vs the complainants evidence to it.

This was after complainants were asked to give evidence in secret at Westminster in December 2013.

Why secret? I think that's obvious. It concerned how Dame Julie Mellor was already running the PHSO..

Then came the NAO investigation into her conduct into employing her old work colleague, which was brought up at that meeting.

Mirrored by her disgraced deputy, who resigned, after he was found to have been trying to wedge his old work colleague into a PHSO post after having dine the same thing in the NHS - to provide an 'investigation' which saw an innocent sex-texted woman lose her job.

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/new...

Information which Dame Julie Mellor just sat on until - months later - the Health Service Journal exposed it, leading to her resignation.

So will PACAC listen? Of course not - on past performance.

:::
PHSO 's Transparency and Openess assurance

As to the disclosure log -that's the FOIA requests from members of the public that clearly the PHSO would rather have keep secret.

Other organisations have no problem providing one -so why has the PHSO been so secretive?

.

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear J T Oakley

 

Your information request (FDN-273972)

 

I am writing in response to your email of 31 October 2016, in which you
asked for a copy of PHSO’s Freedom of Information disclosure log for 2016.

As you have noticed, there is a gap in our disclosure log which we are
working on filling.  We plan to launch a revised disclosure log in the
coming months.

 

However, as we had already planned to publish the information you have
asked for at the time you made your request, section 22 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applies to it.  Section 22 FOIA is a qualified
exemption, but we have concluded that the balance of public interest lies
in pulling together this content as planned for publication on our own
website when it is relaunched in the new year, rather than in extracting
it to publish separately in response to your information request.

 

If you are unhappy with my response to your information request, it is
open to you to request an internal review.  Beyond that, it is open to you
to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office ([1]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [3][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

 

From: Jt Oakley [mailto:[FOI #368284 email]]
Sent: 31 October 2016 13:00
To: InformationRights
Subject: FDN-273972 - Freedom of Information request - PHSO 2016
Disclosure Log

 

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

PHSO 2016 Disclosure Log :

The PHSO internet site states:

'As part of our commitment to being open and transparent, we are
publishing our information releases under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOI) once a quarter.
In our disclosure log you will find information we have provided in
response to FOI requests which we feel will be of wider public interest.
This includes information that is asked for frequently or information
which is not available elsewhere on our website.
The information releases are grouped by business year and the month when
the information was released. We will review our disclosure log every six
months to make sure we remove any outdated information. We also aim to
produce an archive of useful information releases from past business
years.
If you cannot find what you are looking for, please visit our 'being open
and transparent' page or use our site search in the top right corner.  
If you need any help, please contact the Freedom of Information and Data
Protection Team at [4][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]'

Request:

Could you please provide the 2016 data log as it dies not appear to be on
the PHSO's internet site.

NB Search only brings up: 2015 Disclosure Log

:::

Request Title/summary within scope.
I am writing to make an open government request for all the 
information
to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information 
Act 2000.
Please send me recorded information, which includes information 
held on
computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten 
documents as well as
images, video and audio recordings.
If this request is too wide or unclear, and you require a 
clarification,
I would be grateful if you could contact me as I 
understand that under
the Act, you are required to advise and 
assist requesters.(Section 16 /
Regulation 9).
If my request is denied in whole or in part, I ask that you justify 
all
deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I 
will also
expect you to release all non-exempt material. I reserve 
the right to
appeal your decision to withhold any information or to 
charge excessive
fees.
If any of this information is already in the public domain, please 
can
you direct me to it, with page references and URLs if 
necessary.
Please confirm or deny whether the requested information is held ( section
(Section 1(1)(a) and consider whether information should be provided under
section 1(1)(b), or whether it is subject to an exemption in Part II of
the Act.
If the release of any of this information is prohibited on the 
grounds of
breach of confidence, I ask that you supply me with 
copies of the
confidentiality agreement and remind you that 
information should not be
treated as confidential if such an 
agreement has not been signed.
I would like the above information to be provided to me as 
electronic
copies, via WDTK. The information should be immediately 
readable - and,
as a freedom of Information request,  not put in a PDF or any closed form,
which some readers may not be able to access.
I understand that you are required to respond to my request within 
the 20
working days after you receive this letter. I would be 
grateful if you
could confirm in writing that you have received 
this request.

