Why no response to this FoI request?

Jt Oakley made this Freedom of Information request to Information Commissioner's Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

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

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

REVIEW

This request was made on December 14.

“Freedom of Information Act request - I would like all documents, hand written notes, etc. due to me under FoI on this case (FS50370204) (and relating to this case ) held by the ICO. I would like certainly wish to read any communication (redacted if need be) between any ICO stakeholder and Powys within the files, or any ICO stakeholder and the ICO on this case.

Plus a separate request in the same date:....

Data Protection request -

And, separately, any file relating to me that the ICO holds under the Data Protection Act”.

Yet you have refused to provide any information - due today - for my FoI request.

Was it anything to do with the fact that a Decision Notice was not produced, on my request when it should have been?

....Because my understanding us that the ICO are now going to provide one.

::::::::

The request was plain:

All FoI information on my request to the ICO re Powys Health Board.

I cannot understand why anyone would need a clarification.

So there was no 'clarification'.

I just repeated the request yesterday ....and the FoI request is due today.

I can therefore only presume that the delay is deliberate, or misconstrued.

So please put it into REVIEW if you are not going to provide the information requested.

JTOakley.

:::::

On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:07, [email address] wrote:

PROTECT

16th January 2014

Case Reference Number IRQ0527239

Dear Mrs TO

Request for Information

Thank you for your email clarification which we received on 15 January 2014.

"FoI: My FoI request, due tommorow

DP: Then ALL information available under DP, except that provided tommorow - within my FoI. Including the data log of employees accessing the case."

Because the records we hold in connection with your complaint relate to you, they comprise your ‘personal data’. As a result we are treating your request as a ‘subject access request’ made under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

However, if there is additional information held that falls in the scope of your request which is not your personal data, we will still consider whether this should be provided to you under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

It is important to note that a release under FOIA is applicant blind and therefore effectively a release to the wider world. We will therefore also consider the release of any information that it might be reasonable to disclose on a discretionary basis.

Whilst an organisation must respond to a subject access request promptly, and in any event within 40 calendar days, we would hope to be in a position to respond to your request within the shorter timeframe required by the FOIA (20 working days from the day after we received your request). Therefore, as we received your clarification on 15 January 2014 we hope to respond by 12 February 2014.

You have made your request for information via email. Our response will include your personal data and you should be aware that email is not a completely secure method of transmission. We will reply to your request to this email address unless you specify otherwise. If you would rather we post our response to you, please confirm the postal address to which you would like it sent.

Should you wish to reply to this email, please be careful not to amend the information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the information is added directly to your case.

Janine Gregory Lead Information Governance Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

:::::::15/1

Just as the request states:

FoI: My FoI request, due tommorow.

DP: Then ALL information available under DP, except that provided tommorow - within my FoI. Including the data log of employees accessing the case.

Thanks

Jt Oakley

:::::

On 15 Jan 2014, at 15:53, [email address] wrote:

PROTECT

15th January 2014

Case Reference Number IRQ0527239

Dear Mrs TO

Request for Information

Thank you for your email of 14 December 2013 which was acknowledged on 7 January 2014 by my colleague, Michael Downs.

The first part of your request relating to the correspondence on FS503705204 is being dealt with under IRQ0524684 which is also included on the attached list.

However, we have set up a new reference for the part of your request which reads as follows:

“Data Protection Act

And, separately, any file relating to me that the ICO holds under the Data Protection Act”

Before we are in a position to respond to this, it would be helpful if you could provide us with additional information to help clarify the scope of your request, so that we are clear about what information it is you are asking for:

Do you want us to consider providing you with all the information from all the attached references except IRQ0524684 which is being dealt with separately?
If not, could you specify which references you are requesting us to provide information from?
Do you want the supporting documentation you provided yourself?
Do you want the correspondence between you and the ICO?
Please see the attached PDF of the references of the cases we hold concerning your complaints up until the date of your request on 14 December 2013.

Once you have provided the clarification to the bullet points above we will be able to begin to process your request.

Should you wish to reply to this email please be careful not to amend the information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that your reply is added directly to your case.

Yours sincerely

Janine Gregory Lead Information Governance Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

:::::

PROTECT

15th January 2014

Case Reference Number IRQ0527239

Dear [first name redacted] Oakley

Request for Information

Thank you for your email of 14 December 2013 which was acknowledged on 7 January 2014 by my colleague, Michael Downs.

The first part of your request relating to the correspondence on FS503705204 is being dealt with under IRQ0524684 which is also included on the attached list.

However, we have set up a new reference for the part of your request which reads as follows:

“Data Protection Act

And, separately, any file relating to me that the ICO holds under the Data Protection Act”

Before we are in a position to respond to this, it would be helpful if you could provide us with additional information to help clarify the scope of your request, so that we are clear about what information it is you are asking for:
Do you want us to consider providing you with all the information from all the attached references except IRQ0524684 which is being dealt with separately?
If not, could you specify which references you are requesting us to provide information from?
Do you want the supporting documentation you provided yourself?
Do you want the correspondence between you and the ICO?
Please see the attached PDF of the references of the cases we hold concerning your complaints up until the date of your request on 14 December 2013.

Once you have provided the clarification to the bullet points above we will be able to begin to process your request.

