Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

You classify decision notices as "Not Upheld", "Partly Upheld" and "Upheld":

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/dec...

Please provide information on the number of decision notices found to have been wrongly classified for the year 2016/17.

My interest in this matter stems from a recent decision noticed dated 10 October 2017:

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

It is classified as "FOI 41: Not upheld", but:

"The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to rely on this exemption ordered the withheld minutes disclosed."

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

The wrongly classified request:

“...Could you please instruct to email the minutes of the CLOSED meetings of: The Sheffield Executive Board and The Sheffield City Partnership Board.”

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

AccessICOinformation, Information Commissioner’s Office

Thank you for contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office. We confirm
that we have received your correspondence.

 

If you have made a request for information held by the ICO we will contact
you as soon as possible if we need any further information to enable us to
answer your request. If we don't need any further information we will
respond to you within our published, and statutory, service levels. For
more information please visit [1]http://ico.org.uk/about_us/how_we_comply

 

If you have raised a new information rights concern - we aim to send you
an initial response and case reference number within 30 days.

 

If you are concerned about the way an organisation is handling your
personal information, we will not usually look into it unless you have
raised it with the organisation first. For more information please see our
webpage ‘raising a concern with an organisation’ (go to our homepage and
follow the link ‘for the public’). You can also call the number below.

 

If you have requested advice - we aim to respond within 14 days.

 

If your correspondence relates to an existing case - we will add it to
your case and consider it on allocation to a case officer.

 

Copied correspondence - we do not respond to correspondence that has been
copied to us.

 

For more information about our services, please see our webpage ‘Service
standards and what to expect' (go to our homepage and follow the links for
‘Report a concern’ and ‘Service standards and what to expect'). You can
also call the number below.

 

If there is anything you would like to discuss with us, please call our
helpline on 0303 123 1113.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office

 

Our newsletter

Details of how to sign up for our monthly e-newsletter can be found at
[2]http://www.ico.org.uk/tools_and_resource...

 

Twitter

Find us on Twitter at [3]http://www.twitter.com/ICOnews

 

The ICO's mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest.
To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to
our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment),
please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies without
passing to any third parties.

If you'd like us to communicate with you in a particular way please do let
us know, or for more information about things to consider when
communicating with us by email, visit ico.org.uk/email

References

Visible links
1. http://ico.org.uk/about_us/how_we_comply
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/tools_and_resource...
3. http://www.twitter.com/ICOnews

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Decision has been reclassified: "FOI 41: Upheld"

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/dec...

Someone interested in challenging a refusal based on section 41 is now more likely to find this decision, which could help them.

Information Commissioner’s Office

3rd November 2017

 

Case Reference Number IRQ0706950

 

Dear J Roberts

Thank you for your correspondence of 21 October 2017 in which you
requested information held by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Your request was handled in line with your rights under s 1 of the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) and our response is below.
 
Your request
 
You classify decision notices as "Not Upheld", "Partly Upheld" and
"Upheld":
 
https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/dec...
 
Please provide information on the number of decision notices found to have
been wrongly classified for the year 2016/17.
 
My interest in this matter stems from a recent decision noticed dated 10
October 2017:
 
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
 
It is classified as "FOI 41: Not upheld", but:
 
"The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was not entitled to
rely on this exemption ordered the withheld minutes disclosed."
 
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...
 
The wrongly classified request:
 
“...Could you please instruct to email the minutes of the CLOSED meetings
of: The Sheffield Executive Board and The Sheffield City Partnership
Board.”
 
Our response
 
Firstly, it may be of assistance to clarify that upon completion of a DN,
the case officer fills a form, flags the outcome of the investigation and
produces a summary for inclusion on the website. This is then sent to the
website updates team .The website team transposes this information onto
the DN summary on the website. It appears that on this occasion an error
occurred and the wrong outcome was flagged.
 
We do not hold a list of DNs where this or similar errors were identified
after publication. For clarity, when an error is flagged to us, this is
brought to the attention of our website team who takes appropriate action.
However, we do not hold a list or a spreadsheet to enable us to count
those incidents. There was an error on this occasion which we have now
corrected. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.
 
 
We hope you find the above explanation of assistance
 
Yours sincerely
 
Iman Elmehdawy
Information Access Service Manager
 
Next steps
 
 
If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to
request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your
request has been handled you should write to the Information Access team
at the address below or e-mail [1][ICO request email].

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request received
after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.
 
If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please visit
the ‘Concerns’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act
or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.
 
A copy of our review procedure is available [2]here
 

The ICO's mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest.
To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to
our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment),
please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies without
passing to any third parties.

If you'd like us to communicate with you in a particular way please do let
us know, or for more information about things to consider when
communicating with us by email, visit ico.org.uk/email

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[ICO request email]
2. https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Another misclassified decision notice, which this time relates to a DFID information request:

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Section 16 should be 'upheld':

http://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/deci...

It provides useful information which would escape the notice of anyone searching for only upheld decision notices (section 16) on the ICO website.

'44. The Commissioner is not satisfied that, in the circumstance of this case, DfID has fulfilled its obligations under section 16 of the Act. The Commissioner does not consider merely stating that a complainant could submit a narrower request is sufficient advice and assistance. She notes
that DfID set out that section 12 applied to F2017-097 in particular, however, she considers tha this only implies that the other request
could fall within the appropriate limit.

45. She also considers that DfID ought to have provided more focused advice and assistance regarding how to refine F2017-097 itself to aid
the complainant in making a meaningful request on this specific subject
matter.

46. The Commissioner therefore requires DfID to provide the complainant with adequate advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act. '

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org