FOI research

[Crazy C]

Thanks shc

Just read and talked to the helpline for the commisionair and thought that it may be usefull to put down what i have discovered in relation to being classed as a vetasiuos respondant.

1. This can not be used for SAR requests ( personal requests ) http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/ ... _guide.pdf

But, most councils ( am guessing ) use this as blanket excuse. ICo suggested i ask my councuil to comply with the dat protection SAR requetss.

[shc]

The ICO have published guidance on vexatious and repeated requests

the guidance does not appear to be in accordance with decisions of the Information tribunal:

'either jeopardize sound and effective administration within public institutions or otherwise unjustly harassed public officials..'... '[ie, sound and effective administration]

under s14 of FOIA all that a Council needs to do is identify the request as vexatious (this is discretionary). The ICO is able to overturn this decision (this is also discretionary) but because their guidance is not in conformity with the Information Tribunals direction this raises questions.

the most interesting thing is that the Information Tribunal has based their definition on sound and effective administration being present in the organization to whom a request is made [i.e. there is not maladministration].. s76 and schedule 7 allow the ICO and Ombudsmen as a consequence to determine the meaning of the terms independently if they are not making use of s76 and schedule 7.. that means that all sorts of issues with s77 don't get raised.

[Crazy C]

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

interesting document on the council statistics and opinions on FOI requests, sorry if it allready on here

[shadow]

Another breakthrough

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/ ... _list.html

The Information Commissioner's Office is going to start regular publishing of the list of freedom of information cases which it is in the process of investigating.

This change of policy should please FOI campaigners and enthusiasts who have argued such routine availability is part of a philosophy of openness.

Now what about the LGO doing the same?

Thomas

[shc]

Well this is what the CLAE are doing at Corporate level.. They have stats for each of the offices as well..


COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND
Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held at Millbank Tower,
Millbank, London SW1P 4QP in Rooms 3 & 4 on the 20th floor on
Tuesday 26 May 2009 at 11.15am

Nigel Karney made the following progress report:
• He referred to his recent correspondence with Graham Smith, the Deputy
Information Commissioner, which he had circulated to Commissioners.

• Graham Smith had advised that he did not deal with DPA matters, and had
referred him to his fellow Deputy information Commissioner, David Smith. Also
that the internal guidance note for ICO staff on FOIA matters for the ombudsmen
was still being drafted.

• Nigel Karney explained that that he was in the process of consulting the
Commission’s external lawyers to obtain further advice on the Commission’s
position before taking the matter further with the ICO. He would arrange for the
draft Instructions to be circulated to the Commissioners for comment.

In the discussion, the Commission expressed concern about the ICO’s lack of a
co-ordinated approach to this issue.

The Commission noted Nigel Karney’s progress report.


Other corporate activities

The typing error in the complaints about us progress report was noted: the proportion of complaints about us upheld out of total decisions was incorrectly shown as 1.3% not upheld. Nigel Karney drew attention to the following points in his report:


The substantial increase in the number of FOIA requests received by corporate
services – from 44 (2007) to 124 (2008). Dealing with these requests, mainly from
a small number of people, proved to be very time-consuming. He had treated a
number of these requests as vexatious.

1 April 2008 to 31 July 2008 (CLA 1642)

In Corporate Services, one request counted as ‘met in full’ was in fact withdrawn
because the same request was made of PHSO and they responded first (asking for
the Commission Members’ Code of Conduct). Two full refusals were treated as
vexatious (one wasn’t really a valid request as no name was given. The other has
been appealed, but the original decision has been upheld.) Eight full refusals were
because the information is not held, although one was forwarded to DCLG. Of the
four partial refusals, two were on S.44 grounds, one was on S.40 grounds and the
other was because the information is not held. One request missed the target by
about three months. This was because the original request went to the (old) Advice
Service and was dealt with by a temporary member of staff. This request was not
passed on at the time. When the requester sent a reminder the request was correctly
passed to Corporate Services and responded to immediately. There is another
complaint about the information provided; this has not yet been dealt with.


• In this period, Corporate Services has received 18 requests made via a website –
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com. These are mostly, if not all, from ‘Ombudsmanwatch’
people, including Mr N and his wife, and Mr C above. The requests continue into
August. Seven of these requests were from Mr C and six were from Mr and Mrs N.
There have also been four requests from people who have made requests before
including Dr A (11 previous requests).