::::::::

Please consider  the ICO's Decision on the provision original documents on
file, rather than newly written letters of response.
[5]https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
This request does not require a letter, drafted by the external affairs
department, or any other written input by reputational defence employees,
and purporting to be the response to a FOIA request.

:::

Please note:

4. Staff responsibilities
4.1 PHSO has a corporate responsibility to identify and respond to
requests for information as efficiently as possible, and within the
statutory deadlines. It is the responsibility of all PHSO staff to
identify and take appropriate action on information requests as soon as
they are received. PHSO staff may also be required to assist the FOI/DP
Team in locating information and ensuring the accuracy of the final
response.
Page 4 of 8
Policy PHSO Access to Information Policy v1.0

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #368284 email]

Is [7][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit [11]http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
3. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
4. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
5. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
6. mailto:[FOI #368284 email]
7. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
9. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
10. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
11. http://www.symanteccloud.com/

Dear InformationRights,

'As you have noticed, there is a gap in our disclosure log which we are
working on filling. We plan to launch a revised disclosure log in the
coming months' .

:::

I fully understand why - having had two resignations of the ombudsman and her deputy - the PHSO no longer follows it's own Openness and transparency policy. Especially as, it is stated in file that all FOIA responses have to be 'edited' and approved by external relations. .

However, as the response to this request need not be in be in the exact form of the disclosure log, I will clarify this request as:

'The data is already on file as the FOIA requests made during the time period stated - plus their responses, with redactions'.

So that is the data which was on file at the time of the request, not 'edited' for the special PHSO online disclosure log - but simply redacted under the terms of FOIA. Therefore the information will not be the same as that specially produced fir the missing disclosure log

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear J T Oakley

Your information request (FDN-273972)

 

Thank you for your further email in which you state you have submitted a
reformulated request.  Regretfully, this is not sufficiently distinct from
your original request and therefore section 22 still applies to it.

 

If you would like us to process an internal review, please let us know.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

 

From: Jt Oakley [mailto:[FOI #368284 email]]
Sent: 24 November 2016 09:56
To: InformationRights
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - PHSO 2016
Disclosure Log

 

Dear InformationRights,

'As you have noticed, there is a gap in our disclosure log which we are
working on filling.  We plan to launch a revised disclosure log in the
coming months' .

:::

I fully understand why - having had two resignations of the ombudsman and
her deputy -  the PHSO no longer follows it's own Openness  and
transparency policy.   Especially as, it is stated in file that  all FOIA
responses have to be 'edited' and approved by external relations. .

However, as   the response to this request need not be in  be in the exact
form of the disclosure log,   I will clarify this request as:

'The data is already on file  as the  FOIA requests made during the time
period stated -  plus their  responses, with redactions'.

So that is the data which was on file at the time of the request,  not 
'edited'  for the special PHSO online disclosure log  - but simply
redacted  under the terms of FOIA. Therefore the information will not be
the same as that specially produced fir the missing disclosure log

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

show quoted sections

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you but you state that I should contact the ICO without having completed a balanced review on public interest grounds .

' However, as we had already planned to publish the information you have
asked for at the time you made your request, section 22 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applies to it. Section 22 FOIA is a qualified
exemption, but we have concluded that the balance of public interest lies
in pulling together this content as planned for publication on our own
website when it is relaunched in the new year, rather than in extracting
it to publish separately in response to your information request.

If you are unhappy with my response to your information request, it is
open to you to request an internal review.

Beyond that, it is open to you
to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office ([1]www.ico.org.uk).

