Scaffolding - complaints (narrowed scope)

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

Lewisham Homes,

Thank you for finally providing a response to my FOI request (your ref: 1707065 ( https://bit.ly/2PT15MP )).
Therein, you clarified that the number of database results from a search for scaffold is '651'.
... As I'd anticipated, the order of magnitude of this number is in the hundreds, rather than the tens of thousands.

In lieu of you complying with the requirements of Section 16 of the FOI Act to provide guidance on how I can narrow the scope of my request (your ref: 1319134 ( https://bit.ly/2S62Jrd )), I've been forced to research this myself, with various contacts to: The company who created your database; The ICO; further FOI requests ( https://bit.ly/2PT15MP *and* https://bit.ly/2FPzkQX ) to your organisation.
I suggest you've made this *much* harder than it should have been, by deliberately being as uncooperative as possible.

I'm now writing here to re-present my previous data request (your ref: 1319134 ( https://bit.ly/2S62Jrd )) - which you initially refused by citing exemption under Section 12) - now with a narrowed scope.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FOI Request

When you search your complaint database using the keyword 'scaffold' for complaints received in the date range 01/01/1900 - 13/11/2018, you've stated this brings up 651 results.

Please send me copies of the cases (including, but not limited to the contained documents and the case notes) in the aforementioned results. Please make it clear which documents belong to each case (as opposed to hundreds of randomly jumbled PDFs with no frame of reference).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Notes about this request:

1) Please note that this does not count as a 'repeated request' for the same data previously requested (ie for the purposes of Section 14 exemption) - since it's a narrowing of scope of a request that you've refused by citing Section 12 exemption.
I refer you to the ICO guidance on this matter:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
Specifically paragraph 19 is the most relevant.

2) In your initial response to FOI ref 1319134 ( https://bit.ly/2FCWF8j ), you stated that for *digital* records in your database:
'To extract and review each entry ***to see whether it was about scaffolding***, would take approximately 1.5 minutes per case.'
Please note that *zero* of this time will apply in the new request submitted today.... You were saying that you'd need to look at every single case, from 'over 1000 cases annually' regardless of its nature, ***in order to establish whether it had anything to do with scaffolding***.
In this new request, you do not need to make any manual assessment of the cases in the results - I'm simply asking you to send all of the 651 results, with no manual assessment needed. This new, narrowed request therefore does not require *any* of the labour time which you cited as being the problem with the previous request.

[NB, I anticipate that only a relatively small number (my guess is around 100) of the 651 cases will actually be complaints *about scaffold per se* (which is all I'd asked for in the initial request) - and that most of these results will just be incidental mentions of 'scaffold' (for example 'I'm writing to complain about the ugly green sign - the one that's next to the scaffold') which would presumably register in these 651 results, while not actually being a complaint *about scaffold*..... Still, I'm requesting that you send all of the cases in the 651 - this removes the need for subjective human decision making which would (i) take up time, and (ii) lead to a risk of relevant cases being left out of the release.]

3) Naturally, you are going to need to redact these cases (for example, to remove personal data). I wish to highlight that redaction time cannot be factored in to calculations of time, with respect to Section 12 exemption.
I refer you to the ICO guidance on this matter:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...

4) With respect to points 2 and 3 above, I do of course recognise that it will require *some* labour time to collate this data, but it's obviously going to be dramatically less than the '1.5 minutes per case' that you said would be required to manually scrutinise each digital case to see if it was about scaffold. I suspect it might even be possible to batch-process all 651 results to collate them for release.
*Excluding redaction time*, I expect this request would surely take a couple of hours at maximum.

5) I wish to note my frustration that you haven't suggested this option voluntarily - *or* when I've repeatedly asked for guidance on narrowing the scope of my original request.
I suggest that, subsequent to me submitting the initial request (ref:1319134) on 12/09/18, the appropriate and lawful response would have been for you to have responded a few days later (**two and a half months ago**) to say something along the lines of:

'Having considered your request, we have concluded that we can't fulfil it completely in its present form, since this would require manually reading many thousands of paper records, which would require vastly more resources than the limit given in Section 12 of the FOI Act. However, what we could do is provide you copies of all cases found by searching for the keyword 'scaffold' within our digital complaints database. Please let us know if you would like us to proceed with that release under our suggested narrowed scope, or if you have alternative suggestions or questions.'

