We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Mr Murphy please sign in and let everyone know.

Riddor Reporting

Mr Murphy made this Freedom of Information request to Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

We're waiting for Mr Murphy to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland,

Please can you tell me how many times a Riddor has been reported late (Reported after 15 days) in the past year ? From October 2017 until October 2018

Please can I have a list of all Employers who reported a Riddor late, after 15 days?

Please can I have a list of how late the Riddor was reported (how many days or months late) ?

Yours faithfully,

Mr Murphy

DfE HSENI FOI, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

 

Dear Mr Murphy,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

 

Reference: FOI/168/2018

 

 

I refer to your email entitled ‘Freedom of Information request - Riddor
Reporting’, dated 15 October 2018 to HSENI.

 

I acknowledge receipt of your request.  HSENI is currently working on this
and will be in touch with you once our response is complete.

 

If you have any queries regarding this email or your request please
contact HSENI by email to [1][HSENI request email] and remember to quote our
reference, FOI/168/2018, on any future correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Laura Donnelly

HSENI

Information Management Unit

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[HSENI request email]

O'Neill, Liam, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

Dear Sir,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

 

I refer to your request for information under the above Act.

 

You asked us a series of questions (set out below) regarding the Reporting
of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurences under the RIDDOR
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1978:-

 

 

1.    Please can you tell me how many times a Riddor has been reported
late (Reported after 15 days) in the past year ? From October 2017 until
October 2018

 

2.    Please can I have a list of all Employers who reported a Riddor
late, after 15 days?

 

3.    Please can I have a list of how late the Riddor was reported (how
many days or months late) ?

 

I can advise you that HSENI has ran several reports on our Case Management
System in order to attempt to satisfy the conditions of your request and
our conclusion is that we do not hold all of the information in the format
requested to respond accurately to your request. This is due to a number
of factors (listed below):-

 

1.    Your definition of a ‘late’ RIDDOR does not matchup with the
definition of late within the Legislation. In these circumstances we will
not hold a ‘late’ date that matches with your definition.

 

2.    There will be many cases when the reportable injury or condition
resulting from the accident will either: (a) not be recognisable without a
medical examination which is conducted only after some delay; or (b) be
delayed for some time after the accident (eg some cases of acute illness
where a substance has been absorbed). In such cases the notification (and
report) should be made as soon as the injury or condition has been
confirmed. In some circumstances this can be months or even years after
the original incident.

 

 

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

 

I regret I cannot assist you further with this request and if you are
dissatisfied with the way in which HSENI has handled your request, please
go to [1]http://www.hseni.gov.uk/about-hseni/cont... which
explains the actions that are available to you.

 

Yours Sincerely

Liam O'Neill
Information Manager
Tel: 028 9054 7088 (ext: 47088)
[mobile number]

[2][IMG] [3][IMG]
[4][IMG]

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hseni.gov.uk/about-hseni/cont...
2. http://www.hseni.gov.uk/
3. https://www.facebook.com/hseni.gov.uk
4. https://twitter.com/Hsenigov

Dear O'Neill, Liam,
To simplify please can I have

(a) A list of all Riddors reported from October 2017 until November 2018

(b) Please can I have the name of the employer who reported the Riddors?

(c) Please can I have a list of the date when the accident occurred and the date when the Riddor was reported to HSEni?

Yours sincerely,

Mr Murphy

DfE HSENI FOI, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

 

Dear Mr Murphy,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

 

Reference: FOI/168/2018(A)

 

 

I refer to your email entitled ‘FOI/168/2018 - Information request’, dated
21 November 2018 to HSENI.

 

I acknowledge receipt of your request.  HSENI is currently working on this
and will be in touch with you once our response is complete.

 

If you have any queries regarding this email or your request please
contact HSENI by email to [1][HSENI request email] and remember to quote our
reference, FOI/168/2018(A), on any future correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Laura Donnelly

HSENI

Information Management Unit

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[HSENI request email]

O'Neill, Liam, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

 

Dear Mr Murphy,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

 

 

I refer to your request for information under the above Act.

 

HSENI has concerns over the receipt of anonymous or possibly pseudonymous
requests and it has decided to tighten procedures and reserves the right
to ask for proof of identity.

