Specific Questions - Audit One Report & Jennifer Stanley Investigation
Dear North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust,
I wish to request information held by your organisation the public body, The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. My request falls under the provision outlined within the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 (FOIA 2000).
In respect of an audit conducted by the private company Audit One, in relation to concerns raised by North East Ambulance Service staff and a further investigation by Jennifer Stanley, I request the following information please.
1) Who within the North East Ambulance Service, commissioned the two audits by Audit One in 2020?
2) Who within the North East Ambulance Service, set the parameters or the terms of reference for the audit by Audit One in 2020?
3) Were the staff involved in raising the concerns consulted, with regards the terms of reference for the audit?
4) Could you please explain, why the Audit One reports were commissioned by the trust in the first instance in 2020?
5) Why was Audit One commissioned to carryout a quantitative audit of cases, cases where documents were suspected to have been doctored and concealed. Rather than conduct a qualitative investigation in 2020?
6) Whom within the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, made the decision not to investigate cases of concern raised by your staff and to merely conduct an audit of the cases only?
7) How many cases of concern, raised by North East Ambulance Service staff, were investigated end to end by Audit One in 2020?
8) How many cases of concern, raised by North East Ambulance Service staff, were audited only by the private company Audit One in 2020?
9) The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, has previously refused to supply the interim Audit One report dated the 17th March 2020. Citing various exemptions under the FOIA 2000.
9 (i) Does the Interim Audit One reports conclusions and recommendations, dated the 17th March 2020, contain personal identifiable information?
10) The North East Ambulance Service, has previously refused to supply an investigation by Jennifer Stanley and her report in May 2020, under the guise of Primary Health Care Training Limited.
10 (i) Does the Jennifer Stanley (Primary Health Care Training Limited) investigation conclusion and recommendations contain personal identifiable information?
11) How much did the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, pay for the two Audit One reports in 2020?
12) How much did the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, pay for the Jennifer Stanley investigation (Primary Health Care Training Limited) in 2020?
If any of the requested information has been published previously, and is already in the public domain, could you please provide me with the link to this information. Thank you in anticipation of your assistance and receipt of the information requested.
Yours faithfully,
John G Smith
Thank you for contacting North East Ambulance Service’s communications
team.
This email inbox is not monitored outside of working office hours.
Journalists with a media inquiry in the evening, weekend and Bank
Holidays, should ring the on-call press officer number. All inquires to
this inbox will be answered on the next working day.
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
Thank you for your e-mail and I acknowledge your request for information,
which was received on 15 May 2023.
Your request is being considered and you will receive the information
requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by
the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being
exempt or containing reference to a third party.
For your information, the Act defines a number of exemptions which may
prevent the release of the information you have requested. There will be
an assessment and if any of the exemptions apply then the information
might not be released. You will be informed if this is the case,
including your rights of appeal.
If the information you have requested contains reference to a third party
then they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or
not to release the information to you.
If you have any queries or concerns, then please contact me by email:
[1][email address]
Kind regards
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
[2]www.neas.nhs.uk | [3]Twitter: @NEAmbulance | [4]Facebook:
North-East-Ambulance-Service
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.neas.nhs.uk/
3. https://twitter.com/NEAmbulance?ref_src=...
4. https://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Eas...
Please find attached response letter to your Freedom of Information
request.
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
[1]www.neas.nhs.uk | [2]Twitter: @NEAmbulance | [3]Facebook:
North-East-Ambulance-Service
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.neas.nhs.uk/
2. https://twitter.com/NEAmbulance?ref_src=...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Eas...
Dear North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Specific Questions - Audit One Report & Jennifer Stanley Investigation'.
18th June 2023
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your letter dated the 7th June 2023, this in response to my request for information under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 dated the 15th May 2023.
I am not satisfied that you have answered the questions posed and/or supplied the entirety of the questions posed. Therefore, I wish to extend my right under the act, requesting that an internal review is conducted by The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.
In this further response, I will outline my rationale and reasons for requesting an internal review. But firstly, I make the following comments in relation to your response dated 7th June 2023.
**Comments & Evidence - NEAS Letter Dated 7th June 2023**
I draw your attention to the question of the Jennifer Stanley investigation and the subsequent report. Whilst I accept that such a report and the documents collated during these investigations would contain personal data, I do not accept that either the trust or Jennifer Stanley could not provide a sanitised version of the conclusions and recommendations.
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Jennifer Stanley and others have a determination for these investigation reports, conclusions and findings to remain secret and not be open to public scrutiny. This despite the public having paid Jennifer Stanley and her company - Primary Health Care Training Ltd - £35,354.75.
Clearly there is a strong public interest element in favour of the both the Jennifer Stanley investigation and the Interim Audit One reports publication into the public domain, as both contain matters that affect public safety and provide a picture the trust were dealing with and keeping the public of the North East safe. The latter also having cost the taxpaying public - £15,316.70.
The stance of NEAS and others is weak, in respect of its reasons for non disclosure into the public domain. The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, is a public body, that is publicly funded by the taxpayer, in order to provide a public service. Caveats exist in the law, in circumstances where there is a risk of harm to the public and or where harm has been caused. Such a caveat is also present with the National Guardians Office principles regarding the Freedom To Speak Up.
It is the right of the public, to have the ability to scrutinise such public bodies, in order that the public can decide if the North East Ambulance Service are effective and safe in the care and services they deliver.