I would remind you of the actual wording of Section 22.

Section 22
 Section 22 provides an exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future.

 Information is exempt if, at the time when the public authority receives a request for it:

o the public authority holds the requested information;

o the public authority intends the information to be published

at some future date, whether that date is determined or
not; and

o in all the circumstances it is reasonable to withhold the
information until its planned publication.

 It is a qualified exemption and therefore public authorities must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption is greater than the public interest in disclosing the requested information.

 The duty to confirm or deny whether information is held does not apply where to do so would disclose information that would be exempt under section 22.

 The duty to confirm or deny is subject to a public interest test.

::::

I was not aware that 'Pulling together content' - simply because the PHSO intends to have a new website - Is a 'public interest' exclusion to answering an FOIA request.

If the PHSO has failed to maintain its disclosure log under its Openness and Transparency remit then surely that is another issue.

In addition, the PHSO response does not seem to have taken into consideration that my clarified request states that as the Disclosure Log was not data at the time of the request. It did not exist in that format on file. Therefore it was a future publication.

But the DATA that the PHSO held on file at the time of the request -the requests and their responses - is within the FOIA.

It cannot be changed between the time of the request - and the future publication, to a new edited form, which is the baseline reason of the application of Section 22.

Section 22 is not an FOIA get-out simply because an organisation

1. has failed to comply with its own remit of Transparency and Openess
2. it has in- house technical problems,
3. or can't be bothered to redact information already in its end form on file and respond to a public interest request as cannot be changed - due to changing committee decision, new policy or new information being added to it.

I await your considered review with considerable interest.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The PHSO shouldn't allow its department of external affairs to 'edit' data so that only positive information is provided in responses.
That is probably the reason why the ombudsman can't provide redacted data already on file.

It needs to be edited for reputational advantage - before it is 'transparently and openly' published.

That is not what claiming FOIA 'future publication' is intended to cover - reputations .

Brenda Prentice left an annotation ()

'The PHSO shouldn't allow its department of external affairs to 'edit' data so that only positive information is provided in responses'.

I do wonder if the PHSO 'edits' any and all SAR as well as FOI.

I have just received a SAR, 3 months late, that has been modified for my 'ease' of understanding....

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Yes.. ask for it unedited.

It is illegal to tamper with the response because it's data which is on record at the time of the request. Subject to privacy of individuals.(S40)

Also ask for the metadata - which is a record of when your file was accessed.

That sometimes throws up some interesting information.... as the data already provided and the metadata doesn't match -which means a SAR or FOIA has been 'edited'

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

You state:

However, as we had already planned to publish the information you have
asked for at the time you made your request, section 22 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applies to it. Section 22 FOIA is a qualified
exemption, but we have concluded that the balance of public interest lies
in pulling together this content as planned for publication on our own
website when it is relaunched in the new year, rather than in extracting
it to publish separately in response to your information request.

Could you please tell me the date on which the new website will go live, so that the request can be fulfilled?

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear JT Oakley

 

Your information request: FDN 274328

 

I write in response to your information request of 24 January 2017 in
which you asked:

 

‘Could you please tell me the date on which the new website will go live,
so that the request can be fulfilled?’

 

I can confirm that our new website went live today:

[1]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

 

I hope this information is helpful. If you believe I have made an error in
the way I have processed your information request, it is open to you to
request an internal review.  You can do this by writing to us by post or
by email to [2][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]. You will need to
specify what the nature of the issue is and we can consider the matter
further. Beyond that, it is open to you to complain to the Information
Commissioner’s Office ([3]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Yours sincerely

 

FOI/DP Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 1516

E: [4][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

W: [5]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[6]fb  [7]twitter  [8]linkedin

 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

References

Visible links
1. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
5. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
6. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
7. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
8. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you for the response to the clarification of date- pertaining to your response on the Disclosure log request - but there still seems to be no disclosure log on site.