That seems like it would have been a **glaringly obvious** thing to have done, if you had been properly acting in accordance with the law.

>

Please respond at your earliest convenience, to acknowledge receipt of this revised (narrowed scope) FOI request. Since the ICO guidance is to treat this as a new request, I propose that you also provide a new reference number for this new request, as that will make it easier to make reference to each distinct request.

Yours sincerely,
Simon Williams

Customer Relations Team, Lewisham Homes

1 Attachment

Lewisham Homes - Freedom of Information request

 

Our Reference:                 1758267

Due date:                           21 December 2018

________________________________________

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000

 

Dear Mr Williams

 

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working-days, subject to the application of
any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20
working-day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable
depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases
you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be
indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the
earliest opportunity.

 

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or
where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in
writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from
you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

 

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public
authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred.

 

If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will
notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you
may appeal (if appropriate).

 

Regards

 

 

Customer Relations Team

 

[1]email-sig
Save time, do it online

[2]lewishamhomes.org.uk

 

T: 0800 028 2 028

Email: [email address]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Customer Relations Team, Lewisham Homes

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Williams

 

Please find a full response to your request attached.

 

Regards

 

 

Customer Relations Team

 

[1]email-sig
Save time, do it online

[2]lewishamhomes.org.uk

 

T: 0800 028 2 028

Email: [email address]

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Customer Relations Team <[email address]>
Sent: 27 November 2018 11:23
To: 'Mr. Williams' <[FOI #534711 email]>; Customer
Relations Team <[email address]>
Subject: Your FOI request- Scaffolding complaints (narrowed scope) -
1758267

 

Lewisham Homes - Freedom of Information request

 

Our Reference:                 1758267

Due date:                           21 December 2018

________________________________________

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000

 

Dear Mr Williams

 

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working-days, subject to the application of
any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20
working-day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable
depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases
you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be
indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the
earliest opportunity.

 

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or
where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in
writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from
you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

 

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public
authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred.

 

If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will
notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you
may appeal (if appropriate).

 

Regards

 

 

Customer Relations Team

 

[3]email-sig
Save time, do it online

[4]lewishamhomes.org.uk

 

T: 0800 028 2 028

Email: [5][email address]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Lewisham Homes,

I’m writing to request an Internal Review or your response to iCase ref 1758267, which is a continuation of request iCase ref 1319134.

Looking at Lewisham Homes’ past Internal Reviews, it’s abundantly clear that your Modus Operandi is to apply the straw man approach:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
… So many times I’ve given meticulous detail about the reason’s I’m requesting an internal review and broken it down into extremely clear bullet points.
Lewisham Homes will subsequently present the ostensible impression that you’ve conducted a review, but you will totally ignore the most critical points and instead respond to something subtly different, meaning that you can avoid tackling the problematic issues or disclosing the data you are legally obliged to.
[NB, an extreme example of this was Colin Burns’ Internal Review response (13/11/18) to the original request in this matter, which brazenly disregarded the overwhelming majority of the problems I’d cited when asking for an internal review].
I strongly request that, on this occasion, you cease that practice and actually address the specific problematic points I’m raising – and address all of them. Even if that’s to state that you refuse to make a further statement on the particular point.

Please note that the Information Commissioner’s Office is now actively looking into this case and I’ve recently begun direct discussion with a case officer - who is going to contact you imminently regarding your actions in these requests.

Points to be addressed:

1) In your response (11 Oct 2018) to my original request, James Shaw (Interim Director Asset Management and Compliance) unambiguously claimed that you would need to manually review every single complaint ever received, from ‘over 1000 cases annually’.
I’ve needed to push and push, including inquiries to your software provider and subsequent FOI requests to your organisation, to demonstrate that this was a false claim.
It’s clear that you do now finally admit it would not be necessary to look at every single case ever – and that it is indeed actually possible to search the database by keywords.
Clearly, it would occur to anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence that it would be possible to search the database using keywords.
Why then did James Shaw pretend that you would need to look at every single complaint ever received, regardless of its nature?