It is clear, should the trust have wished to do so, the conclusions of the said reports and their recommendations could be easily provided without breaching the Data Protection Act 2018.
The fact that the trust has spent over £50,000 of public monies on two reports and then failed to disclosed their findings is extremely suspicious and lacks the necessary transparency for a public body.
The failure of the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trusts, to disclose such findings, suggests that the trusts mission, vision and values statements are nothing more than words on a page, being empty rhetoric and propaganda from the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.
On the 14th June 2022, CEO of The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation trust, was quoted in the press stating that she welcomed - scrutiny, "which will make sure that the families we serve and our staff have the levels of assurance they need".
This cannot be found to be true, Helen Ray has spent over £50,000 of taxpayers monies on these two reports alone, with the conclusions, findings and recommendations of which have not been published. Hardly the bastions of transparency, accountability and scrutiny, that the trust is trying to paint.
In order for true transparency and assurance to be achieved, the reports paid for by the public should be published into the public domain, in order that the public can draw their own conclusions.
To be told what the North East Ambulance Service say is in these reports, is not the same as the public viewing the evidence for themselves. It suggests that the trust is controlling the access to these reports, as they contain matters they do not wish the public, families and staff to know.
The lack of transparency is indicative of having something to hide from the glare and scrutiny of the public and others. Especially given the fact the NEAS have been proven to have been dishonest with families, its employee's, the coroner and the regulators to name but a few.
Freedom To Speak Up, is about giving NHS workers the ability to speak up and be heard, especially when they are unable to do so. It is meant to be a mechanism to ensure, that when things go wrong, lesson are learnt and things are improved. The lack of transparency over the release of the findings of these two reports, does little to corroborate the ethos behind the FTSU has been adhered too. Indeed, the lack of transparency tends to suggest the absolute opposite in these circumstances.
The comments by Jennifer Stanley regarding her investigation and reports are to be expected. After all, the trust paid this individual over £35,000 for her services, therefore, Jennifer Stanley is hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds her. Additionally, the disclosure of her investigation and its findings, might cause some issues for Jennifer Stanley herself.
From open source searches, it appears that Jennifer Stanley is a registered Nurse, and is bound by the Nursing Code. Would disclosure reveal that Staley failed to act as prescribed by her professional code? Furthermore, it is interesting to note, that Jennifer Stanley is an advisor for the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and also sits on the Fitness To Practice Panel for the Nursing And Midwifery Council.
There is a clear conflict of interest here it would seem, especially given that questions have been raised about the CQC and the NMC's involvement in the evidence of malpractices at the NEAS and indeed if these bodies are involved in covering up the harm caused by the trust.
From open source searches, Jennifer Stanley also works for the Health and Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) as an advisory panel member. HSIB is a body that is hosted by NHS England. As you well know, NHS England are carrying out a review of the North East Ambulance Service.
Therefore, given all of the above factors, Jennifer Stanley cannot be said to be impartial, it is quite the contrary in fact.
During her investigations at the trust, Jennifer Stanley was assisted in her investigations by Tracy Boylin. It is clear that Tracy Boylin does not share the stance of the trust or Jennifer Stanley for that matter, in not disclosing the Stanley investigation into the public domain.
On the 30th May 2023, Tracy Boylin, made the following comments regarding the Jennifer Stanley Investigation :
⦁ Tracy Boylin - " I was asked to assist and personally I think NEAS should release it. Investigations when they are done shouldn't be hidden. Creates more distrust. What's to hide, the findings are the findings".
⦁ Tracy Boylin - " I would like to see it being made compulsory for such investigations to be released. Would truely reflect what should be required if Duty Of Candour is to have any merit and secondly it is public funds that this come from".
It would appear that the North East Ambulance Service and Jennifer Stanley have little support in non disclosure of the mentioned reports. Indeed, Tracy Boylin agrees with all of the points I make in this letter. However, Boylin has hit the nail on the head, with the 'what's to hide' comment.
Clearly a great deal, hence the lack of transparency over the Audit One interim report and the Jennifer Stanley Investigation report.
I apologise for the length of that section, but I felt it important to correct a false impression and to provide clear evidence in rebuttal of some of the trusts and Jennifer Stanley's comments in your earlier letter.
**Request For Internal Review - Rationale - Further Information Request Under FOIA 2000**
Again, may I thank you for providing some of the information that I requested in your communication dated the 7th June 2023.
Concerns with North East Ambulance Service response - Dated 7th June 2023
The trust has failed to answer or supply the information requested at questions 5 and 6 of my information requested dated the 15th May 2023. You may deem the following questions to either form part of my right to request a review or as a new request under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.
⦁ Given the gravity of the concerns raised, which are now in the public domain, it seems incredulous that the trust would not record such rationale and decision making and log this as part of its internal governance processes?
⦁ Especially when these concerns related to the trust doctoring reports, in order to cover up its own failures, when patients had potentially died as a result?
As such, I request that someone not involved in the original decision, to review the trusts response to me.
Also, I am not satisfied with the information provided in relation to questions 7 and 8. Here the trust is suggesting that six cases were audited and six cases were investigated.
It has already been established via the media and other open source searches, that Audit One conducted an audit, rather than a qualitative investigation of matters. Therefore, your responses to questions 7 and 8 are somewhat confusing.