As stated:

'However, as we had already planned to publish the information you have asked for at the time you made your request, section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applies to it.  Section 22 FOIA is a qualified exemption, but we have concluded that the balance of public interest lies in pulling together this content as planned for publication on our own website when it is relaunched in the new year, rather than in extracting it to publish separately in response to your information request'.

::

Could you please provide a link to the log - as requested- as there seems to be no search facility.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear J T Oakley

 

Please find a link below to our disclosure log:

 

[1]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/co...

 

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [2]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [3][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

 

From: Jt Oakley [mailto:[FOI #368284 email]]
Sent: 31 January 2017 17:46
To: InformationRights
Subject: Re: Your information request: FDN 274328

 

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you for the response to the clarification of date-  pertaining to
your response on the Disclosure log request - but there still seems to be
no disclosure log on site.

As stated:

'However, as we had already planned to publish the information you have
asked for at the time you made your request, section 22 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applies to it.  Section 22 FOIA is a qualified
exemption, but we have concluded that the balance of public interest lies
in pulling together this content as planned for publication on our own
website when it is relaunched in the new year, rather than in extracting
it to publish separately in response to your information request'.

::

Could you please provide a link to the log - as requested- as there seems
to be no search facility.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

show quoted sections

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you.

Request ended.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear InformationRights,

Apologies.

I had presumed that the request had been fulfilled.

It seems to end at 2015.

Please supply the link to 2016 - as requested,

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Common Law Jurisdiction left an annotation ()

Astounding the lengths some corporations/bodies/etc go to so that they can avoid fulfilling a simple and perfectly reasonable request.

Do what's right, not just what is profitable

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

CLJ- I this case there is no profit.

It's all taxpayers money ....a whole £37m of it.

The gaming of requests is to protect its reputation.

Especially the reputation of the ombudsman, when the responses suddently get mysterious.

The fact that both she - and the deputy - have had to resign hasn't seem to have permeated.

The PHSO seems to be carring on putting all responses via the public relations department ( as stated on its files).

Which is hardly the spirit of the FOIA. That's why I have to ask for original documents instead of a letter 'edited' by the PR department.

I don't get them but it's worth pointing out that that is the data required - in case it progresses to court

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear J T Oakley

 

The information relating to our 2016 disclosures has not yet been
published.

Yours sincerely

 

Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [2][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]

 

 

From: Jt Oakley [mailto:[FOI #368284 email]]
Sent: 01 February 2017 23:56
To: InformationRights
Subject: RE: Your information request: FDN 274328

 

Dear InformationRights,

Apologies. 

I had presumed that the request had been fulfilled.

It seems to end at 2015.

Please supply the link to 2016  - as requested,

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

show quoted sections

Dear InformationRights,

Thank you but when it was stated that the log would be published in the New Year when the PHSO site was upgraded, I has assumed from your reply that it would be in early 2017 to be placed on the new site.

Nevertheless, the 2016 requests and responses are data on PHSO file at the time of the request ( the form of a disclosure log is not strictly necessary - as stated).

So please supply this data.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

Informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Clarification - November 24 .

However, as the response to this request need not be in be in the exact form of the disclosure log, I will clarify this request as:

'The data is already on file as the FOIA requests made during the time period stated - plus their responses, with redactions'.

So that is the data which was on file at the time of the request, not 'edited' for the special PHSO online disclosure log - but simply redacted under the terms of FOIA. Therefore the information will not be the same as that specially produced fir the missing disclosure log

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Presumably the PHSO has no intention of responding to the clarification -
And I will therefore complain to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Complaint to ICO :

Zip file enclosed

Please only reply by email to save postal visits and the environment.

In any response please include my reference which is:

PHSO 2016 Disclosure Log

Please read the whole request, including the title.

NB - ANNOtATIONS

Please note that annotations on the request do NOT form part of the correspondence
and are not sent to , or received, by Public Authority concerned.