1 August 2008 to 30 November 2008 (CLA1669)

In Corporate Services, the refusals were on the following grounds:

{Table not included is on the CLAE Website]

• One request to Corporate Services was not responded to within the 20-day time
because it was necessary to consult the DCLG and they took a long time to respond.

• In this period, Corporate Services has received 49 requests made via the
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com website. It is reasonable to assume that many of these
requests are from ‘Ombudsmanwatch’ people, including Mr N (9 requests), and Mr C
(30 requests – who has also made a request to Team B in the same period) as
referred to in the last report. There have also been two requests from Dr A (11
previous requests), three requests from a Mrs O who has also made a request to
Team C, three requests from a Mr S who had made another request in the previous
period and has made two requests to the Team B this year, and three requests from
a Ms M. There was a new request from Mr L who has made three requests in
previous years, and has also made at least two requests to Team B.

• There were two requests from a Mr R (a York complainant), who has sent us 48
emails in all to date, but who has not (apart from the two) made valid FOI requests.
His requests for internal reviews (which were not on either of the two that were
treated as FOI requests) have therefore been turned down, and he has now been
told we will not respond to any further emails.

• We also had to deal with quite a number of enquiries from council staff trying to
respond to a request made by someone from ‘Ombudsmanwatch’ about statistics in
relation to Ombudsman investigations and findings of maladministration. Councils
were asking us to provide information they no longer held. We pointed out that they
were not required to obtain information from a third party in order to respond to FOI
requests and that they should just provide whatever information they held.


The substantial increase in the number of FOIA requests received by corporate
services – from 44 (2007) to 124 (2008). Dealing with these requests, mainly from
a small number of people, proved to be very time-consuming. He had treated a
number of these requests as vexatious.

1 December 2008 to 31 March 2009 CLA 1713(c)

In this period, Corporate Services has received 35 requests made via the
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com website. It is reasonable to assume that many of these requests
are from ‘Ombudsmanwatch’ people, including Mr N (2 requests), and Mr C (22 requests) as
referred to in the last report. There have also been four requests from Dr A (13 previous
requests), and ten requests from a Mr W.
• There were two further requests from a Mr R (a York complainant), who has now sent us 92
emails in all to date, but who has not (apart from four) made valid FOI requests.

• In Corporate Services, the refusals were on the following grounds:

[Table not included on CLAE Website]

• Two requests to Corporate Services were not responded to within the 20-day time because it
was necessary to consult the DCLG and they took a long time to respond. Four missed the
target by a few days due to pressure of work. One missed the target by a few days because I
thought the requester had not provided clarification, but he had. One missed the target by a
few days because it was accidentally overlooked. And one missed the target by two weeks
because the request went astray in the post between the Coventry and London offices.

Decision notices from the Information Commissioner

We have just received a decision notice on a request made to Corporate Services in January
2008. The complaint was not upheld. The ICO have notified us of seven requests for review by
the ICO on requests to Corporate Services from Mr C (see above). We were also notified of one
request for a review on a London team request.

[shadow]

I didn't mean do the same as the ICO as far as FOI requests are concerned, I meant do the same as the ICO as far as publishing complaints in hand. That is complaints against councils.

Thomas

[shc]

Also that the internal guidance note for ICO staff on FOIA matters for the ombudsmen
was still being drafted.

it also seemed useful to get all the corporate responses to FOI since wdtk has been around in one place..

[shc]

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/foi-requests-t ... yknow.html

8.5 per cent of all FOI's to central government through whatdotheyknow..

I would estimate that about 35 per cent of all FOI's to Local Government and its regulators are through the site (excluding the LGO) which appears to be particularly well used by by wdtk.

[Crazy C]

http://areallyrottenborough.blogspot.com/

interesting angle of attack, they are looking for backhanders/go quietly payments. http://areallyrottenborough.blogspot.co ... tion%20Act

go quitly payments are ( in my opinion ) are a very good indicator for high up managerial maladministration.

[shc]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c ... ernor_from

There seems to have been a change in procedures.. There have been 146 FOIA requests to the LGO/CLAE on the WDTK site. The above is the first that identifies that there is a process to complain about the CLAE failing to meet its publication scheme.