You maybe deem the following questions to either form part of my right to a review or consider these as a new Freedom Of Information Act request.
⦁ Were six cases audited and six cases investigated end to end, making a total of 12 cases?
⦁ Or are these the same six cases in question, which were audited and then investigated end to end, meaning six in total?
⦁ How many cases in total were referred by whistleblowers at the North East Ambulance Service to Audit One as part of their audits in March and June 2020?
⦁ Does the Audit One interim report, contain any evidence of illegality by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust or its staff ?
⦁ Does the Jennifer Stanley Investigation report, contain any evidence of illegality by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust or its staff?
⦁ Does the Jennifer Stanley Investigation report, contain any evidence of bullying/harassment of staff including that of whistleblowers?
⦁ Who decided upon the terms of reference for the Jennifer Stanley investigation?
⦁ Were the findings of the Jennifer Stanley investigation shared and/or discussed with the Audit One reviewer or vice versa. And if so, what information was shared?
⦁ Why did the trust commission two separate investigations (Audit One & Jennifer Stanley), and not one overarching investigation. As it appears to have considered some of the same matters?
⦁ Who took the decision to commission two separate investigations?
⦁ Why did Jennifer Stanley interview witnesses and collate statements and evidential exhibits to support her investigation terms of reference, when the Audit One review did none of the above?
⦁ Why did the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, not share the Jennifer Stanley investigation report and its findings with the CQC?
On a previous occasion, when I requested a right to review, the reviewing officer suggested he had not received my right to review, suggesting somewhat implausibly, that when you forwarded my request, this went into their junk mail. As such, I request confirmation that the review officer has received this communication please.
You have 20 working days in which to respond to my right to request a review and the questions posed, if you deem these to be a further request under the FOIA 2000. I thank you in anticipation of your response and await the further information requested.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Yours faithfully,
John G Smith
Thank you for contacting North East Ambulance Service’s communications
team.
This email inbox is not monitored outside of working office hours.
Journalists with a media inquiry in the evening, weekend and Bank
Holidays, should ring the on-call press officer number. All inquires to
this inbox will be answered on the next working day.
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for your e-mail.
I would confirm that I have forwarded all information to Paul Aitken-Fell, Lead Consultant Paramedic, who will carry out an independent review of the Trust’s response to your request.
Please note that the section at the bottom of your e-mail detailing 12 new questions will be dealt with as a new FOI request and you will shortly receive correspondence from the Trust regarding this new FOI request.
Regards
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
http://www.neas.nhs.uk/ | Twitter: @NEAmbulance | Facebook: North-East-Ambulance-Service
On 18/06/2023, 17:57, "John G Smith" <[FOI #980304 email]> wrote:
Dear North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Specific Questions - Audit One Report & Jennifer Stanley Investigation'.
18th June 2023
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your letter dated the 7th June 2023, this in response to my request for information under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 dated the 15th May 2023.
I am not satisfied that you have answered the questions posed and/or supplied the entirety of the questions posed. Therefore, I wish to extend my right under the act, requesting that an internal review is conducted by The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.
In this further response, I will outline my rationale and reasons for requesting an internal review. But firstly, I make the following comments in relation to your response dated 7th June 2023.
**Comments & Evidence - NEAS Letter Dated 7th June 2023**
I draw your attention to the question of the Jennifer Stanley investigation and the subsequent report. Whilst I accept that such a report and the documents collated during these investigations would contain personal data, I do not accept that either the trust or Jennifer Stanley could not provide a sanitised version of the conclusions and recommendations.
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Jennifer Stanley and others have a determination for these investigation reports, conclusions and findings to remain secret and not be open to public scrutiny. This despite the public having paid Jennifer Stanley and her company - Primary Health Care Training Ltd - £35,354.75.
Clearly there is a strong public interest element in favour of the both the Jennifer Stanley investigation and the Interim Audit One reports publication into the public domain, as both contain matters that affect public safety and provide a picture the trust were dealing with and keeping the public of the North East safe. The latter also having cost the taxpaying public - £15,316.70.
The stance of NEAS and others is weak, in respect of its reasons for non disclosure into the public domain. The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, is a public body, that is publicly funded by the taxpayer, in order to provide a public service. Caveats exist in the law, in circumstances where there is a risk of harm to the public and or where harm has been caused. Such a caveat is also present with the National Guardians Office principles regarding the Freedom To Speak Up.
It is the right of the public, to have the ability to scrutinise such public bodies, in order that the public can decide if the North East Ambulance Service are effective and safe in the care and services they deliver.
It is clear, should the trust have wished to do so, the conclusions of the said reports and their recommendations could be easily provided without breaching the Data Protection Act 2018.
The fact that the trust has spent over £50,000 of public monies on two reports and then failed to disclosed their findings is extremely suspicious and lacks the necessary transparency for a public body.
The failure of the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trusts, to disclose such findings, suggests that the trusts mission, vision and values statements are nothing more than words on a page, being empty rhetoric and propaganda from the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.
On the 14th June 2022, CEO of The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation trust, was quoted in the press stating that she welcomed - scrutiny, "which will make sure that the families we serve and our staff have the levels of assurance they need".
This cannot be found to be true, Helen Ray has spent over £50,000 of taxpayers monies on these two reports alone, with the conclusions, findings and recommendations of which have not been published. Hardly the bastions of transparency, accountability and scrutiny, that the trust is trying to paint.
