Post Office making inaccurate FOI replies that include "nonsense"
Dear Post Office Limited,In evidence to the Horizon Inquiry PO exec Simon Recaldin explained that due to human error some FOI replies are inaccurate.Nick Wallis it would seem was advised of this separately.1)Can you confirm it was your Legal Services Dept. that provided the answers?2)Do you plan to update the other authors of inaccurate FOI replies,do you have a duty under ICO rules to do this?3)Do you intend to check other FOI replies for accuracy(PERHAPS JUST FROM THIS ONE DEPT)?
Yours faithfully,
john o'sullivan
Our ref: FOI2023/00579
Dear John O'Sullivan,
Thank you for your request for information which was received on 6th
October. Your request is being considered under the terms of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.
The Act requires that a response must be given promptly, and in any event
within 20 working days. We will therefore reply at the latest by 3rd
November.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.
Regards,
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
100 Wood Street,
London,
EC2V 7ER
Dear John O'Sullivan,
Please find the response attached relating to your Freedom of Information
request.
With kind regards,
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
100 Wood Street,
London,
EC2V 7ER
Dear [email address],Thank you for a reply.You mention that it is costly to review hundreds of FOI answers to look for false information-not as expensive as looking through thousands of wrong convictions though and you do have limitless funding,witness £320,000 to recover £24k from Lee Castleton.FOI guidelines say this"A public authority may search up to or even beyond the
appropriate limit of its own volition".Has the Post Office FOI department ever done this?I notice you spent £238,000 contesting an appeal to overturn a conviction so discretionary funding is available?However and please treat all these questions as a new request .you say " we will investigate any response that is identified to
us as potentially inaccurate."Can I ask you to look at these three please which are certainly inacurate, FOI2023/00398, FOI2022/00495, FOI2022/00495-This concerns a phrase used from a script on the Horizon Help Desk.You claim not to know what it means or that you are obliged to find out.Nonsense as Simon Recaldin would say,Nonsense on stilts as Jason Beer told your Tony Marsh.
Yours sincerely,
john o'sullivan
Dear John O'Sullivan,
Thank you for your email.
As you have not requested recorded information, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we are not obliged to respond to your email. We once again remind you of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance on how to access information from a public authority, should you wish to submit a request for recorded information. This can be found at the following link:
https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/off...
With kind regards,
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
100 Wood Street
London
EC2V 7ER
Dear information.rights,I have identified three FOI requests that are potentially innacurate.You have stated you will investigate these as they are brought to your attention.The answer to an FOI request is recorded information.Please check the answers to the three FOI replies that I have concerns over the accuracy of.For good measure it would seem that the reply you have given to the FOI in which Kate Gallafent KC strongly refutes the allegations of obfuscation and delay in providing documents to the Horizon Inquiry might need a second look in light of this week's events.
Yours sincerely,
john o'sullivan
Dear John O'Sullivan,
Thank you for your email.
Please note, you only provided reference numbers to two FOIA requests in your previous email (FOI2023/00398 and FOI2022/00495). Notwithstanding that, FOI2023/00398 is currently under internal review (ref: IR2023/00498) and you will receive a response in due course. FOI2022/00495 went to internal review (IR2022/00583) which upheld the original response. We do not believe there was a human error with this information request, and you did not choose to appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
As you are aware from the FOIA response letters we send, the correct process for information requests appeals is to firstly ask for an internal review (carried out by the public authority) and then, if you are still not satisfied, to appeal to the ICO. We do not have the resource to continue responding on matters that have been through the correct FOIA process and, therefore, we consider this matter closed and we will not be corresponding with you about this further.
With kind regards
Data Protection and Information Rights Team
100 Wood Street
London
EC2V 7ER
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now