Under FOIA you should due to the provisions of s45 guidance be able to complain about both the handling of information and failure to meet the organisation's publications scheme. The publication scheme inevitably relates to the Code of Access to Information adopted by the CLAE.

The LGO's appear to have adopted a process whilst the CLAE appears to have neglected to meet this requirement of FOIA.

[tonybarnett]

The simple answer is no. The informant is protected under the Data Protection Act and rightly so.

Look at it another way, say a neighbour, a real villain, had built an extension without permission and you told the council about the extension. Would you like it if a couple of his 'friends' came round and broke your legs for reporting him to the council?

Thomas

if a murder is reported or a violent attack, yes hide the infomant, for somthing petty the council should make their own investgations by asking the "offender" questions, i have been denied access to information that would simply prove members of the public innocent.
tonybarnett

[Crazy C]

I am thinking of a slightly different angle for gathering data with eh FOI act and would like your suggestions.

I am going to see if I can 'help' some councils in collecting the data I am asking for by suggesting the search strings to run against there database to get the results. The reasoning behind this;

1.It would avoid councils suggesting that they do not hold the data in an assessable format.
2.It would massively reduce the cost of the organisation in complying with the request.
3.It would enable the requester to get exactly the information required. I would use it to gather statistical information.

It would require knowing a few simple things about how the data is stored ( database engine, fields and formats ).

My friend tells me that most government and council systems run on similar software, mostly queryable with SQL statements and code wrappers to open and interface with the databases. This is how the council tax db is run. Most documents are stored on image databases linked by relationship tables ( your unique id for your property ). The all seem to have 2 or more redundant database backups to the live databases..

Am wandering. If an FOI requester was allowed to request the results of a search string against there databases, and the same against the back up data bases.

The reason for this is you could find documents that have been altered or copied over. Changes made to the records are stored in the redundant database, and if the changes are made days after the original record, there is now way for the council to change the backup. Its a safety feature built into large databases to stop corrupt data affecting the full database.


My example.

I wish to ask all councils how many liability orders each year and at what time of the year they were gained, I then wish to ask how many of these accounts get benefit applied or were corrected for other reasons.

I would imagine that most will answer saying its to time consuming, that why I was considering the above

Am just barely scratching the surface of understanding the FOI act, were do you think I will get stopped and why ?

[shc]

FOI has two complaint systems.

(a) request handling;
(b) publication scheme

The Secretary of State has given guidance on both under s45 of FOIA.

Your friend is right about the databases.

My friend tells me that most government and council systems run on similar software, mostly queryable with SQL statements and code wrappers to open and interface with the databases. This is how the council tax db is run. Most documents are stored on image databases linked by relationship tables ( your unique id for your property ). The all seem to have 2 or more redundant database backups to the live databases..

The real 'database' (i.e. database shown to someone like a District Auditor) is not necessarily the 'database used' ..

Some Council's do not seek liability orders through revenues.. they go through legal.. (different data sets)..

There would be nothing to stop an FOIA requester requesting a search of the different databases.. for say liability orders issued in a particular month over each year. That needs to be held by revenues. and maintained by IT... and the eligibilty to council administered benefits is also maintained in the same.

You would need to frame the request very carefully to 'catch' the publication scheme.. and avoid the data handling.. to cover an appeal if required to ICO.. (I'm mailing you about this anyway)..

It is a very good idea

[shadow]

How (NOT) to handle annoying FOI requests?

"If there is anything else that I can do for you, which is required by law, don't hesitate to call my office. If it isn't required by law then don't bother asking, because I think that you're a worthless piece of..."

[BBC editorial guidelines prevent me from ending that sentence]

The mayor continued:

"You're a poor, lonely, jealous, old man with aspirations of being a writer. You write your lies and uneducated opinions on people and issues from behind the safety of your slobber stained keyboard with the hope that somebody will read them that doesn't know you and believe that you're more than the pitiful, broke-down, lizard-looking thing that you are, in my opinion. Get a life old man. On second thought, don't bother."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/ ... i_req.html

Will the LGO follow his lead?

Thomas

[Ann]

If they do it will be Stuart or possibly Trevor who makes them finally snap.