In order for true transparency and assurance to be achieved, the reports paid for by the public should be published into the public domain, in order that the public can draw their own conclusions.
To be told what the North East Ambulance Service say is in these reports, is not the same as the public viewing the evidence for themselves. It suggests that the trust is controlling the access to these reports, as they contain matters they do not wish the public, families and staff to know.
The lack of transparency is indicative of having something to hide from the glare and scrutiny of the public and others. Especially given the fact the NEAS have been proven to have been dishonest with families, its employee's, the coroner and the regulators to name but a few.
Freedom To Speak Up, is about giving NHS workers the ability to speak up and be heard, especially when they are unable to do so. It is meant to be a mechanism to ensure, that when things go wrong, lesson are learnt and things are improved. The lack of transparency over the release of the findings of these two reports, does little to corroborate the ethos behind the FTSU has been adhered too. Indeed, the lack of transparency tends to suggest the absolute opposite in these circumstances.
The comments by Jennifer Stanley regarding her investigation and reports are to be expected. After all, the trust paid this individual over £35,000 for her services, therefore, Jennifer Stanley is hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds her. Additionally, the disclosure of her investigation and its findings, might cause some issues for Jennifer Stanley herself.
From open source searches, it appears that Jennifer Stanley is a registered Nurse, and is bound by the Nursing Code. Would disclosure reveal that Staley failed to act as prescribed by her professional code? Furthermore, it is interesting to note, that Jennifer Stanley is an advisor for the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and also sits on the Fitness To Practice Panel for the Nursing And Midwifery Council.
There is a clear conflict of interest here it would seem, especially given that questions have been raised about the CQC and the NMC's involvement in the evidence of malpractices at the NEAS and indeed if these bodies are involved in covering up the harm caused by the trust.
From open source searches, Jennifer Stanley also works for the Health and Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) as an advisory panel member. HSIB is a body that is hosted by NHS England. As you well know, NHS England are carrying out a review of the North East Ambulance Service.
Therefore, given all of the above factors, Jennifer Stanley cannot be said to be impartial, it is quite the contrary in fact.
During her investigations at the trust, Jennifer Stanley was assisted in her investigations by Tracy Boylin. It is clear that Tracy Boylin does not share the stance of the trust or Jennifer Stanley for that matter, in not disclosing the Stanley investigation into the public domain.
On the 30th May 2023, Tracy Boylin, made the following comments regarding the Jennifer Stanley Investigation :
⦁ Tracy Boylin - " I was asked to assist and personally I think NEAS should release it. Investigations when they are done shouldn't be hidden. Creates more distrust. What's to hide, the findings are the findings".
⦁ Tracy Boylin - " I would like to see it being made compulsory for such investigations to be released. Would truely reflect what should be required if Duty Of Candour is to have any merit and secondly it is public funds that this come from".
It would appear that the North East Ambulance Service and Jennifer Stanley have little support in non disclosure of the mentioned reports. Indeed, Tracy Boylin agrees with all of the points I make in this letter. However, Boylin has hit the nail on the head, with the 'what's to hide' comment.
Clearly a great deal, hence the lack of transparency over the Audit One interim report and the Jennifer Stanley Investigation report.
I apologise for the length of that section, but I felt it important to correct a false impression and to provide clear evidence in rebuttal of some of the trusts and Jennifer Stanley's comments in your earlier letter.
**Request For Internal Review - Rationale - Further Information Request Under FOIA 2000**
Again, may I thank you for providing some of the information that I requested in your communication dated the 7th June 2023.
Concerns with North East Ambulance Service response - Dated 7th June 2023
The trust has failed to answer or supply the information requested at questions 5 and 6 of my information requested dated the 15th May 2023. You may deem the following questions to either form part of my right to request a review or as a new request under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.
⦁ Given the gravity of the concerns raised, which are now in the public domain, it seems incredulous that the trust would not record such rationale and decision making and log this as part of its internal governance processes?
⦁ Especially when these concerns related to the trust doctoring reports, in order to cover up its own failures, when patients had potentially died as a result?
As such, I request that someone not involved in the original decision, to review the trusts response to me.
Also, I am not satisfied with the information provided in relation to questions 7 and 8. Here the trust is suggesting that six cases were audited and six cases were investigated.
It has already been established via the media and other open source searches, that Audit One conducted an audit, rather than a qualitative investigation of matters. Therefore, your responses to questions 7 and 8 are somewhat confusing.
You maybe deem the following questions to either form part of my right to a review or consider these as a new Freedom Of Information Act request.
⦁ Were six cases audited and six cases investigated end to end, making a total of 12 cases?
⦁ Or are these the same six cases in question, which were audited and then investigated end to end, meaning six in total?
⦁ How many cases in total were referred by whistleblowers at the North East Ambulance Service to Audit One as part of their audits in March and June 2020?
⦁ Does the Audit One interim report, contain any evidence of illegality by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust or its staff ?
⦁ Does the Jennifer Stanley Investigation report, contain any evidence of illegality by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust or its staff?
⦁ Does the Jennifer Stanley Investigation report, contain any evidence of bullying/harassment of staff including that of whistleblowers?
⦁ Who decided upon the terms of reference for the Jennifer Stanley investigation?
⦁ Were the findings of the Jennifer Stanley investigation shared and/or discussed with the Audit One reviewer or vice versa. And if so, what information was shared?