Thank you

1. Details of the organisation your concern is about
Organisation:   PHSO   
Contact name:   FOI/DP Officer 
Address:   Postcode:    
Telephone:   
  
Email:  

image2.PNG
   
2. Your relationship with the organisation
     
Member of the public
3. What is your concern?

I can understand the use of a section 22 for a future publication
i.e. The disclosure log, as it has to be edited.

However I've clarified the request ( not understanding the extremely long
hold up, still in operation since the PHSO led me to understand the log would be produced
at the time the new internet site was introduced. The new site is up and running.

So I asked for data on file at the time of request, which cannot be changed, as the requests have been answered and ended, as a reasonable way of ending this outstanding request.
Section 22 being in place to protect information which can be changed before publication.
I.e. Committee papers which may have to be agreed between parties and changed in the
course of agreement.

This is the reasoning I gave the PHSO why S22 did not apply.
Because I had stated that data held on file at the time of the request is acceptable,
if the PHSO is having problems with its internet site of cannot follow its own FOIA disclosure
transparency policy.

The requests and responses cannot be altered.
(Some of them are already displayed in public, on WDTK for example).
::::

I would remind you of the actual wording of Section 22.

Section 22
 Section 22 provides an exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future.

 Information is exempt if, at the time when the public authority receives a request for it:

o the public authority holds the requested information;

o the public authority intends the information to be published

at some future date, whether that date is determined or
not; and

o in all the circumstances it is reasonable to withhold the
information until its planned publication.

 It is a qualified exemption and therefore public authorities must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption is greater than the public interest in disclosing the requested information.

 The duty to confirm or deny whether information is held does not apply where to do so would disclose information that would be exempt under section 22.

 The duty to confirm or deny is subject to a public interest test.

::::

I was not aware that 'Pulling together content' - simply because the PHSO intends to have a new website - Is a 'public interest' exclusion to answering an FOIA request.

If the PHSO has failed to maintain its disclosure log under its Openness and Transparency remit then surely that is another issue.

In addition, the PHSO response does not seem to have taken into consideration that my clarified request states that as the Disclosure Log was not data at the time of the request.

It did not exist in that format on file. Therefore it was a future publication.

But the DATA that the PHSO held on file at the time of the request -the requests and their responses - is within the FOIA.

It cannot be changed between the time of the request - and the future publication, to a new edited form, which is the baseline reason of the application of Section 22.

Section 22 is not an FOIA get-out simply because an organisation

1. has failed to comply with its own remit of Transparency and Openess
2. it has in- house technical problems,
3. or can't be bothered to redact information already in its end form on file and respond to a public interest request as cannot be changed - due to changing committee decision, new policy or new information being added to it.

Something else. Please give details.
     
Please send us copies of relevant documents that support your concern.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

4. What have you done to raise your concern with the organisation?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
     
Please send copies of any documents you have showing how you raised your concern with the organisation.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
5. What did the organisation say?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
     
Please send copies of any documents you have showing the organisation’s response to your concern.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
6. Reference number

FDN-273972)

Please tell us any reference number that the organisation has given you, eg account number, policy number etc.

As above.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Your reference: FDN-273972
Complaint from Ms TO

The Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Ms TO stating that they have not received a decision regarding the internal review they requested on 24/11/16. The relevant correspondence can be found at the following link:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

You will note that Ms TO contribution of 24/11/16 finishes with 'I await your considered review with considerable interest'.

The remainder of the correspondence on the link appears to relate to as new request for information allocated reference FDN-274328.

Guidance

The Commissioner has issued guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal reviews. The Commissioner considers that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.

A full copy of this guidance is available on our website (www.ico.org.uk) under the Freedom of Information guidance section.

Enforcement

The Commissioner wants to ensure that a complainant has exhausted a public authority’s internal review procedure, but at the same time the complainant should not be unreasonably delayed in having his complaint considered under section 50.