[shc]

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_s ... index.html

It is worth recalling that the CLAE members were responsible for administering the forerunner of FOI (Code of Practice on Access to Government Information)..

... and that there has already been one finding against them by the Information Tribunal.. as well as about 30 findings against them by the ICO..

[Crazy C]

Super FOI

I am going to conduct a survay of all councils. I am sending them a large survay and am asking if anyone wishes to suggest questions. Am look for suggested questions arround #;
1. there complaints system and records
2. The court records and how many each one takes to court
3. social service conduct.
4. my personal fav council tax

am look for the kind of questions that they realty dont usualty have to answer. so records can be shown in a public friendl;y format. any suggestions welcome.

get ready for league tables

[shc]

George

My view is that there is a lot of information that needs collecting.. and would initially just concentrate on the Council Tax issue.. this I think will show a lot wrong with Council's.. and the others could then follow

[Crazy C]

understood but.

i have purchased a site ready, i will put the work in, and with the back end i have designed, its nearly the same amount of work to ask 10 questions as it is 100. I am going to do this yearly, so i will improve on the questions next year, initialy i need enough info from each council to make the league tables viable.

I am asking the ICO if i can provide the councils a template to fill in, ( excel or whatever they use ). I intend to have ready for around xmas fully comparible league tables for all councils,

what i realy need help with at the moment is questions not relating to council tax, am thinking like this

planning, i know nothing about how badly functioning councils operate around planning, so can anyone suggest 10 questions that councils would be able to answer that would be usfull info in league tables. one question that pops to mind would be - how many planning apps per year, how many sucsessfull initialy, how many sucsesfull on appeal.

central council administration : ? court actions by councils, pay rises , pention rises, employment agencys what other questions for central administration. ( am thinking about 50 in this catagory ),

shc, i soo agree on the council tax thing and am on that indipendantly with the auditors, and SRA cifpa and the courts.

any suggestions welcome

[shc]

George..

what you are doing is CPA / Best Value.. from data collection to analysis.. and are seeking to ask some of the questions that should be asked. If you send out a questionnaire.. asking them to fill it in.. a lot will not..

You would be much better just doing the Council Tax as a pilot.. as there will be a lot of data to analyse.. maintain.. etc..

i.e.. you have the Valuation Tribunal stuff here.. http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/

[Crazy C]

asking them to fill it in.. a lot will not..

agreed, but, i think the ICO will support it if i do every council. i dont want to stick to just council tax and wage increases

[shc]

There are a lot of people that work for the Audit Commission.. who are collecting data daily.. I would guess that they already have league tables..

It might be worthwhile finding out what data sets they hold.. and asking for copies..?

If your site works for CT and wage increases.. it can be expanded.. to cover other domains..

Most Council's in relation to the wage increases are going to refer you to their accounts (CEO).. most have the last six years on their web sites).. That is about 3,000 downloads.. and associated search to find the data in the document..

[Crazy C]

Most Council's in relation to the wage increases are going to refer you to their accounts (CEO).. most have the last six years on their web sites).. That is about 3,000 downloads.. and associated search to find the data in the document..

i understand, am using some software to do the search for me. i can pull a fair bit from each council site automaticaly, but, hopefully i am going to get the ICO on side.

There are a lot of people that work for the Audit Commission.. who are collecting data daily.. I would guess that they already have league tables..

doesnt work like that, district auditors a seporate enterty from the audit commission. i asked them initial for the data for ct collection rate, the for the data around the 25% discount fraud initative (( VAPOUR TRAIL ) no substance to the figures )). both time they say they do not hold it.

they ( the audit commission ), have encouraged me to put a complaint in about the auditor. ?

Also, i did try these routes for comparing data for CPA markers, and looking fo rthe data used. ?

DO NOT WORRY ABOUT HOW MUCH WORK INPUTTING?COLLATING THE DATA MY BE. i keep letteing my friend out of the box to sort that side.

The audit commission is a good suggestion shc, can you think of any other bodys that collect data around councils that would be easly FOI able.

[shc]

I would guess the reason the data is not collected is that the Council Tax subsidy (DCLG) is made independent of collection.. and assessment (Valuation Tribunal).. and all that happens is that a Chief executive says to Audit Commission Relationship Manager (governance Issues and normally not CIPFA) that there is not a problem..