Should you wish to reply to this email please be careful not to amend the information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that your reply is added directly to your case.

Yours sincerely

Janine Gregory Lead Information Governance Officer

Information Commissioner’s Office.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

You have to ask why a simple request....:

'I want everything due to me under FoI'

....needs clarification by two senior officers.

Could it be a way of delaying giving an answer by the legally due date?

Or is the ICO inefficient?

And why would it need two officers ...the lead information governance officer Janine Gregory AND information governance officer Michael Downs, to handle a simple request?

Della left an annotation ()

Think it's about time this thread went onto phsothefacts.com There may be others interested in this connection.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

It seems simple enough to me..'all the files due to me.'

So it's to the usual ploy....

We don't want to / can't respond, therefore we will ask for a clarification to delay I doing so.

1. If you reply, stating nothing new, you have provided a clarification

2. If you don't reply .... Then it's all your fault that the case is on hold.

I don't suppose that many requestors haven't had to undergo this sort of 'clarification procedure' delay.

But it does demonstrate how even the ICO uses it.

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

I was told the ICO has only ever taken one PCT to court and that was Hounslow PCT (when they existed).
Seems ICO is reluctant to find fault with any services.
Is ICO, an office where jobs for boys (& girls) is the main priority?

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

WDTK says the response is late.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Whatever you do, don't use the word 'collusion' - the powers that be don't like this word and they might make you vexatious. ICO have absolutely no statutory power and they are frequently ignored by the organisations they regulate. They are therefore careful to skirt around any contentious issues in order to keep their statistics looking good.
I would also just like to give a 'shout out' to the Home Office Freedom of Information Team, who I now know are keen followers of my annotations.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

The DP files gave been provided via my private address.

The only interesting factor is that I applied to read the files of the ICO- in regard to its relationship to one of it's stakeholders.

The ICO then wrote to the stakeholder to ask for advice on which files could be provided to me under the Act.

So apparently stakeholders have privacy .. But complainants files have no DP protection.

Because no one asked me for my permission if the details of my DP request could be given to an external party.

.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Thank you for the DP response but the FoI information needs to be put on the WDTK site as otherwise it logged as an unanswered request.

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Thank you for the DP response but the FoI information needs to be put on the WDTK site as otherwise it logged as an unanswered request.

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

[name removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Collusion does make one sound unhinged but corruption still happens in today's society.

ICO have refused to help with both SLaM, YMCA and LB Croydon refusing to answer a subject access request under the DPA to show evidence of neglect and negligence.

This cover up of my Aunt Patricia Towner, YMCA. Eva House. Croydon discriminates against patients with a mental illness. My aunt has capacity to agree but it is a loop hole used by the parties above to avoid answering difficult complaints.

The other ploy is to backlist you as a 'vexatious complainant'. Valid complaints can then be ignored with no transparency or openness.

Mental health patients are discriminated against by the ICO and various other institutions and they should make clear policies to avoid the red tape deliberately placed to stop complaints.

LB Croydon, YMCA and SLaM have orchestrated a campaign against a vulnerable person to evict her from her accommodation not due to antisocial behaviour or rent arrears but because of age, mental health and disability discrimination. This is clearly a public interest disclosure as LB Croydon have failed to meet their statutory duties by refusing to investigate how a vulnerable 62 year old can be threatened with the 'locks being changed' and being made homeless on the street.

I have asked the Archbishop of York, President if the YMCA, the charities commission, PHSO, housing ombudsman, health care agency and members of parliament as well as LB Councillors to look into this.

To date the response has been polite but ineffective. In which time a homeless vulnerable person will have been kicked out on the streets by YMCA.

Please help.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

David.. Find a smart lawyer quickly.

This route is so long-winded that your relation will be receiving a telegram from the Queen before you get a result.

Della left an annotation ()

David ICO discriminate against everyone. They are a toothless dog and part of the 'cover up'. Take J.T. Oakley's advice and start legal action. The powers that be don't want to know about the little folk.

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

David - did they give you a reason why they would not provide you with your data?

[name removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

They claim she has no capacity despite passing two capacity assessments. Legal action is the way to go. They then said she is too mentally ill to make complaints.

The public spend millions on ombudsman who are picked from council elite to just agree with the council.

As for the ICO they are a bit better but have little power to stop obvious obfuscation by an NHS Trust.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Ask her to give you Power of Attorney over ALL her affairs..not just financial ones.

You can then ask for her her Data Protection files.

[name removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

She is not even unwell she has schizophrenia not severe dementia and has been well for many years. It is simply mental health discrimination perpetuated by LB Croydon, SLaM, LGO, PHSO, YMCA. Complete nightmare. Finding a legal aid solicitor for a mental health patient not easy but found someone.

Thanks for your help.

David.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

I'm glad you found someone to help.

The PHSO isn't much use.

It seems to define 'injustice and maladministration' as not completing a box-ticking sheet.

If a box has been ticked - it doesn't matter if the response was unjust.

For example:

If a complaint had been made about Dr Harold Shipman it would be..

'Has he filled in the death certificates of the 300 plus people he murdered?

....In that case, there is no maladministration or injustice. Carry on Killing Dr S'.

The complainants are often more help to new complainants, who don't understand this - with their combined experience - than the PHSO ever will be.