Internal reviews are referred to in the section 45 Code of Practice, and significant or repeated unreasonable delays in dealing with internal reviews will be monitored by the Enforcement team. In some instances regulatory action may be necessary.

More details about the Commissioner’s FOI Regulatory Action Policy are available on our website using the following links:
http://ico.org.uk/what_we_cover/taking_a...

Actions

If it is the case that you have not issued an internal review decision to Ms T0 we recommend that you do so within 20 working days from the date of receipt of this letter.

If you have, in fact, already responded to Ms TO, and believe that your response should already have been received we would recommend you contact them to confirm receipt if you have not already done so.

If you need to contact us about this complaint I can be contacted on the number below. Please quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

ICO

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

ICO has now 'closed the case' - without the information being received.

Slightly puzzled by this - as surely the case isn't closed until it has been.

It presumably means it's 'off the books' as a case, so that the ICO can reach a target.

J Roberts left an annotation ()

It does indeed seem strange that the case would be closed without the information first having been received. Beats me, but just some thoughts:

On what date was it closed and why?
Has the information been sent but not received?
Has the case been closed because of information passed to ICO from PHSO?
What guideline was followed that brought about the closure?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

That's all I know J Roberts.

Puzzled too.

But I just put the responses for other people to read so that they understand the system and how it works.

Logically the ICO should have the request in file to check up that the PHSO has the fulfilled its FOIA Legal requirement .

I would presume that I would have to put the case back to the ICO if it still can't get its act together ...and reply.

As it is, the PHSO always had the data on file.

Just not in the form of its much trumpeted ' open and transpatent ' freedom of information disclosure log.

There was NOTHING to stop the PHSO helping and assisting with S16 by stating I could have the FOIA requests data on file.

Especially as I had pointed out that I want original redacted data as per FOIA - and not PR letter with edited highlights, which seems to be the PHSO's chosen modus operandi.

::::::

The requests are logged and reported to the board. You might recognise descriptions of requesters.
And the worry that requesters are using WDTK to discuss PHSO requests.

This is the reputatiinal defence process that the PHSO puts FOIA requests through.

And I think why a newly written PR letter, instead or original documents(data on file at the time of the request) , was that which the PHSO was giving FOIA requesters - instead.

::::::
Luke Whiting states:
'4.2.7 The risks associated with responding to the topics described above have been mitigated by involving our external affairs team and other senior members of staff as appropriate in the decision making which informed our responses. Generally, any response going on the ‘whatdotheyknow’ website or any private response about a high risk or potentially controversial subject has been seen and has as a minimum had input from *Sally Sykes and, in some cases, Dame Julie'.

* ex PR head ( external affairs ).

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...

:::::

Worth a read to find out the FOIA response strategies used by the PHSO.

:::

An update of this report to the board is the more recent request that I made:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/q...

According to the PHSO FOIA respondee, the Foi department no longer reports to the board, or allows the board to know what's going on in that particular department .....by any means .

Which I find a tad hard to believe.

And why I complained to the ICO.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

This was the last entry in the Disclosure log :

Complaints from black, minority ethnic (BME) and lesbian gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) customers

Reference 238971 | November 2015

And the assurances given above have still come to nothing.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

Please note -that the PHSO needs to reply to the decision that the PHSO had, once again, failed to apply s16 to a request.

This is about PHSO audits -a WDTK request which has this message on it.

I will wait for a proper response to be applied to the right request ( not this one) as there is no address available on the audit request

This is the statement ( no addresses given it semingjy available ) .

--------)

I have now left the PHSO as of 30 December 2016.

Please re-direct your email to either:

· Helen Holmes - [email address]

· Fiachra Pilkington - [email address]

Thank you.

Mark Lant

-----

And since I am on this disclosure set request, please supply the requested information requested in FOIA requests received by the PHSO -which is STILL outstanding.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman


Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org