⦁ Why did the trust commission two separate investigations (Audit One & Jennifer Stanley), and not one overarching investigation. As it appears to have considered some of the same matters?
⦁ Who took the decision to commission two separate investigations?
⦁ Why did Jennifer Stanley interview witnesses and collate statements and evidential exhibits to support her investigation terms of reference, when the Audit One review did none of the above?
⦁ Why did the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, not share the Jennifer Stanley investigation report and its findings with the CQC?
On a previous occasion, when I requested a right to review, the reviewing officer suggested he had not received my right to review, suggesting somewhat implausibly, that when you forwarded my request, this went into their junk mail. As such, I request confirmation that the review officer has received this communication please.
You have 20 working days in which to respond to my right to request a review and the questions posed, if you deem these to be a further request under the FOIA 2000. I thank you in anticipation of your response and await the further information requested.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Yours faithfully,
John G Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #980304 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
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.
Thank you for your e-mail and I acknowledge your request for information,
which was received on 19 June 2023.
Your request is being considered and you will receive the information
requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by
the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being
exempt or containing reference to a third party.
For your information, the Act defines a number of exemptions which may
prevent the release of the information you have requested. There will be
an assessment and if any of the exemptions apply then the information
might not be released. You will be informed if this is the case,
including your rights of appeal.
If the information you have requested contains reference to a third party
then they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or
not to release the information to you.
If you have any queries or concerns, then please contact me by email:
[1][email address]
Kind regards
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
[2]www.neas.nhs.uk | [3]Twitter: @NEAmbulance | [4]Facebook:
North-East-Ambulance-Service
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.neas.nhs.uk/
3. https://twitter.com/NEAmbulance?ref_src=...
4. https://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Eas...
Please find attached response letter to your Freedom of Information review
request.
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
Dear Mr Smith
Further to our previous e-mail.
The Trust is aware that the response deadline to your request is 17 July
2023 and we are seeking your agreement to extend this to Friday 28 July
2023. We hope by then to be in a position to provide you with the
information.
Kind regards
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
[1]www.neas.nhs.uk | [2]Twitter: @NEAmbulance | [3]Facebook:
North-East-Ambulance-Service
From: Karen Greenacre
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 5:27 PM
To: '[FOI #980304 email]'
<[FOI #980304 email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Our Ref: FOI.23.254
Thank you for your e-mail and I acknowledge your request for information,
which was received on 19 June 2023.
Your request is being considered and you will receive the information
requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by
the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being
exempt or containing reference to a third party.
For your information, the Act defines a number of exemptions which may
prevent the release of the information you have requested. There will be
an assessment and if any of the exemptions apply then the information
might not be released. You will be informed if this is the case,
including your rights of appeal.
If the information you have requested contains reference to a third party
then they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or
not to release the information to you.
If you have any queries or concerns, then please contact me by email:
[4][email address]
Kind regards
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
[5]www.neas.nhs.uk | [6]Twitter: @NEAmbulance | [7]Facebook:
North-East-Ambulance-Service
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.neas.nhs.uk/
2. https://twitter.com/NEAmbulance?ref_src=...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Eas...
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.neas.nhs.uk/
6. https://twitter.com/NEAmbulance?ref_src=...
7. https://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Eas...
19th July 2023
NEAS Ref - FOI.23.254
Dear Karen Greenacre,
I note your communication dated the 19th July 2023. Your 20 working day response deadline was 17th July 2023, as confirmed by your organisation. The legislation is clear, a public authority has 20 working days in which to provide the information requested.
Your organisation have failed to do so, as such you are now in breach of section 10 (1) of the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.
In light of which, under section 50 of the said act, I have made an application to the Information Commissioners Office for a decision. I have also directed them to issue a decision notice regarding your organisations clear breach of FOIA 2000 legislation.
I do not accept your request for an extension, the timescale permitted was sufficient in order to deal with this request.
Yours sincerely,
John G Smith
I will reply to your e-mail on my return to work - Friday 21 July 2023.
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
Please find attached response letter to your Freedom of Information
request.
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
[1]www.neas.nhs.uk | [2]Twitter: @NEAmbulance | [3]Facebook:
North-East-Ambulance-Service
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.neas.nhs.uk/
2. https://twitter.com/NEAmbulance?ref_src=...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/North-Eas...
Dear North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Specific Questions - Audit One Report & Jennifer Stanley Investigation'.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your communication dated the 21st July 2023 - FOI.23.254 refers. I am sorry to say, your communication is nothing more than a meaningless and evasive word salad.
The responses provided by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (NEAS) have been provided in order to not answer the questions or address the information which is sought. It appears that the NEAS has something to hide. Lacking the necessary transparency and accountability required from a public body. One which is ultimately accountable to the public.
The public interest should be paramount, the NEAS are ultimately accountable to the public taxpayers, without whom the service would not exist.
The contents of the NEAS response letter dated the 21st July 2023, is an attempt to avoid, reword or repackage the questions and information requested. In order to obfuscate the facts, or at least talk tentatively or vaguely about its mistakes and malpractices.
Doing so in order to disguise the trusts culpability. In doing so, the NEAS have failed to answer the legitimate questions posed or address the information sought from this public body. Information which is held in its entirety by your public organisation - The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.
