West Midlands Waterway Partnership meeting - 5 April 2018

Waiting for an internal review by Canal & River Trust of their handling of this request.

Dear Canal & River Trust,

I refer to notes of West Midland Waterway Partnership meetings published via your meetings calendar. Although notes have been published for 4 January, 1 February, 1 March and 1 May, I am unable to find those for 5 April.

Please provide via whatdotheyknow.com:

- Confirmation that the meeting on 5 April took place.

- A copy of the notes.

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Dear Canal & River Trust,

I note that, contrary to your own Customer Service Standards, you have failed to provide your usual acknowledgement of this request.

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards,

Thank you for your email.

I have lodged this as a Freedom of Information Request and you will receive a response within 20 working day calculated form the date the request was submitted.

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020 E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal & River Trust

A reply to this very simple request is now overdue.

Please provide a response within two working days.

Yours sincerely,

Allan Richards

Dear Canal & River Trust,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Canal & River Trust's handling of my FOI request 'West Midlands Waterway Partnership meeting - 5 April 2018'.

You should have replied to this request promptly and by 26 June at the latest. A reminder sent on 28 June asking you to respond within two working days has been ignored.

I would like the reviewing manager to provide the information request and to provide an explanation as to the delay.

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

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Dear Canal & River Trust

I made this request on 29 May.

Due to your failure to provide me with the requested information or a refusal notice, I asked for a review on 6 July.

I understand that ICO has already provided you with guidance regarding timescales for reviews.

Yours sincerely,

Allan Richards

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards,

FOI 72-18

May I apologise for the delay in responding to your request. I write in response to your request for information below which was submitted on the 29th May. You requested the following information:

I refer to notes of West Midland Waterway Partnership meetings published via your meetings calendar. Although notes have been published for 4 January, 1 February, 1 March and 1 May, I am unable to find those for 5 April.

Please provide via whatdotheyknow.com:

- Confirmation that the meeting on 5 April took place.

- A copy of the notes.

My colleague Mr Tom Deards wrote to you on the 26th July in response to an internal review to two of your previous requests for information. In this letter he informed you that any subsequent requests submitted by yourself would be refused under section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act which states that:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

I have provided a link to the response below for your information as the reasoning for the previous refusal stand for the request detailed above. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4...

I would suggest that since you have already had an internal review of the decision to refuse previous requests under Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act that you complain directly to the Information Commissioner. You can do so here https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/offi...

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services
T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020
E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal & River Trust,

I refer to my request 'West Midlands Waterway Partnership meeting - 5 April 2018'.

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

This request was made on 29 May.

On 4 June, I said 'I note that, contrary to your own Customer Service Standards, you have failed to provide your usual acknowledgement of this request.'

On the 5 June you acknowledged.

On 28 June, I informed you that a response to this very simple request was overdue and asked you to respond within two days.

On 6 July, I requested a review. I said -

'You should have replied to this request promptly and by 26 June at the latest. A reminder sent on 28 June asking you to respond within two working days has been ignored.

I would like the reviewing manager to provide the information requested and provide an explanation as to the delay.'

A month later I reminded you that this review was outstanding adding that ICO had already provided you with timescales.

Your post of 7th August is not the review I requested!

I would add that it says - 'My colleague Mr Tom Deards wrote to you on the 26th July in response to an internal review to two of your previous requests for information. In this letter he informed you that any subsequent requests submitted by yourself would be refused under section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act '.

This is not a subsequent request. It was made on 29 May, some two months before the reviewing officers letter.

May I ask that you carry out the review I requested a matter of urgency. It is a very simple request that relates to information that you normally provide under your publication scheme.

For the avoidance of doubt, below is my request for review (6 July) again -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Canal & River Trust,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Canal & River Trust's handling of my FOI request 'West Midlands Waterway Partnership meeting - 5 April 2018'.

You should have replied to this request promptly and by 26 June at the latest. A reminder sent on 28 June asking you to respond within two working days has been ignored.