2) With iCase ref 1758267, yet again you’ve disregarded the requirement to respond promptly – and instead waited until the 19th day of the 20-day absolute long stop before responding. That’s despite the fact that you’ve again refused to release the data and instead cited an exemption.
ICO guidelines say that when an organisation responds at or close to the long stop, you need to justify why it took you an entire month to reply. Will you please provide your justification?

3) In your response to iCase ref 1758267, you state that you cannot release photographs and suchlike that would identify complainants. This is so extremely obvious that it does not need to be stated. It’s your organisation’s responsibility to redact the release as you believe legally necessary to meet your requirements under the DPA.
I refer you back to my very first letter in this matter (12/09/18) in which I state the following:
‘The data requested will - in the form you currently hold it - contain personal data, protected under the DPA. Of course, I do not expect or want this - please redact the minimum necessary data.’
The way you’ve presented these paragraphs in your response (20/12/18) is as though you are trying to introduce a brand new reason as to why you can’t fulfil this release request, generally.
Will you please acknowledge that you understand that I’m neither asking for nor wanting personal data?

4) I refer you to my letter sent 16/10/18:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
… In which I wrote the following:

ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT: What I really want to know is the full range of *reasons* why Lewisham Homes' residents have received compensation for matters relating to scaffolding, together with the *amount of compensation* that generally corresponds to each such reason.
I do not actually need to know the details of each and every individual case - my initial request only asked for that because it seemed the most obvious way of requesting/obtaining the data.
I'm aware that you hold such data, since I've read about the complaints and the compensation in the following document:
'Ninth Annual Report of the Independent Adjudicator for Lewisham Homes 1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015'
- Which you published as Appendix 1 to your board meeting of 26/01/16 (see the final 5 pages):
https://www.lewishamhomes.org.uk/wp-cont...
.... You left scaffold on our property for SIX TIMES longer than originally planned - so instead of it being up for weeks, the scaffold was up on our building for a year or so. That had a significantly negative impact on our lives and I intend to make a complaint about that matter. In order to make that complaint, I'm requesting this data.
I do recognise the massive conflict of interest here - you obviously would ideally prefer not to provide me with this data which will aid my claim against you. However, you are required by the FOI Act to make this data available to me.
I want to be very clear that I am *not* making that complaint about the scaffold *here* and I beg you not to try and bundle a whole bunch of different matters together into one, in the way your organisation sometimes does. I am *not* making that complaint about the scaffold here - I am just explaining what data I want right now and why I want it - so that this can guide you in helping me narrow the scope of my request, in order to obtain the data I desire. Once I have this data, I will subsequently make the complaint/claim.
So, in accordance with your mandatory legal requirement to do so, please advise me on how I can narrow the scope of my request, so that I receive the following data:
i) The range of *reasons* why Lewisham Homes' residents have received compensation for matters relating to scaffolding.
ii) The *amount of compensation* that generally corresponds to each such reason. I suggest a value range might be ideal, but if that's not possible (owing to it needing every case to be looked at) then some *typical* examples would be acceptable (ie, not some outliers which represent the very lowest amount of compensation for each complaint 'reason').

Therein, I made it extremely clear what information I’m actually trying to get. I suggest that you’ve so far made little to no effort to offer guidance that’s actually useful – on the contrary, you seem to have deliberately thrown up as many obstacles as possible.
Please will you meet your legal requirement to offer me genuinely useful guidance on how I can get the information I’ve been seeking?

5) Your response states the following:

‘Pages cannot be printed directly from the database without including irrelevant background information/ urls, making the information difficult to understand.’

… I’m guessing this is a typo and you intended to write ‘relevant’, rather than ‘irrelevant’. Please will you clarify?

6) Your response states that you did a test with one single case. From this you ascertained that the task would take 6-8 minutes per case.
Please clarify why you think the operator would not become more efficient at the task once they became accustomed to the process?
The process you described seems fairly simple.
[Please note that redaction time cannot be included towards the 18-hour limit.]

7) Searching your database for the keyword ‘scaffold’ brings up just 651 results.
It’s screamingly obvious that the overwhelming majority of these will not be complaints ABOUT scaffold per se; most will be complaints about a different matter that just happen to contain the keyword.
Surely, surely, surely it would be possible to do the following:
* Search database for keyword ‘scaffold’.
* Manually look through those results to find the ones that are actually complaints ABOUT the scaffold (I’m guessing it’s likely less than 10% of the 651).
* Follow the procedure you describe to harvest this relevant data.
* Redact as required.
* Release this data to me.

(a) Please will you clarify if this is possible?
(b) If it’s not possible, please will you explain why not?
(c) If it is possible, please will you explain why you didn't suggest this back in September 2018?

By your own reckoning ‘With 651 files this would take approximately 65 hours’. If I’m correct in thinking that the majority of these are not actually complaints ABOUT scaffolding – and only around 10% are, then those 10% would take approximately 6.5 hours to process. That would leave you with 11.5 hours (18 hour limit – 6.5 hours) for manually looking at the cases to see which ones are ABOUT scaffold.
To reiterate: Redaction time does not count towards the 18 hour limit.

NB, I have today filed a new FOI request to proactively aid in the further narrowing of the scope of this ongoing request. This new request can be found at the following URL:

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

Customer Relations Team, Lewisham Homes

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Williams

 

Thank you for your email.

 

The ICO have contacted us and confirmed that your case has been accepted
for investigation [Ref. FS50796092].

 

As this case has already been reviewed and an ICO investigation is
underway, we must await the outcome before taking any further action.

 

Regards

 

 

Customer Relations Team

 

[1]email-sig
Save time, do it online

[2]lewishamhomes.org.uk

 

T: 0800 028 2 028

Email: [email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

Lewisham Homes,

I've just telephoned Catherine Fletcher - Lead Case Officer at the Information Commissioner’s Office, to consult her about the message you've sent here today.

According to the ICO guidance, requests with a narrowed scope should be treated as new requests.
It's therefore a false assertion that you make today - claiming that 'this case has already been reviewed'. This particular case has NOT yet been reviewed.

Although the requests are related, this request asks for specifically different data: It's a new request.

If you want to confirm what I've said here, please telephone the ICO and ask them yourselves.

Please write back here as soon as possible, to confirm that you *will* now fulfill your legal requirement to conduct the Internal Review I've requested.

Lewisham Homes,

The penny has just dropped for me on what you are trying to do here: It's because point 1 of my Internal Review request makes a reference to James Shaw's response to the preceding request, is that right?

To clarify, although I do make reference to the older request, my point is very much about *this* request. Please allow me to rephrase exactly the same question, so that it might be more palatable for you:

>>> IN THIS REQUEST HERE THAT I'M ASKING YOU TO REVIEW you are now finally appearing to accept that keyword searches are possible. This is in direct conflict with your previous position, wherein you continually claimed you would need to manually analyse every complaint you'd ever received, regardless of its nature. Clearly, this makes it seem like Lewisham Homes been less than forthright. Please will you explain this conflict? <<<

... I trust this new phrasing will work better for you now, even though it's still asking **precisely the same thing**.

As a separate point: In my request for an internal review in the previous request, I did explicitly ask you >would it not be possible to simply do a keyword search?< ... This was one of *many* crux points I raised that you brazenly ignored when providing the sham of an internal review - classic Lewisham Homes' 'attacking a straw man'.
Given this, it's perhaps an EXTRA-preposterous assertion for you to today claim that this matter has 'already been reviewed'... Indeed it *should* have been, but it wasn't!
Cheeky!

In any case, it's clear that you are legally obliged to review this new request - as has been confirmed by the ICO, today.