This indicates that that the trust is being less than honest with the public, these matters and the information sought, concerns the trust covering up the deaths of patients, facts agreed in the NHS England - Dame Marianne Griffiths review, which you reference in your letter dated 21st July 2023.
To any reasonable person reading this thread and request for information from the start, the NEAS lack of transparency and obfuscation is clear. As is the NEAS trying to supress this information, which favours public interest disclosure.
Should the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, who have been independently found to have doctored and concealed reports, in order to hide their mistakes, be in charge of making decisions regarding FOIA requests, relating to the same matters. It has already been agreed that the NEAS have not been honest with families and the Coroner in relation to the same matters?
This then draws in question the trusts ability to be honest and transparent, especially when it has been proven, that the NEAS previous behaviour been lacking in these areas. The independent reports prove such reprehensible behaviour by the NEAS?
In relation to the trusts reliance on the section 41 exemption, which it has related to some of the information I have requested, the exemption has not been correctly applied and nor has the trust provided its rationale for engaging this exemption.
Firstly, the information sought in this regard, who not reveal the identity of a particular living person or persons whatsoever. Therefore, I fail to see how this the 41 exemption is correctly engaged?
Secondly, in order to correctly engage this particular exemption, ICO guidance says that when applying a Section 41 exemption the authority should be able to demonstrate that the "someone has a genuine interest in the contents remaining confidential", but you have not included this information.
Please review this decision and, if the exemption is upheld, demonstrate that the requested information has the 'necessary quality of confidence'.
As you may be aware, ICO guidance explains that one of the ways to ascertain whether release of information would constitute a breach of confidence is to consider whether it would be actionable in court, and then, whether such an action would be likely to succeed. It says that the authority needs to demonstrate its thinking on this point, which will also involve a version of the public interest test in which you balance the public good of any disclosure against the breach of confidence.
With this in mind, I would be grateful if you could review your response, and, if the exemption is upheld, provide details of the public interest test conducted around the decision. The test is whether there is a public interest in disclosure which overrides the competing public interest in maintaining the duty of confidence.
The test assumes that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality will prevail unless the public interest
in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the confidence.
In this case, the public interest in the disclosure of the information sought, outweighs maintaining the duty of confidence, because :
interest in ensuring that public authorities remain transparent,
accountable and open to scrutiny, for example where disclosure
would:
- further public understanding of, and participation in the debate of issues of the day;
- enable individuals to understand decisions made by public authorities affecting their lives and, in some cases, assist individuals in challenging those decisions; or
-facilitate accountability and transparency in the spending of public money.
More importantly and significantly, the information sought in the request reveals evidence of the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundations trusts misconduct, illegality or gross immorality (such as misfeasance, maladministration or negligence). As such this carries significant public interest weight in favour of disclosure of the information sought.
Further weight is also afforded to the public interest in disclosure, as releasing the material or information sought, serves to protect public safety, uncovering the NEAS malpractices in relation to patient safety issues identified in May 2020. Matters which the NEAS have agreed were not shared with either the Health and Social Care regulator the CQC or NHS England at the time of publication.
It is noteworthy that FOIA 2000 legislation states, it is not necessary to establish as a matter of fact that
wrongdoing has occurred. Indeed, an allegation of wrongdoing will also carry some public interest weight, provided it originates from a credible source. This much is already proven and upheld in a number of reports and investigations conducted into the NEAS.
In light of the information I have provided, I ask that the NEAS reviews its decision. If the response and it reliance on the exemption is upheld, you include a demonstration and rationale for your decisions.
Thank you for your assistance, I await your response in due course and within the frameworks as permitted by section 45 FOIA 2000.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Yours faithfully,
John G Smith
Thank you for contacting North East Ambulance Service’s communications
team.
This email inbox is not monitored outside of working office hours.
Journalists with a media inquiry in the evening, weekend and Bank
Holidays, should ring the on-call press officer number. All inquires to
this inbox will be answered on the next working day.
The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust accepts no
responsibility or liability for the contents of this email or any changes
made after the original email. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the North
East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust unless otherwise specifically
stated. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for
delivery) of this email and its attachments, please notify the sender and
delete the email and any copies made. The confidentiality of this email
cannot be guaranteed unless the contents are exempt from the FOI Act 2000.
Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for your e-mail.
I would confirm that all information has been forwarded to someone not involved with your original request and they will carry out an independent review of the Trust’s response to your FOI request.
Regards
Karen Greenacre
FOI Governance Officer | Chief Executive’s Directorate
Usual working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Bernicia House | Goldcrest Way | Newburn Riverside Business Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne | NE15 8NY | 0191 430 2000
Unmatched quality of care every time we touch lives
http://www.neas.nhs.uk/ | Twitter: @NEAmbulance | Facebook: North-East-Ambulance-Service
On 22/07/2023, 12:29, "John G Smith" <[FOI #980304 email]> wrote:
[You don't often get email from [FOI #980304 email]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific... ]
Dear North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust's handling of my FOI request 'Specific Questions - Audit One Report & Jennifer Stanley Investigation'.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your communication dated the 21st July 2023 - FOI.23.254 refers. I am sorry to say, your communication is nothing more than a meaningless and evasive word salad.
The responses provided by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (NEAS) have been provided in order to not answer the questions or address the information which is sought. It appears that the NEAS has something to hide. Lacking the necessary transparency and accountability required from a public body. One which is ultimately accountable to the public.
The public interest should be paramount, the NEAS are ultimately accountable to the public taxpayers, without whom the service would not exist.
The contents of the NEAS response letter dated the 21st July 2023, is an attempt to avoid, reword or repackage the questions and information requested. In order to obfuscate the facts, or at least talk tentatively or vaguely about its mistakes and malpractices.
Doing so in order to disguise the trusts culpability. In doing so, the NEAS have failed to answer the legitimate questions posed or address the information sought from this public body. Information which is held in its entirety by your public organisation - The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.
This indicates that that the trust is being less than honest with the public, these matters and the information sought, concerns the trust covering up the deaths of patients, facts agreed in the NHS England - Dame Marianne Griffiths review, which you reference in your letter dated 21st July 2023.
To any reasonable person reading this thread and request for information from the start, the NEAS lack of transparency and obfuscation is clear. As is the NEAS trying to supress this information, which favours public interest disclosure.
Should the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, who have been independently found to have doctored and concealed reports, in order to hide their mistakes, be in charge of making decisions regarding FOIA requests, relating to the same matters. It has already been agreed that the NEAS have not been honest with families and the Coroner in relation to the same matters?
This then draws in question the trusts ability to be honest and transparent, especially when it has been proven, that the NEAS previous behaviour been lacking in these areas. The independent reports prove such reprehensible behaviour by the NEAS?
In relation to the trusts reliance on the section 41 exemption, which it has related to some of the information I have requested, the exemption has not been correctly applied and nor has the trust provided its rationale for engaging this exemption.
Firstly, the information sought in this regard, who not reveal the identity of a particular living person or persons whatsoever. Therefore, I fail to see how this the 41 exemption is correctly engaged?
Secondly, in order to correctly engage this particular exemption, ICO guidance says that when applying a Section 41 exemption the authority should be able to demonstrate that the "someone has a genuine interest in the contents remaining confidential", but you have not included this information.
Please review this decision and, if the exemption is upheld, demonstrate that the requested information has the 'necessary quality of confidence'.
As you may be aware, ICO guidance explains that one of the ways to ascertain whether release of information would constitute a breach of confidence is to consider whether it would be actionable in court, and then, whether such an action would be likely to succeed. It says that the authority needs to demonstrate its thinking on this point, which will also involve a version of the public interest test in which you balance the public good of any disclosure against the breach of confidence.
With this in mind, I would be grateful if you could review your response, and, if the exemption is upheld, provide details of the public interest test conducted around the decision. The test is whether there is a public interest in disclosure which overrides the competing public interest in maintaining the duty of confidence.
The test assumes that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality will prevail unless the public interest
in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the confidence.
In this case, the public interest in the disclosure of the information sought, outweighs maintaining the duty of confidence, because :
interest in ensuring that public authorities remain transparent,
accountable and open to scrutiny, for example where disclosure
would:
- further public understanding of, and participation in the debate of issues of the day;
- enable individuals to understand decisions made by public authorities affecting their lives and, in some cases, assist individuals in challenging those decisions; or
-facilitate accountability and transparency in the spending of public money.
More importantly and significantly, the information sought in the request reveals evidence of the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundations trusts misconduct, illegality or gross immorality (such as misfeasance, maladministration or negligence). As such this carries significant public interest weight in favour of disclosure of the information sought.
Further weight is also afforded to the public interest in disclosure, as releasing the material or information sought, serves to protect public safety, uncovering the NEAS malpractices in relation to patient safety issues identified in May 2020. Matters which the NEAS have agreed were not shared with either the Health and Social Care regulator the CQC or NHS England at the time of publication.
It is noteworthy that FOIA 2000 legislation states, it is not necessary to establish as a matter of fact that
wrongdoing has occurred. Indeed, an allegation of wrongdoing will also carry some public interest weight, provided it originates from a credible source. This much is already proven and upheld in a number of reports and investigations conducted into the NEAS.
In light of the information I have provided, I ask that the NEAS reviews its decision. If the response and it reliance on the exemption is upheld, you include a demonstration and rationale for your decisions.
Thank you for your assistance, I await your response in due course and within the frameworks as permitted by section 45 FOIA 2000.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Yours faithfully,
John G Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #980304 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
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.
John G Smith left an annotation ()
The below is a response from the ICO case worker, in response to my request for a Decision be made by the ICO in respect of a breach of section 10 (1) of FOIA by the North East Ambulance Service.
Response from the ICO was as follows -
From: icocasework
Sent: 27 July 2023 13:21
To: John Gordon Smith
Subject: ICO Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
27 July 2023
Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
Dear John Gordon Smith,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your complaint about: North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Their reference: FOI.23.254
Thank you for your complaint about the time the above public authority’s handling of your request for information. We note that since you submitted this complaint, on 22 July 2023 you have asked the public authority to carry out an internal review.
Before we accept a complaint, we expect you to give the public authority the chance to review its initial response to your request for information. We refer to this reconsideration as an internal review.
FOIA does not set out a statutory time for completing an internal review, but we consider that up to 40 working days is the maximum timeframe permissible.
As the public authority has not had 40 working days to complete its review, we will not be taking further action at this point. This case will therefore be closed.
Once you have exhausted the internal review procedure and if you don’t agree with the outcome, you may submit a new complaint to us; https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
Please make sure you provide us with a copy of your internal review request and the public authority’s response should you make a new complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Anjum Iqbal
Case Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
John G Smith left an annotation ()
Email response to the ICO caseworker, advising that he look at my complaint again, that he has provided a misleading response and that the North East Ambulance Service have breached section 10 (1) of FOIA 2000
Email sent on the 31st July 2023 to the ICO as follows:
CO Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
icocasework
Thu 27/07/2023 13:21
27 July 2023
Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
Dear John Gordon Smith,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your complaint about: North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Their reference: FOI.23.254
Thank you for your complaint about the time the above public authority’s handling of your request for information. We note that since you submitted this complaint, on 22 July 2023 you have asked the public authority to carry out an internal review.
Before we accept a complaint, we expect you to give the public authority the chance to review its initial response to your request for information. We refer to this reconsideration as an internal review.
FOIA does not set out a statutory time for completing an internal review, but we consider that up to 40 working days is the maximum timeframe permissible.
As the public authority has not had 40 working days to complete its review, we will not be taking further action at this point. This case will therefore be closed.
Once you have exhausted the internal review procedure and if you don’t agree with the outcome, you may submit a new complaint to us; https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
Please make sure you provide us with a copy of your internal review request and the public authority’s response should you make a new complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Anjum Iqbal
Case Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
John G Smith left an annotation ()
Email to ICO case worker on the 31st July 2023, asking that the ICO looks at the information provided in my complaint. As it is clear that the North East Ambulance Service are in breach of section 10 (1) FOIA 2000.
Email sent to ICO case worker on the 31st July 2023 as follows:
Re: ICO Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
John Smith
Mon 31/07/2023 12:08
31st July 2023
Re - Decision Notice - Breach of Section 10 (1) FOIA 2000
Ref - ICO Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
Dear Anjum,
I am afraid your email response is inaccurate as to matter of fact. I ask that you revisit the email correspondence sent to the ICO. You will see that I made two information requests to the NEAS at this time. In my request for an internal review, I also asked that a number of further questions be addressed, these we dealt with by way of a new FOIA request.
Which is what I have complained about in this instance, clearly the public body is in breach of section 10 (1) FOIA 2000. The internal review is with regards to an earlier request.
I ask that you revisit my complaint and the attached correspondence and deal with this correctly.
Kind Regards,
Mr John Gordon Smith
John G Smith left an annotation ()
Response from the ICO case worker, after being asked to look at the original complaint, which clearly demonstrated that the North East Ambulance Service had breached section 10 (1) FOIA 2000.
Email from ICO Case Worker dated 15th August 2023 as per below -
ICO Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
icocasework
Tue 15/08/2023 12:22
15 August 2023
Case Reference: IC-246527-N4S9
Dear John Smith,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Your complaint about: North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Their reference: FOI.23.254
Thank you for your email of 31 July 2023.
Your made an internal review request on 18 June 2023 and included a new request for information with 12 questions.
The Trust issued a response to you on 21 July 2023 which was more than 20 working days after your request for information was made. I note you have subsequently requested an internal review on 22 July 2023.
FOIA does not set out a statutory time for completing an internal review, but we consider that up to 40 working days is the maximum timeframe permissible.
Please clarify if you require a decision about the timeliness of the response let me know or if you wish to complain about the substantive response then you should allow the Trust time to complete its review.
Once you have exhausted the internal review procedure and if you don’t agree with the outcome, you may submit a new complaint to us; https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/foi-...
Please make sure you provide us with a copy of your internal review request and the public authority’s response should you make a new complaint.
Yours sincerely,
Anjum Iqbal
Case Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
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
John G Smith left an annotation ()
Date - 19th July 2023
Request for ICO Decision - Section 50 FOIA 2000
PUBLIC Authorities Reference - FOI.23.254
Public Body - The North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I write to you to request that the Information Commissioner makes a decision. This in relation to a FOIA 2000 request which I made to the Organisation the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust or NEAS. NEAS have now had in excess of the 20 working days as permitted by the act, in order to respond to my information request.
NEAS are now in breach of section 10 the said act, which states -
Section 10 of FOIA states: 10 — (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.
I made my FOIA request on the 18th June 2023, which was acknowledged by NEAS on the 19th June 2023. Since that time. On the 17th July 2023, the public authority responded, which is 21 days after the original request. The FOIA 2000 clearly stipulates, that a public authority has 20 working days in which to respond.
After 21 days, the NEAS requested an extension in order to supply the information. Should the public authority had genuine grounds to request an extension beyond the 20 working days, the public authority should have contacted the requester in advance of the timescale being exceeded. In this case, the public authority did not do so until day 21.In doing so, the public authority has failed to provide a rationale as to why they would need more time to comply with what is a simple request.
Today is the 22rd working day, since I first made my request for information. Which clearly demonstrates NEAS are in breach of their obligations under section 10 (1) of the act.
In connection with the same, due to NEAS non-compliance, I now make this application under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Applying to the commissioner, for a decision as to whether, in any specified respect, my information request to NEAS, has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Thus far, NEAS have failed to provide the information requested, also failing to demonstrate, that any exemption applies to the information that has been requested. Under section 50 (4)(a), the public authority (North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust) has failed to communicate information, or to provide confirmation or denial, in a case where it is required to do so by section 1(1).
In connection with my application under section 50 FOIA 2000, please find attached my correspondence with the public body to date. In the meantime, I await your Decision Notice and further instructions.
Kind regards,
Mr John Gordon Smith