I would like the reviewing manager to provide the information requested and provide an explanation as to the delay.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards,

Please take my response of the 7th August as the Trust's final response to this request for information.

As stated in my email if you are not happy with the response I would recommend that you lodge a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services
T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020
E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal &River Trust,

Here, yet again, is my request for review dated 6 July -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Canal & River Trust,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Canal & River Trust's handling of my FOI request 'West Midlands Waterway Partnership meeting - 5 April 2018'.

You should have replied to this request promptly and by 26 June at the latest. A reminder sent on 28 June asking you to respond within two working days has been ignored.

I would like the reviewing manager to provide the information requested and provide an explanation as to the delay.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I have said before, this is a very simple request for information that should have been provided under your publication scheme.

You have failed to reply to my request promptly and within 20 man days as required by law. You have delayed in responding to my request for review. Indeed, you carefully refuse to even acknowledge that a request for review has been made.

For the avoidance of doubt, can you please confirm that you are now declining to carry out the requested review.

Regards

Allan Richards

Dear Canal & River Trust,

On 11 August I said -

'For the avoidance of doubt, can you please confirm that you are now declining to carry out the requested review.'

I have had no response.

This request was made on 29 May but you failed to reply promptly and within 20 days as required by law.

On 6 July, I requested a review. Following your failure to respond after more than 20 man days, on 11 August, I asked you to confirm that you had decided to decline to respond,

If you need extra time to consider this request, please let me know and tell me why this is required.

Yours sincerely,

Allan Richards

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards,

Thank you for your email.

I do apologise again that you did not receive a response within the 20 working days as required by law.

Our records show that you were emailed on the 7th of August and the 10th of August, in both emails I advised you that since the decision to refuse 2 of your previous requests under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act had already been through the internal review process that you should contact the information commissioner if you wish to complain.

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services
T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020
E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal & River Trust,

My request for review was made on 6 July because you failed to respond within 20 days as required by law. As you failed to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days, I asked you to provide the information requested and an explanation for the delay.

As you are aware from a recent letter from the Information Commissioner, you should have carried out the review within 20 working days. You are now in danger of exceeding 40 working days.

Please carry out the review I asked for.

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards ,

Thankyou for your email.

In my emails sent on 7th August, 10th August and 29th August I informed you that since the Trust has already completed an internal review of the decision to refuse previous requests under section 14 of the Freedom Act that if you remain unhappy that you should contact the Information Commissioner.

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services
T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020
E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal & River Trust,

Your communication of 4 September is not the review I asked for on 7 August.

For the avoidance of doubt here, here is an extract of advice given to me by the Information Commissioner related to making a complaint-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you have made a new complaint - we’re unlikely to look into it unless you have raised it with the responsible organisation<https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/rai...> (for a data protection complaint) or the responsible public authority<https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici...> (for a freedom of information complaint) first. Please make sure you have sent us a copy of their final response to you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would therefore ask you to carry out the requested review.

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards,

Thank you for your email.

Section 17(6) of the Freedom of Information Act exempts the Trust from providing a refusal notice when we are refusing a request for information under section 14 of the Act, where we have refused and provided the applicant with a notice refusing previous requests under such a claim and where it would be unreasonable to do so again.

Since we have refused pervious requests under section 14 and held internal reviews into those refusals under section 14 we are relying on Section 17(6) of the Freedom of Information Act. I believe it would be unreasonable to provide you with further decision notices, given the frequency of your communications with the Trust, the burden that this is placing on Trust and the harassment of employees at the trust through the large number of articles and other comments that you post on line which frequently focus on individual Trust employees, often accompanied by photographs of these individuals (including photos taken from personal social media pages of junior employees) without their consent.

I would recommend that you contact the Information Commissioner's Office and use this email as our final response.