Valuation Tribunal could easily let you have their dataset if you ask..

[Crazy C]

the info from the audit commission in relation to

single person discount : protecting then public purse action earlyer this year.

http://www.crazycouncil.co.uk/?p=568

whats interesting is some of the councils have used flat figures, mmm and its looking like this was a paper excisise. Ie. I recon councils canceled all SPD that they had any alternative infor on, then just see who did not re-apply in the time scale . But, i think the real figures are gettable, the easy way to varify these figures is get the SPD from the previous and the next council tax accounting period.

Am going to try anbd see if i can get the figures for how many of these were single parents, and how many of them are working single parents.

[Ann]

Here is an unusual situation regarding FOI requests.

I submitted the following FOI request to Nottinghamshire County Council on the 25th August 2008

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l ... mment-7309

I would like to know, a) how many findings of maladministration the local government ombudsman has made against your council over the last 10 years. b) how many findings of maladministration your council, either in full or in part, has refused to accept. c) how many findings of maladministration your council has accepted but refused to comply, either in full or in part, with the local government ombudsman's recommended remedy.

I received a response (limited by failure to keep adequate records and cost exclusions) on the 16th October 2008

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2 ... n.doc.html

Note the date of the request and the date of their response. Then out of the blue on the 27th November 2009 (over a year later)

It has come to the Council's attention that the information supplied to you on 3 September 2008 regarding, findings of maladministration the Local Government Ombudsman has made against Nottinghamshire County Council, was incorrect. The information supplied to you was relating to what the Local Government Ombudsman categorised as 'Local Settlement'. I have attached the correct information for your records and I apologise for the error.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2 ... 9.doc.html

Their latest response when compared with their previous response highlights the advantage of local settlements to local authorities. The latest statistics bury 9 Social Care acts of maladministration. I can only conclude that they are worried about something!

It does however clearly demonstrate how Local Government Ombudsmen and Councils collude to bury acts of maladministration in an attempt to hide the true level of local authority wrongdoing from the general public.

[Ann]

ICO report on central govt compliance with model publication scheme

less than three quarters of the authorities monitored in this sector have adopted the model publication scheme. It is of serious concern to the ICO that eight authorities are in breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

thirteen authorities in the sector have published details of their charging arrangements for routinely available information on their websites, however not all have policies that conform to ICO guidance.

the greatest area of non-compliance with the requirements of the model scheme across the central government sector, with a limited number of exceptions, is in relation to the proactive release of financial information.

the proactive release of information relating to contracts awarded and their value has generally been very poor. Only a very small number of authorities make information available on both.

very few monitored authorities make available any detailed information relating to senior staff allowances and expenses.

only 3 of the authorities monitored in the sector make both the minutes and their associated agendas and papers routinely available. They are the Northern Ireland Assembly, National Assembly of Wales and the Department for International Development. We note with concern that a number of authorities make neither the minutes nor the relevant papers routinely available.

we included the proactive release of an authority’s register of hospitality and gifts in the monitoring exercise as an indicator of their transparency and openness. Whilst we presume that organisations in the sector collate this information for their own purposes, our monitoring revealed a minority make this information proactively available.

[shc]

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/ ... 271109.pdf

[Crazy C]

The answer to this request, ( no doubt after the appeal ) should open up the statistical information that the LGO have been spouting. Its a request fopr database tables info.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w ... ore_what_d

worth watching , as i am chasing down there proffesional capacaty as an organisation to investigate and to administer justice

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t ... mment-7354

[shc]

neat

the request is similar to
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r ... omment-942

related to the projects register

gaining access to the architecture would be useful...

[Ann]

Knowing what's in their database and how it's structured could be interesting to say the least.

[Crazy C]

http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/prototype/

very interseting data site by the open foundation

[ABH]

Freedom of Information Requests
House of Commons debates, 14 December 2009, 11:50 pm

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... man#g777.0

[ABH]

Information Commissioner pledges 'fierce' approach to 'slowcoach' public officials

In a recent unpublicised case, Mr Graham broke new ground when he threatened a public body, the London Development Agency, with contempt of court proceedings for failing to disclose information under an FOI request. "This will send a shock-wave through the system," he said.

http://foia.blogspot.com/2009/12/inform ... ierce.html

[Crazy C]

mmuuhhaahhaaaaa http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w ... ming-65857

Time to count the real complainant, number of compalints, number of resolutions per complainant, catagory of complaint, and much much more. HOW TO MATCH YORK UP AGAINST THE OTHER OFFICES FOR PERFORMACE. And my interest, statistical links between bad failing councils and good LGO reports.

mmmmuuuuhhhhahhahhhahhha http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t ... ming-65862

When i ask questions of the LGO in relation to the performace for the public they serve, ( york office 02-08 ), am not leaving space for there usual bull*+-t

Also, countin up the breaches of the FOI act by the lgo office foi officer, remember my suggestion a few years ago about giving them a shuffle. Has anyone got the lgo/investigators wages for any of the period 02-08 ?

[Ann]

Has anyone got the lgo/investigators wages for any of the period 02-08 ?

Financial information is available from the LGO's own website, which includes the number of investigators and salary bands. I have just looked at the 2006/7 accounts which include the number of investigators and salary bands. Older ones are available on request.

[Crazy C]

do you mind pointing to it please ?

i was asking if any of you lothad already FOI for it

[Ann]

During the year 06/7 they employed 101 on investigative work, think it's now 92 but later accounts will confirm exact number. In 2006/7 investigators were typically paid between £30k and £50k. What they are paid today can be identified from their latest accounts.

A link to their o6/7 accounts (page 19 is best place to start, this also gives individual information for all LGO and their deputies.)

http://www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id= ... AfAAwAHwA0

They also suggest that other accounts and reports are available on request should you require any not yet published.

Why not check out the Way Back links on the Ombudsman Watchers Resource Centre for the earlier ones.

http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/wayback ... index.html

The link bellow is for the LGO 2001/2 accounts.

http://web.archive.org/web/200210041727 ... s_2002.pdf

Comparing two and using Karney as an example, he was on between £60k and £65k in 01/02 and between £85k and £90k in 06/7.

Way back rules for old stuff about the LGO!

[Crazy C]

thanks ann

This may interest you, ( not sure if i already posted ) http://openlylocal.com/ i can interface with the data from the Json or xml file, very ery usfull for data scraping and mashup when complate this site will be at least as usfull as http://www.theyworkforyou.com. hes even put the source on github ( very usfull for interfacing with your own councils site automaticaly )

[Crazy C]

http://data.gov.uk/sparql ...

very interesting for data mashups

[Ann]

An early day motion has been tabled in the House of Commons calling for companies that are wholly owned by two or more public authorities to be brought within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Currently, companies that are wholly owned by a single public authority are subject to the Act, but those owned by two or more authorities are not. The motion calls for this loophole to be closed. It also calls for companies to be covered if they are 90% or more publicly owned, as opposed to the current 100% threshold.

The motion has been tabled by Conservative MP Peter Bottomley with the help of John Cross, a volunteer for mysociety's FOI website whatdotheyknow.com.

http://foia.blogspot.com/2010/01/edm-58 ... y-two.html

[ABH]

Council publishing names of FOI worst offenders!

Most recently, Norfolk County Council brazenly published a list of what they called the “worst offenders” – ie those who dared to ask the most FoI requests. Conservative Councillor Cliff Jordan who led the attack, criticised those who made use of the act as being people who “do not have any accountability” and were diverting the council from providing public services.

Cllr Jordan is apparently one of those ivory tower politicians who would dearly love to govern without the pesky interference of the people. Somewhat embarrassingly for the Conservative administration in Norfolk, it turned out that the most requests were in fact filed by the Conservative Party – a total of 55, nine times more than the number submitted by the TPA.

Sadly the secretive Councillors of Norfolk are not alone.

Kent County Council famously refused to publish the salary of their (now outgoing) Chief Executive Peter Gilroy purely on the grounds that when he had previously been shown in TPA research to be England’s best-paid council employee, someone had been rude to him in a restaurant. Their attempts at secrecy backfired, and Mr Gilroy found himself on BBC Radio 5 Live’s Breakfast Show trying to explain why taxpayers had no right to know how much of their money he received.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/local ... ation.html

Take care SHC the LGO may publish your name as an unaccountable worst offender. If they class you as unaccountable, you could reply, so are you.

