WDTK replies sent to personal email accounts
Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,
I have read information that in respect of certain FOI requests made to you through the 'whatdotheyknow' website you have replied to requestors' personal email accounts and not to the 'whatdotheyknow' address provided.
1. Please provide all information held on whether you reply to an FOI requestor's private email address when their request is made through the 'whatdotheyknow' website. If the issue has been considered at a meeting please provide details of all relevant information - minutes, notes, etc. Include any information disseminated to staff informing of where to respond to requests made through 'whatdotheyknow'.
2. In each of the past 12 months, how many times have you replied to an FOI requestor's private email account when the request has been made through 'whatdotheyknow'? How many individuals were involved?
Yours faithfully,
J Roberts
Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your correspondence.
All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Since I told the PHSO that it could NOT use my personal data that it held on my case, to respond to any requests on WDTK by JtOakley does this clarification mean that the PHSO was acting illegally?
As the 'purpose' if collecting tye data of my private email address was changed ( purpose was a complaint case).
https://actnowtraining.wordpress.com/201...
Dear J Roberts
Your information request – Our reference: FDN 243660
I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request dated 20
December 2015. I have responded to your requests below.
“I have read information that in respect of certain FOI requests made to
you through the 'whatdotheyknow' website you have replied to requestors'
personal email accounts and not to the 'whatdotheyknow' address provided.”
1. Please provide all information held on whether you reply to an FOI
requestor's private email address when their request is made through the
'whatdotheyknow' website. If the issue has been considered at a meeting
please provide details of all relevant information - minutes, notes, etc.
Include any information disseminated to staff informing of where to
respond to requests made through 'whatdotheyknow'.
In line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I can confirm we do not
hold recorded information in relation to this part of your request. We do
not have any meeting minutes, internal guidance or communications about
responding to private email accounts when a request is made via
[1]www.whatdotheyknow.com.
PHSO will respond to all information requests through the requestor’s
preferred method of communication; this can be through electronic
communication such as social media platforms or email, or by letter sent
through the postal service. We will also make reasonable adjustments where
an individual is unable to make their request in writing due to
disabilities or has required the information to be in a particular format
for example large font or braille.
However, where the individual has used a public forum such as
[2]www.whatdotheyknow.com to request their personal data or for
information from a complaint that they have with PHSO, we will correspond
with the individual privately to ensure that their personal data is
protected and information is strictly disclosed to them or their
representative only.
2. In each of the past 12 months, how many times have you replied to an
FOI requestor's private email account when the request has been made
through 'whatdotheyknow'? How many individuals were involved?
We do not record the data you have asked for nor do we record about the
number of requests we receive via whatdotheyknow.com. We would need to
manually check every information request we have received in the last 12
months to collate the information you have asked for. In 2015 we received
615 information requests comprising freedom of information requests and/or
subject access requests. We have estimated it would take more than 18
hours to review every information request we received in 2015 to determine
if they were received through the website and whether we responded to the
individual privately, as such the cost exemption at section 12 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to the questions in this part of
your request.
I hope that the information provided is helpful. If you are dissatisfied
with the outcome of your request, you can ask for an internal review by
emailing [3][Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email].
Beyond that, if you remain dissatisfied, you can ask the Information
Commissioner to look into your concerns. He can be contacted at:
The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Website: [4]www.ico.org.uk
Helpline telephone number: 0303 123 1113
Yours sincerely
Sohifa Kadir
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Officer
References
Visible links
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
3. mailto:[Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman request email]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/
J Roberts left an annotation ()
J T Oakley,
'PHSO will respond to all information requests through the requestor’s preferred method of communication'.
I read about your experience a while ago, and it was quite different. I also read your exchanges with the ICO . If my memory is correct, the ICO supported the view that public bodies can send FOI responses to any of the requestor's addresses that it holds. I am talking about FOI requests, not requests for personal information. Your ICO complaint, I believe, also concerned FOI requests.
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
Yes. Here is the outcome.
The is conflicting information :
The PA should tell you that it is going to use your personal email address before it does so .
( Logical - and at least the requester would have some idea that a communication had gone to an old email address by mistake ..as the PHSO did to me ( another PHSO apology)
Vs
Or it doesn't have to ....
I don't think that the ICO ever really answered this point.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
The PHSO certainly does not comply or respect requesters given address on requests on WDTK.
A correspondence address is required by the Foi Act when a request is made.
And this is not the first time I asked the PHSO NOT to reply via any other address....
From: Jt Oakley
29 January 2014
Dear Brown Steve,
Please only reply via this website on all FoI requests.
Yours sincerely,
Jt Oakley
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...
As Mr Brown was was giving a Review - and not redefining the request in any way - there was no need for it to be sent anywhere else - but WDTK.
Therefore ,it is my impression that the PHSO abuses complainants' privacy - to avoid the response from being out into public view.
:::
The request ' Executive Office' was one in which the court decided that the PHSO's servicing of this request was poor and rejected the vexation placed on it . Embarrassingly so, according to the critical court verdict.
The information given to the court included Mr Brown's attempt to get his Review response off-site by sending it to my personal address.
And I wouid say that this point went in my favour.
Since it was clear that by the review date, I had NEVER asked for the names and telephone numbers of ALL EMPLOYEES and his review should of reflected that.
The PHSO went on maintaining this fiction to the ICO.
The ICO did not bother to attend court - with such an obvious flaw in the case.
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
[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
You might be interested in this request J Roberts.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
To me it seemed that if Dame Julie Mellor's name was within a request, there was a tendency for the PHSO to root through its filing system ....and send the reply via your personal address - presumably to avoid replying publically.
I just can't imagine why this would be and what it would achieve, as there doesn't seem to be any reason that you cannot put the reply on WDTK .
According to the ICO , you cannot stop the 'Switch'.
But, if you state that the request has NOT been answered, the PHSO would have to supply proof to the ICO that you received the request.
Although how it wouid be able to state so, I don't know. Since people can change email addresses easily enough.
Unless you acknowledged it at some point. By receipting it in same way.
Good luck with request.
The practice isn't just confined to the PHSO and it is seemingjy becoming just another avoidance tactic.