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020 E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal & River Trust

Guidance on Section 17(6) reads as follows -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
123.Section 17(6) of the Act states that there is no need to issue a
refusal notice if:
 The authority has already given the same person a refusal
notice for a previous vexatious or repeated request; and
 It would be unreasonable to issue another one.
124.The ICO will usually only accept that it would be unreasonable
to issue a further refusal notice if the authority has already
warned the complainant that further requests on the same or
similar topics will not receive any response.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

However, you actually issued me with a refusal notice on 6 July. As such, Section 17(6) can not apply.

On the same day, I requested a review of your decision -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Canal & River Trust,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Canal & River Trust's handling of my FOI request 'West Midlands Waterway Partnership meeting - 5 April 2018'.

You should have replied to this request promptly and by 26 June at the latest. A reminder sent on 28 June asking you to respond within two working days has been ignored.

I would like the reviewing manager to provide the information requested and to provide an explanation as to the delay.

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

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have provided you with an extract of guidance given to me that makes it clear that you should given you the opportunity of reviewing your decision before complaining to the Commissioner. You are already well aware of the timescales for reviews.

Please carry out the review as requested. I would particularly ask you to explain why you consider this request to be vexatious when it relates to information that you normally provide as part of your publication scheme (and indeed have subsequently published without informing me).

I would also ask you to explain why you failed to provide a refusal notice within 20 days as required by law.

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Information Request, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards,

Prior to using Section 17(6) I had been in contact with the Information Commissioners Office to double check the right to complain to them regarding subsequent S14 refusals without and internal review being held. They confirmed that they would accept a complaint without an internal review given the Trust has held previous internal reviews into your section 14 refusals.

You can lodge a complaint with the information commissioner using the flowing link https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/offi...

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020 E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal & River Trust

Please reread what I said. In particular, the part in BOLD -

Guidance on Section 17(6) reads as follows -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
123.Section 17(6) of the Act states that there is no need to issue a
refusal notice if:
 The authority has already given the same person a refusal
notice for a previous vexatious or repeated request; and
 It would be unreasonable to issue another one.
124.The ICO will usually only accept that it would be unreasonable
to issue a further refusal notice if the authority has already
warned the complainant that further requests on the same or
similar topics will not receive any response.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HOWEVER, YOU ACTUALLY ISSUED ME WITH A REFUSAL NOTICE ON 6 JULY. AS SUCH, SECTION 17(6) CAN NOT APPLY.

Please carry out the review to which I am entitled.

Regards

Allan Richards

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff, Canal & River Trust

Dear Mr Richards,

As I mentioned in my previous email, I have been in touch with the Information Commissioner's Office regarding this point and they confirmed that as previous requests have been refused under Section 14 and been reviewed that you can complain straight to them.

Many Thanks

Melissa Ashdown-Hoff
Information Officer – Legal and Governance Services
T 0113 284 5239; M 07484913020
E [email address]
W canalrivertrust.org.uk
Canal & River Trust, Fearns Wharf, Neptune Street, Leeds, LS9 8PB

show quoted sections

Dear Canal & River Trust,

I have taken advice regarding this information request. I am informed that you should have notified me in your refusal notice of 7 August 2018 that I could request a review if unhappy with your decision. Furthermore, I am informed that, as I requested a review prior to your refusal notice, I should write to you expressing any concerns regarding your refusal notice such that you can include them in your review.

With regard to Sections 44 and 45 of the guidance I wish to volunteer a statement regarding the wider context in which this request is made. I trust the reviewing officer will consider this in accordance with section 46.

This request was made via Whatdotheyknow.com. Whatdotheyknow.com states ‘Canal & River Trust is subject to Environmental Information Regulations and also subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with respect to functions inherited from British Waterways. The Canal & River Trust have undertaken to voluntarily release information where they can regardless of whether they are obliged to do so.’

I have boated, walked, cycled, fished and volunteered on Inland Waterways for over 50 years. For the last ten years, I have been an active contributor to boating related forums and discussion groups. During that period, I have also written articles for several waterways publications. I have never been a member of an ‘Original campaign group protesting the creation of Canal & River Trust', as suggested by C&RT. Indeed, I am unaware of the existence of such a group.

One of the primary functions of a publication scheme is to make information of use or interest to the public available such that it does not have to be requested. This request was for notes of a Waterway Partnership meeting - information that C&RT should have published as a matter of routine under its publication scheme but had failed to do so. I would also point out that West Midlands Waterway Partnership is my ‘local’ partnership. I have moored my boat within this geographic region for more than 12 years and lived within the region for more than 40 years.

I make no apology for repeating section 12 of ICO guidance -

‘It is important to remember that section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself, and not the individual who submits it. An authority cannot, therefore, refuse a request on the grounds that the requester himself is vexatious. Similarly, an authority cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious.’

The reviewing officer will note from the above that C&RT are ignoring guidance by -

- Refusing a new request solely on the basis that it has previously refused requests as vexatious.

- Applying section 14(1) to the individual who submitted the request.

Section 13 of the guidance reads -

'Section 14(1) is concerned with the nature of the request rather than the consequences of releasing the requested information. If an authority is concerned about any possible prejudice which might arise from disclosure, then it will need to consider whether any of the exemptions listed in Part II of the Act apply.'

In your previous refusal, your frequent references to the requester, together with various accusations, demands and threat of legal action make it quite clear that you are concerned with the the consequences of releasing information. With regard to this specific request, C&RT have made absolutely no attempt to address its nature to determine if it is vexatious. How can requesting information that you have failed to provide under your publication scheme be considered vexatious?

I would, therefore, ask the reviewing officer to read the part of the guidance titled ‘Identifying potentially vexatious requests’ (Section 23 through 29). This part of the guidance provides a list of indicators as follows -

Abusive or aggressive language
The tone or language of the requester’s correspondence goes beyond the level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should reasonably expect to receive.

Burden on the authority
The effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester.

Personal grudges
For whatever reason, the requester is targeting their correspondence towards a particular employee or office holder against whom they have some personal enmity.

Unreasonable persistence
The requester is attempting to reopen an issue which has already been comprehensively addressed by the public Dealing with vexatious requests (section 14) 20151218 Version: 1.3 8 authority, or otherwise subjected to some form of independent scrutiny.

Unfounded accusations
The request makes completely unsubstantiated accusations against the public authority or specific employees.

Intransigence
The requester takes an unreasonably entrenched position, rejecting attempts to assist and advise out of hand and shows no willingness to engage with the authority.

Frequent or overlapping requests
The requester submits frequent correspondence about the same issue or sends in new requests before the public authority has had an opportunity to address their earlier enquiries.

Deliberate intention to cause annoyance
The requester has explicitly stated that it is their intention to cause disruption to the public authority, or is a member of a campaign group whose stated aim is to disrupt the authority.

Scattergun approach
The request appears to be part of a completely random approach, lacks any clear focus, or seems to have been solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed.

Disproportionate effort
The matter being pursued by the requester is relatively trivial and the authority would have to expend a disproportionate amount of resources in order to meet their request. No obvious intent to obtain information The requester is abusing their rights of access to information by using the legislation as a means to vent their anger at a particular decision, or to harass and annoy the authority, for example, by requesting information which the authority knows them to possess already.

Futile requests
The issue at hand individually affects the requester and has already been conclusively resolved by the authority or subjected to some form of independent investigation.

Frivolous requests
The subject matter is inane or extremely trivial and the request appears to lack any serious purpose. The request is made for the sole purpose of amusement.

I would like the reviewing manager to agree that none of the above indicators apply to this request (i.e. There are no grounds for refusal of this request).

Alternatively, I ask the reviewing manager to state -

- which indicators apply to this request

- why they apply to this request

- why collectively they provide grounds for refusal of this request

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards