Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

In a recent FOI response to me made through Whatdotheyknow you addressed me using my first and last names. I have not provided my first name to you through Whatdotheyknow and would like my confidentiality to be protected. You were wrong to presume that I now wish you to publish my first name on a public forum. Whatdotheyknow have kindly removed my name from the document in question, which can be viewed here:

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

1. Please provide for each of the past 3 years the number of times you have disclosed FOI requesters' first names on Whatdotheyknow in circumstances where they have provided you with only an initial through the website.

2. Please provide details of the procedure you follow when you become aware that you have published the full name of an FOI requester on the Whatdotheyknow website without their agreement.

Yours faithfully,

D Moore

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 ()

They've done the same to me and haven't removed it on request.

In addition, the PHSO is fond assuming that emails can be sent to you,( guessing it's you) by using your private address when a response is embarrassing to its reputation.

Nb The ICO upholds this secretive strategy, so it's no use complaining,

D. Moore left an annotation ()

J T Oakley,

Thanks for the information. If you've complained and it has made no difference it highly unlikely that any complaint by me to the ICO would prevent the same thing from happening again.

C'est la vie!

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I'd say have a go anyway. But be prepared for it to take months, without any reasonable outcome .

If you get an shouty, obstructive investigator - its no use complaining, as the ICO allows the employee's boss to determine the case. -And, of course , the implication of whether s/he is 'managing' the shouty investigator well.

Bent system, or what?

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

3 Attachments

Dear D Moore,

 

Your information request: Our ref: FDN-274659

 

I write in response to your email of 7 June 2017 in which you requested
information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in the
following terms:

 

In a recent FOI response to me made through Whatdotheyknow you addressed
me using my first and last names.   I have not provided my first name to
you through Whatdotheyknow and would like my confidentiality to be
protected.   You were wrong to presume that I now wish you to publish my
first name on a public forum.  Whatdotheyknow have kindly removed my name
from the document in question, which can be viewed here:

 

[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...

 

1.  Please provide for each of the past 3 years the number of times you
have disclosed FOI requesters' first names on Whatdotheyknow in
circumstances  where they have provided you with only an initial through
the website.

 

2.  Please provide details of the procedure you follow when you become
aware that you have published the full name of an FOI requester on the
Whatdotheyknow website without their agreement. 

 

I have considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

1.    As this information will already be publicly available via the
Whatdotheyknow website, this is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of
the FOI Act which exempts information that is accessible to an applicant
by other means.  You may wish to search for any relevant information by
looking at requests made to the PHSO on the Whatdotheyknow website.

 2. We do not have a recorded procedure for this.  However, if a requestor
makes us aware of this, any action would be taken on a case by case
basis.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Officer

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

Follow us on

 

[2]fb  [3]twitter  [4]linkedin

 

 

 

show quoted sections

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 'Publishing requesters' full names without agreement'.

You have responded:

" As this information will already be publicly available via the Whatdotheyknow website, this is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOI Act which exempts information that is accessible to an applicant by other means. You may wish to search for any relevant information by looking at requests made to the PHSO on the Whatdotheyknow website."

The information may be accessible, but it certainly is not easily accessible. You suggest I trawl all requests made to the PHSO on the Whatdotheyknow website. This would require me to examine over 800 individual records, and even then I might not discover the truth. What about cases where Whatdotheyknow have corrected your errors?

Do you not hold a record of such errors?

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,

D. Moore

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,

If I do not receive a response soon to my internal review request I will have no option but to approach the Information Commissioner's Office for assistance.

Yours faithfully,

D. Moore

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,

I think a fair amount of time has passed since I requested an internal review. If I don't receive a satisfactory response very soon I'll have no option but to contact the ICO. Let me know If there is some legitimate reason for the delay. Neither of us would wish to unnecessarily burden the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

D. Moore

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

02/11/2017

 

Dear D Moore,

 

Your information request, Our ref: FDN-274659

 

Please accept our apologies for the delay in processing your request for
an internal review. This was an oversight on our part. 

 

I have reconsidered your request and I am satisfied that we have provided
a response which complies with the Freedom of Information  Act 2000
(FOIA). 

As you know information that is easily accessible is exempt from
disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA.  This exemption is absolute i.e.
it is not subject to a public interest test.  The requirement for the
exemption under section 21 is that the information is reasonably
accessible not that it is easily accessible.   Since it is possible to
search this information on Whatdotheyknow, I am satisfied that the
information is indeed reasonably accessible to you. 

 

A search can be made of the 897 requests to PHSO via the Whatdotheyknow
site by using the keyword search function or filtering through the dates. 
Any complaints we have had about publishing a requester’s name on
Whatdotheyknow will be available on the website even if the error has been
corrected by the Whatdotheyknow. This is because Whatdotheyknow is a
permanent, public archive of Freedom of Information requests and so they
we will only delete a request where there is an overriding reason.  Please
see their FAQs here:
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/priv....

 

I hope that my response satisfactorily concludes your information
request.   If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request,
it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office
([2]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Sincerely,

 

T. Akindele         

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Manager

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 4006

W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

 

 

 

InformationRights, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

 

The following sentence should read “As you know information that is
reasonably accessible is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the
FOIA.”  And not “As you know information that is easily accessible is
exempt from

disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA.”  I have therefore corrected this
as below.

 

My sincere apologies for this error.

 

 

 

02/11/2017

 

Dear D Moore,

 

Your information request, Our ref: FDN-274659

 

Please accept our apologies for the delay in processing your request for
an internal review. This was an oversight on our part. 

 

I have reconsidered your request and I am satisfied that we have provided
a response which complies with the Freedom of Information  Act 2000
(FOIA). 

As you know information that is reasonably accessible is exempt from
disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA.  This exemption is absolute i.e.
it is not subject to a public interest test.  The requirement for the
exemption under section 21 is that the information is reasonably
accessible not that it is easily accessible.   Since it is possible to
search this information on Whatdotheyknow, I am satisfied that the
information is indeed reasonably accessible to you. 

 

A search can be made of the 897 requests to PHSO via the Whatdotheyknow
site by using the keyword search function or filtering through the dates. 
Any complaints we have had about publishing a requester’s name on
Whatdotheyknow will be available on the website even if the error has been
corrected by the Whatdotheyknow. This is because Whatdotheyknow is a
permanent, public archive of Freedom of Information requests and so they
we will only delete a request where there is an overriding reason.  Please
see their FAQs here:
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/priv....

 

I hope that my response satisfactorily concludes your information
request.   If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request,
it is open to you to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office
([2]www.ico.org.uk).

 

Sincerely,

 

T. Akindele         

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Manager

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

T: 0300 061 4006

W: [3]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

 

 

 

 

D. Moore left an annotation ()

I am dissatisfied with the internal review response and have contacted the ICO.

I previously contacted the ICO because I had received no response to my request for an internal review. For anyone interested in ICO procedures, the standard letter the ICO sent me can be viewed here:

https://icolateinternalreviewletter.word...

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org