Therefore I would appreciate it if you could provide, electronically or
otherwise, some proof of your identity?

The usual forms of proof such as a passport, a driver’s licence or a
utility bill are acceptable but other formats will be considered as long
as they demonstrate the genuine identity of the requestor.

I would draw your attention to the FOIA:

(Freedom of Information Act 2000 Section 8(1)(b):)

In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to
such a request which—

        “…states the name of the applicant and an address for
correspondence”

 

The specific ICO guidance in relation to when an Authority can ask for
clarification of a person’s name can be found at
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/1043418/conside...

 

Until such time as this is provided, HSENI will not progress your request
as it considers the provisions of Section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA 2000 have
not been met and as such does not consider this a valid request under the
legislation.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Liam O'Neill

Information Manager

HSENI
83 Ladas Drive
Belfast, BT6 9FR
Tel: 028 9054 7088 (ext: 47088)
[mobile number]
Textphone: 028 9052 9304
Web: [2]www.hseni.gov.uk

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail?

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/1043418/conside...
2. http://www.hseni.gov.uk/

Dear HSEni,
Dear HSE

I would like an infernal review into the refusal to answer my FOI request which was denied under Section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA 2000.

I will add further requests.

Does the HSE follow guidance set out by the Information Commissioners Office when answering Freedom of Information requests?

The guidance set out by the ICO states

“A requester may be confused or aggrieved if an authority suddenly switches from complying with their requests to refusing them “

Your information officer originally answered my request and when I clarified what I was looking for suddenly denied it. If he had problems with my identify why did he answer the request in the first instance ? It seems my identity only became a problem once I had clarified what information I was looking for.

Whatdotheyknow.com
The ICO has set out guidance that whatdotheyknow.com is a perfectly acceptable way to ask for information.

“The term ‘in writing’ covers requests submitted by letter and electronic form, including those sent via the internet through WhatDoTheyKnow.com and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook”

“107.With respect to the address for correspondence, we consider the @whatdotheyknow.com email address provided to authorities when requests are made through the site to be valid contact address for the purposes of Section 8(1)(b).”

Request For Name Identification
Your Information officer has asked me and others on whatdotheyknow.com for confirmation of their identity and has refused FOI requests which in my opinion go against guidance set out by the Information Commissioners Office.

ICO Guidence
The definition of a ‘real name’

"21. For a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of their real name to give anyone reading that request a reasonable indication of their identity."

"25. Any variation of the requester’s title or first name combined with their surname (e.g. Mr Smith or John Smith) will be sufficient to meet this requirement. However, a first name or surname provided in isolation, or a set of initials, will not"

"Example A requester named Robert Jones could call themselves ‘Rob Jones’, ‘Bobby Jones’, ‘R Jones’, ‘Bob Jones’ or ‘Mr Jones’. However, they could not just use ‘Robert’, ‘Bob’, ‘Bobby’ or ‘R.J’. "

"30. However, if the name provided is not an obvious pseudonym and the public authority has no reason to believe that a pseudonym is being used, the authority should just accept the name provided at face value."

"31. Whilst this may mean that some pseudonymous requests will slip through the net, we would not want to see a situation where authorities routinely carry out checks on requesters’ identities. The Act provides a public right to information, not a right limited to certain individuals."

Your information officer has not provided reasons why Mr Murphy would be an obvious pseudonym so why was it not taken at face value in line with ICO guidance?

How many FOIs has the HSE had in the past year and how many have had their FOI denied until identification has been proven ? It appear a situation has risen where the HSEni now routinely carry out checks on requester s identities.

ICO Guidance

"15. In our view, the intention of the legislation is for the requester to provide their real name so their request could be processed in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA.
16. This is supported by the fact that there are circumstances under the FOIA where a requester’s true identity can be relevant, for example, where an authority is considering aggregating the cost of requests or refusing a request as vexatious or repeated.
17. However, if the public authority is not considering one of the above issues, and there is no obvious indication that the requester has not used their real name, then we don’t suggest that the authority takes steps to check the requester’s identity. In most cases it will be appropriate to accept the name that has been provided at face value and respond to the request in the normal way. "

Your Information Officer when denying my FOI did not point to cost, vexatious or repeated as the reason why he denied my FOI. He also did not explain why he thought Mr Murphy was an obvious pseudonym. In such cases the ICO guidance is clear “ then we don’t suggest that the authority takes steps to check the requester’s identity. In most cases it will be appropriate to accept the name that has been provided at face value and respond to the request in the normal way. “

I would like this guidance followed or an explanation given as to why Mr Murphy is an obvious pseudonym?

Freedom Of Information Act ICO Guidance

(a )“The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives rights of public access to information held by public authorities”

The public should have access to information held by HSE. My request related to Riddors, accidents at work, clearly in the public interest.

(b)” In most cases, authorities should consider FOI and EIR requests without reference to the identity or motives of the requester. Their focus should be on whether the information is suitable for disclosure into the public domain, rather than the effects of providing the information to the individual requester.”

Why is my identity even being requested ? Why would information on workplace accidents not be suitable for the public domain?

(c) “In most cases, public authorities should consider freedom of information requests and requests for environmental information without reference to the identity or motives of the requester.”

Why is reference being made to my identify and that of others on whatdotheyknow.com. It seems identity has taken priority in the HSEni, when answering requests.

(d) “Whilst this may mean that some pseudonymous requests will slip through the net, we would not want to see a situation where authorities routinely carry out checks on requesters’ identities. The Act provides a public right to information, not a right limited to certain individuals.”

From reading some of the FOIs on whatdotheyknow.com it appears that the HSEni is now routinely asking for requesters identities , why?

I have set out clear reasons why I want an internal review into my FOI request. I see no justification why this information should be withheld from me or the public domain.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Murphy

O'Neill, Liam, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

Dear Mr Murphy,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

 

I refer to your email of 03 December 2018.

 

Firstly can I clarify, HSENI has not denied or refused your request. We
have however, in compliance with FOIA legislation and ICO guidance, sought
to validate your request by asking for clarification of your identity.

 

This is allowed for under Section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA:

 

In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to
such a request which—

 

        “…states the name of the applicant and an address for
correspondence”

 

 

And furthermore, ICO guidance states “the intention of the legislation is
for the requester to provide their real name”, and “the absence of a real
name would make it technically invalid under Section 8(1)(b)” of the FOIA.

 

Also, I have attached the ICO guidance (‘Identity or motives of the
applicant’) and would draw your attention to the section on page 4 - '
Circumstances where an authority can take identity into Account'.

 

Whilst it is not routine that HSENI (twice in the last 5 years) would seek
clarity over a requestors identify, we have determined that on this
occasion it is necessary owing to similarities between this request and to
others recently received by HSENI.

 

Once we receive clarification of your identity (I outlined how this could
be achieved in my previous email) we will be in a position to validate and
progress your request in line with the legislation

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Liam O'Neill
HSENI
83 Ladas Drive
Belfast, BT6 9FR
Tel: 028 9054 7088 (ext: 47088)
[mobile number]
TextRelay: 18001 028 9054 7088
Web: [1]www.hseni.gov.uk

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail?

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hseni.gov.uk/

Dear Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland's handling of my FOI request 'Riddor Reporting'.

The HSE website states

“If you are unhappy with the handling of a request made under the Freedom of Information act you should write, within two months, to the HSENI FOI Reviewer. The HSENI FOI Reviewer will conduct an internal review (a reconsideration under EIR) of the processing of your request.

Louis Burns
Deputy Chief Executive
HSENI
83 Ladas Drive
Belfast
BT6 9FR “

It was quite obvious from my email on the 3/12/2018 that I was not happy with the HANDLING of my FOI , yet Liam O'Neil continued replying without passing my FOI onto the FOI reviewer.

Mr O`Neil has continued to claim that the HSEni follows some parts of the ICO guidance while blatantly ignoring the guidance in its entirety .

The act requires two things for a FOI to be valid a valid name and an address for correspondence. I provided Mr O'Neil with both and he has continually failed to supply me with information why Mr Murphy is an obvious pseudonym. He has supplied me with with no evidence that Mr Murphy is a pseudonym.

ICO Guidance
21. For a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of their real name to give anyone reading that request a reasonable indication of their identity."
"25. Any variation of the requester’s title or first name combined with their surname (e.g. Mr Smith or John Smith) will be sufficient to meet this requirement. However, a first name or surname provided in isolation, or a set of initials, will not"
"Example A requester named Robert Jones could call themselves ‘Rob Jones’, ‘Bobby Jones’, ‘R Jones’, ‘Bob Jones’ or ‘Mr Jones’. However, they could not just use ‘Robert’, ‘Bob’, ‘Bobby’ or ‘R.J’. "
"30. However, if the name provided is not an obvious pseudonym and the public authority has no reason to believe that a pseudonym is being used, the authority should just accept the name provided at face value."
"31. Whilst this may mean that some pseudonymous requests will slip through the net, we would not want to see a situation where authorities routinely carry out checks on requesters’ identities. The Act provides a public right to information, not a right limited to certain individuals."

I would like you to read the above points. This guidance clearly isn't being followed.

The guidance supplied by the ICO is CLEAR

(a) ” In most cases, authorities should consider FOI and EIR requests without reference to the identity or motives of the requester. Their focus should be on whether the information is suitable for disclosure into the public domain, rather than the effects of providing the information to the individual requester.”

Mr O'Neil does NOT follow this guidance, set out by the ICO. His focus is purely on the requesters identify.

I would also like the FOI reviewer to read my previous emails. ICO guidance is being quoted and statements have been made that the HSEni follows it. I have clearly set out the requirements for asking for proof of identify according to ICO guidance and I do not believe these requirements have been met. Mr O'Neil should have processed my request without asking me to jump through unnecessary hoops. When I expressed dissatisfaction with his handling of my FOI he should have passed it over to the HSE reviewer. He should not be handling his own complaints. He is obviously never going to find fault with his performance.

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr Murphy

DfE HSENI FOI, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

Dear Mr Murphy

I acknowledge receipt of your recent e-mail to The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) received on 7 December 2018.

I can confirm this has been passed to HSENI’S FOI Reviewer for their attention.

Gail Younger
Information Management Unit

show quoted sections

O'Neill, Liam, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

Dear Mr Murphy,

 

I refer to your email of 03 December 2018 requesting an internal review of
your FOI request (FOI/168/2018 (A)) entitled 'Riddor Reporting'.

 

Having looked at your request I can advise you that HSENI has not provided
you with a substantive response upon which to base a review. Therefore, at
this stage a review is not possible. Once we receive proof of your
identity we will be in a position to issue you with a substantive
response. If you are unhappy with our response at that stage then access
to an internal review will be made available to you. If you find the
outcome of the review unsatisfactory you will have recourse to an external
reviewer (the Information Commissioner’s Office).

 

We are currently at the request validation stage, awaiting proof of
identity as per my emails to you of 23/11/2018 and 03/12/2018. In my
emails I explained to you the appropriate portion of the legislation
(Freedom of Information Act 2000) which is applicable and provided you
with a copy of the specific ICO guidance which explains the circumstances
whereby a public authority may ask for proof of identity.

 

Once we receive proof of your identity we will be in a position to
progress your request in line with FOIA legislation.

 

Furthermore and as previously stated – HSENI has not refused your request.
Also, we accept requests on a regular basis via the ‘whatdotheyknow’
website.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Liam O'Neill

Information Manager

HSENI
83 Ladas Drive
Belfast, BT6 9FR
Tel: 028 9054 7088 (ext: 47088)
[mobile number]
Textphone: 028 9052 9304
Web: www.hseni.gov.uk

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail?

 

 

 

 

 

Dear HSE,

Please pass my emails and responses to Mr O`Neil onto the complaints department.

The HSEni is a Public organisation which is required to answer Freedom Of Information requests following guidance set out by the ICO.

Mr O`Neil (in my opinion ) has misquoted parts of the legislation surrounding asking me for I.D. I at great length quoted all the legislation and he still continues to ignore ICO guidance

The main focus of the HSEni should be whether or not my FOI is suitable for the public domain and NOT who I am .

ICO guidance
" ” In most cases, authorities should consider FOI and EIR requests without reference to the identity or motives of the requester. Their focus should be on whether the information is suitable for disclosure into the public domain, rather than the effects of providing the information to the individual requester.”

Mr O`Neil has continued to NOT allow anyone else to question his judgement and has continued to answer me himself.

Your own website states if I am unhappy about the "HANDLING" and "PROCESSING" of my request I can ask for it to be passed onto the Internal Reviewer.

HSEni "
“If you are unhappy with the handling of a request made under the Freedom of Information act you should write, within two months, to the HSENI FOI Reviewer. The HSENI FOI Reviewer will conduct an internal review (a reconsideration under EIR) of the processing of your request."

I am unhappy about the HANDLING of my request as it has not been handled according to ICO guidance.

I am unhappy about the processing as Mr O`Neil has failed to process it and has concentrated more on trying to prove a point, instead of showing that the HSEni is open and transparent with ALL freedom Of Information requests and follows ICO guidance in its entirety.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Murphy

DfE HSENI FOI, Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

1 Attachment

Mr Murphy,

 

 

                                                                       
 17 January 2019

 

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Service Level Complaint - HSENI - Internal Review of FOI/168/2018

 

 1. I refer to your request dated 24 December 2018 in which you raise a
complaint about the handling of your request under the Freedom of
Information Act. As you are aware your FOI request remains open and it
therefore cannot be considered as having reached the stage of a
‘review’ under FOI. I have considered your request under our normal
service level complaints procedure.

 

 2. Your original FOI request had three questions. It was received on 15
October 2018 and acknowledged on the same day. The original FOI was
responded to on 12 November. In the response HSENI provided two
explanations why it was not possible to comply with the request:

 

 a. The definition of ‘late’ in the request does not match with any
definition in legislation and as such HSENI’s case management system
does not hold the information requested; and
 b. There are reasons that some ‘RIDDOR’ reports may be late and some
examples were provided.

 

These reasons remain extant.

 

 3. On 21 November 2018 you responded in your words to ‘simplify’ the
request (this was acknowledged on the same day). In effect you changed
your request. For clarity I have set out how the two requests differ
in Table A below.

 

 a. Question 1 in your first request was looking for a subset of RIDDORs
(which had previously been explained was information not held by
HSENI). In your second request this changed to a blanket request for
‘all RIDDORs’ in a different time period.
 b. Similarly the second question in your first request asked for a list
of employers who had reported RIDDORs late (which had previously been
explained was information not held by HSENI). The second question of
your second request appears to be a blanket request for the name of
employers who reported ‘the RIDDORs’. If this question is read as a
follow on from question one of the second request it still appears to
be a blanket request for information.
 c. Both third questions are similar but I note the first would have
required a calculation to answer whereas the second would have
required the provision of two dates.

 

 

Question FOI 15 FOI 21
Number October November
2018 2018
     
1 How many A list of
times a all
RIDDOR RIDDORs
has been reported
reported from
late October
(reported 17 to
after 15 November
days) in 18.
the past
year
(October
17 to
October
18)?
2 A list of The name
all of the
employers employer
who who
reported reported
a RIDDOR the
late RIDDORs.
(after 15
days).
3 A list of A list of
how late the dates
the when the
RIDDOR accident
was occurred 
reported and the
(how many date when
days or the
months RIDDORs
late)? were
first
reported
to HSENI.

 

 

 4. On 23 November a response was issued from HSENI which asked you to
provide ‘proof of your identity’ in line with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 – section 8(1)(b). At no point in this
correspondence did it ever suggest that HSENI was refusing to answer
your FOI request. Having reviewed this I am of the opinion this was a
reasonable and acceptable step for HSENI to take. I reached this
conclusion as there were similarities in your requests and others
received recently by HSENI.

 

 5. On 7 December 2018 you ask for a review of the handling of your FOI
request. This was responded to on 20 December 2018 stating again that
your request was not being refused but it was the view of HSENI that
the case was at the ‘validation stage’ and as such the review stage
had not been reached.

 

 6. Having reviewed the approach taken by HSENI in relation to your FOI
request I am satisfied that HSENI has acted appropriately and
correctly.

 

 

I trust that you will appreciate that I have treated your complaint about
HSENI seriously and that I have investigated it with due diligence.
However, if you remain dissatisfied you should write to The Chief
Executive, HSENI, 83 Ladas Drive, Belfast BT6 9FR.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

[1]cid:image001.png@01D4AE4E.08073840

 

 

LOUIS BURNS

 

References

Visible links

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Mr Murphy please sign in and let everyone know.