[shc]

I already have the 'T shirt' :-)

It is a catch 22 as the Council won't answer requests.. and you have to remember that when Ms Seex was at Norwich the elected representatives of the Council had to put in FOI's to find out who the staff were... and what they did..

Norfolk County Council is no different.. and all you have to do in Norfolk is ask what happened to the large number of people that they identified were living in the North Sea (even had post codes).. to provide accountable local public services..

Cllr Jordan former leader of Breckland Council I believe has an interest in an hotel that is well used by the Norfolk Conservative's

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b ... ming-45738

[Ann]

Comment on an article about councils complaining about levels of FOI requests.

As an elected councillor, but member of an opposition group, I have had to use the FOI to obtain information from my own Council. The Council always takes the 20 days to respond but nearly all my requests have been granted after some form of appeal process internally or externally.
The lack of openness and transparency is disappointing.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/local ... uests.html?

[lj]

I notice that several people suggest complaining to the Freedom of Information Commissioner. I did that, using an address given to me by the Authority which is the subject of my complaint. The office was in England, and it took four months for them to send the papers to Wales. I have now been waiting another four months without any response at all, except to say in effect that these things take time. This office seems just as ineffective as the Ombudsmen.

[Ann]

lj, sorry to hear that, I and others use the on-line service

https://forms.ico.gov.uk/freedom-of-inf ... laint.aspx

In nearly every case our complaints have been resolved by the ICO within two or three months with only the occasional one taking longer.

[Ann]

Just picked this up off Twitter. ICO news letter January 2010.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resourc ... ion16.aspx

[shadow]

Just arrived via twitter. ICO gives LGO a slap on the wrist, well worth reading if you are an aficionado of FOI requests to the LGO. Karney and Pook caught out again!

http://lgowatcher.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... 44-of.html

Thomas

[Crazy C]

any suggestions

Dear Mr Cant
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act made on 30th March 2010, ( was made in january just under a formal request ) requesting a copy of the North East Lincolnshire Area Child Protection Committee action plan following the Serious Case Review by Sir Christopher Kelly concerning Ian Huntley. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your request.
In accordance with section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act I can confirm that North East Lincolnshire Council holds a copy of the ACPC action plan you have requested.
We have considered the disclosure of the action plan, and are satisfied that it is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of section 36. Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act allows for the withholding of information which in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person would or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

Section 36 is a qualified exemption. That is, it is subject to the public interest test which is set out in section 2 of the Freedom of Information Act. Where a public authority is satisfied the information requested if disclosed would or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, it can only refuse to provide the information if it is satisfied that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. We have therefore considered the public interest, taking into account the guidance of the Information Commissioner, and deem that the public interest in withholding the action plan under section 36 (2c) of the Freedom of Information Act outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

In making this decision on the disclosure of the action plan we have considered:

* If disclosure would assist public understanding of how the Council and its partners operate to provide services and support clients;
* If sufficient information is already in the public domain to inform public understanding of the matter and allow informed participation in effective debate;
* The potentially impact on the ability of the organisations in North East Lincolnshire to effectively deliver services to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; and
* The length of time since the creation of the action and its implementation.

If you are unhappy with the response you have received, you have the right to request an internal review by the Council. If following this you are still dissatisfied you may contact the Office of the Information Commissioner. If you wish to request an internal review, please contact me and I will make the necessary arrangements.Yours sincerely */****** Minion of the monitoring officer )
Corporate Records and Information Manager

North East Lincolnshire Council

i have replied


Please take this as a request for immediate internal review.

Please identify exactly what definition you have relied on.

Because of my action against the council am going to ask this is done independantly.

For your consideration.

This affected ************ when your social services placed ***** in extreme danger last year with two registered d**** a******, both had all there others c*** removed at birth. This is the reason that your withholding it. Becuase you acted wrong and your looking for a way out of it.

PLEASE IDENTIFY WHAT EXACTLY YOU HAVE RELIED ON BY RETURN OF POST

[ABH]

If you do not think the exemption is valid following a review submit a complaint to the ICO, the ICO will determine whether they have misused the exemption. They have 20 days so asking for a response by return is just a waste of time, as is trying to suggest the motivation behind their use of the exemption and wanting an independent review. The ICO provides an independent review the council doesn't have to. Why ask for things which they can and no doubt will refuse to give you?