Just because the ICO is investigating your past unlawful actions in this matter, that doesn't give you a free-pass to disregard current/future legal obligations. To suggest this is a bit silly.
For example, in my request for a review here, point 2 states: 'With iCase ref 1758267, yet again you’ve disregarded the requirement to respond promptly'. How can you possibly claim that you have reviewed this matter, prior to this case even existing? Silly!!

Will you please confirm that you'll conduct the review, in accordance with your legal obligation to do so?

Dear Lewisham Homes,

Please will you confirm that you will conduct an Internal Review, in accordance with yesterday's advice from the ICO.

Customer Relations Team, Lewisham Homes

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Williams

 

Your email of 04 March 2019 15:21, was a request for a further internal
review of the original request and began as follows,

 

‘I’m writing to request an Internal Review or your response to iCase ref
1758267, which is a continuation of request iCase ref 1319134…’

 

 

You did however subsequently send three further emails submitting a
request with narrowed scope.

05 March 2019 10:44;

05 March 2019 10:50; and

05 March 2019 11:00

 

These will be logged and you will receive a response giving you a new
reference number for the new request.

 

We have also received anumber of emails from you both yesterday and this
morning. We will deal with these, in turn, over the next few days.

 

Regards

 

 

Customer Relations Team

 

[1]email-sig
Save time, do it online

[2]lewishamhomes.org.uk

 

T: 0800 028 2 028

Email: [email address]

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Lewisham Homes,

Your representative responding to these messages has chosen to remain anonymous (signed off simply as 'Customer Relations Team'). Whoever it is, what you are writing is patently incorrect and pursual of your proposed path would be unlawful. I vehemently urge you to escalate the matter to a competent person who has some working knowledge of the FOI Act.

I refer you to the Code of Practice - guidance to public authorities on the discharge of their functions and responsibilities under Part I (Access to information held by public authorities) of the FOI Act:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

-----

Section 6 of the Code of Practice pertains to when a Public Authority cites section 12 (cost limit) exemption [as you did with the preceding request - iCase 1319134].
>>>6.9 Where a request is refused under section 12, public authorities should consider what advice and assistance can be provided to help the applicant reframe or refocus their request with a view to bringing it within the cost limit. This may include suggesting that the subject or time span of the request is narrowed. ANY REFINED REQUEST SHOULD BE TREATED AS A NEW REQUEST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.<<<

Clearly then, according to the law, iCase ref 1758267 (refined request) should be treated as a new request.

The anonymous representative of Lewisham Homes is claiming here that you won't regard 1758267 as a new request because it is a narrowed scope version of 1319134... But this is just some nonsense that you've made up just now. This is demonstrably not what the law of the United Kingdom states.

-----

Section 5 of the Code of Practice pertains to the Internal Review process.
>>>5.2 Public authorities are obliged, under section 17(7) of the Act, when responding to a request for information, to notify applicants of whether they have an internal review process and, if they do, to set out the details of their review procedures, including details of how applicants request an internal review. They should also inform the applicant of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner under section 50 if they are still dissatisfied following the outcome of the public authority's internal review.<<<

I now refer you to your own letter provided in response to the refined scope FOI request 1758267:
https://goo.gl/f9bHqx

Therein, you informed me of my right to an Internal Review of this specific response, as follows:
>>>Lewisham Homes does operate a complaints procedure in the event that you are not satisfied with the response. Lewisham Homes would ask that you make any complaint within 3 months of receiving the original response.<<<

That response was sent on the 20th of December 2018. I followed your stated process and submitted my complaint on the 4th of March 2019 - well within the 3 month period you provided to me.

------

Summary of actual facts (ie not just stuff you made up):

* We have clearly established that, according to the law, 1758267 counts as a new request.

* You yourselves gave me a 3 month period (from receipt of your response to 1758267) in which to request a review.

* I responded within the 3 month period given, to complain about numerous aspects of your response to 1758267 and ask that you review the response.

* An anonymous person at Lewisham Homes has responded with a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense that they've seemingly just made up.

* On 06/03/19 I telephoned the lead case officer ICO who confirmed what I'm saying here is correct. I notified you of this.

* The anonymous person at Lewisham Homes has responded again, reiterating the bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense that they've made up. They've not added anything of any substance to their nonsense argument. They do not suggest that they received any contrary advice from the ICO.

* In a hypothetical scenario in which the anonymous person at Lewisham Homes *was* correct in what they have written here [NB they very obviously *aren't* correct], then it must logically follow that the letter from Jon Kanareck, Director of Operations, sent in response to FOI request 1758267 was making a false claim, when it stated that that I have 3 months to complain if I was not satisfied with that response.

Please, please, please escalate this matter to a *competent* person.

It's not acceptable for you to act unlawfully and just make stuff up like this.

I hereby reiterate my request made on the 4th of March for an internal review of this FOI request, iCase ref 1758267.

I ask that you please do one of the following:

1) Write to confirm that you will act in accordance with the law (and the ICO's advice) - and conduct the review of FOI request ref 1758267.

or

2) Write a *coherent* letter which explains why you believe you are exempted from the following the aforementioned law/Code of Practice. PLEASE CITE REFERENCES TO OFFICIAL SOURCES (eg specific clauses of the FOI Act, or the Code of Practice) TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ASSERTIONS - RATHER THAN JUST MAKING A BUNCH OF STUFF UP.

Sincerely,
Simon Williams

Further to my message yesterday, another note to express how deeply dismayed I am with your behavior in this case.
The matters we arguing over are rudimentary points of law, written very clearly and with no room for subjective interpretation -
* Refined requests are to be treated as new requests.
* I have a right to complain when I'm dissatisfied with your response to each request.
... To argue other than this, Lewisham Homes may as well be arguing that the sky is green, or that 2 + 2 = 5.

If you'd simply made a mistake the first time you asserted this false claim, then fair enough... But when I've written back to point out your mistake and informed you that the ICO has confirmed it was an error, then there can be no excuse for you doubling-down on the error by writing to assert it again - you obviously should have a competent person responding to FOI requests who has the capacity to run a web-search to check the facts, and/or to telephone the ICO.

As I see it, there can only be two possible explanations for this action:

a) Spectacular incompetence
or
b) Deliberately acting unlawfully

Clearly, as representatives of local government, neither of those are acceptable behaviors.

Customer Relations Team, Lewisham Homes

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Williams

 

I apologise for the misunderstanding. As Lewisham homes have had a number
of emails from you on the same matter over the past 3 months there was
some confusion about which cases had already been reviewed.

 

Your request for an internal review of case 1758267 has been accepted and
referred to our Audit Team for internal review. You can expect a response
to the review within 20 working days of your request - on or before Monday
1 April.

If we need to extend the 20 working-day timescale you will be notified
and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases
we will attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.

 

Regards

 

 

Customer Relations Team

 

[1]email-sig
Save time, do it online

[2]lewishamhomes.org.uk

 

T: 0800 028 2 028

Email: [email address]

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Lewisham Homes,

Your FOI handling is shambolic.

Please will you address this fiasco (your initial refusal to conduct a review) in the Internal Review?

Simon Williams

Dear Customer Relations Team,

re FOI ref 1758267

On 08/03/19, you wrote:

>>>>>
Your request for an internal review of case 1758267 has been accepted and
referred to our Audit Team for internal review. You can expect a response
to the review within 20 working days of your request - on or before Monday
1 April.

If we need to extend the 20 working-day timescale you will be notified
and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases
we will attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.
<<<<<

Contrary to this:

* You've failed to respond by April 1st, as promised.
* You've failed to notify me of any need to extend, as promised.
* You've failed to provide a revised timescale, as indicated.
* I suggest you've failed to deal with my request at the earliest opportunity.

Given the egregious mess you'd *already* made of this request, it's astonishing that you've now *also* broken your promises and the ICO guidelines on conducting the review.

Please will you write and let me know what's gone wrong here, and when I can finally expect to receive the review response?

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Williams

Customer Relations Team, Lewisham Homes

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Williams

With apologies for the delayed response, please find the results of your internal review attached.

Regards

Customer Relations Team

Save time, do it online
lewishamhomes.org.uk

T: 0800 028 2 028
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections