Has Doug made a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner? I have had dealings with councils get everything in writing and don't attend a one to one meeting which involves you been misled.
Support solar power in the developing world. http://www.everyclick.com/solaraid http://www.solar-aid.org/ ________________________________ From: Francis Irving <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, 19 August, 2010 16:49:00 Subject: [mySociety:public] Do you live in Brent and care about Freedom of Information? Brent Council are still refusing to respond to Freedom of Information requests made via WhatDoTheyKnow. They are now sending password protected .zip files. See below message from Doug Paulley and attachments for details. If you, or anyone you know, live in Brent, there are three things Doug and WhatDoTheyKnow would like your help with: a) To tell your local councillors about it, and ask them to change council policy (you can use http://www.writetothem.com to write) b) To contact local news media or bloggers about it. c) Doug would like somebody to attend a committee meeting in Brent on his behalf: "The council officer I spoke to was most helpful and is sending me the complaints procedure by post. She indicated that the Overview and Scrutiny System is being in some way overhauled (aren't all council procedures and structures always being overhauled, or so it seems?) and that they are currently considering what to discuss and at which committee for their meetings in October. She will put "my" issue forward for discussion." He doesn't live in Brent, and will have difficulty getting there. Thanks for any help - you can also contact Doug directly using his email below. Francis ----- Forwarded message from Doug Paulley <[email protected]> ----- Hello, Thank you for our conversation just now. I wonder if I could submit this situation for consideration by Overview and Scrutiny. There is an apparent systemic antipathy by Brent's information officers to comply with their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, particularly to requests of information made via the website whatdotheyknow.com. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com is a website that enables people to make freedom of information requests to public bodies (such as councils) with the minimum of trouble, and enables the body to respond easily, at the same time automatically publishing the request and response on the website for the public to see. The actual correspondence with the council is conducted via email; an automated process publishes email responses on the website and notifies the requester of its availability. Brent Council used to refuse to provide the information via the website at all; for an example, see the attached 1.pdf (from http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home_boarding_license_16) which includes the quote from Brent: "In order for a freedom of information request to be valid an applicant must provide their real name and an address for correspondence . Please note that we do not accept the email address provided as a valid address for correspondence. We are aware that sending information to this email address will automatically result in the information being published on the whatdotheyknow website. Publication of information in this way may constitute an unauthorised re-use (under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005) and may infringe copyright. I would therefore be grateful if you will provide me with an alternative disclosure address. This can be a postal address, fax number or an email address, as long as it does not result in automatic publication and re-use." They were the only council to refuse to respond via the whatdotheyknow.com email address. The House of Commons attempted to refuse to respond giving a similar excuse. They were eventually forced to respond, however, following a ruling by the Information Commissioner, which was widely reported in the media at the time: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/11/foi_commons/ I attach a copy of the ICO's decision notice, 2.pdf After that, the Council had no alternative but to respond to requests via the whatdotheyknow.com website, though they still attempted to drag their feet and avoid it. I made a freedom of information request separately to every council in the country, including Brent, on 25th June. See attached foi.pdf, or http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/institutional_abuse_and_eviction_41 , for the correspondence I had with Brent. Brent responded saying they would consider my request as a simultaneous request for right of reuse under the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. They were the only council to respond in such a fashion. I pointed out that I was unhappy with this, saying that I did not request or need permission for right of reuse to receive the information, and indeed that the Regulations themselves state that a request for right of reuse is only valid where it relates to information that has already been supplied: (from attached Guide...doc) "The Regulations do not change access provisions; rather they provide a framework for re-use of information once access has been obtained. Accordingly, the Regulations do not apply unless the document has already been provided to an applicant, or is otherwise accessible by means other than by making a request for it under access to information legislation." When the Council remained intransigent, I raised a complaint, and asked for a copy of the complaints procedures. Incredibly, the council responded by dealing with my request for a copy of the complaints procedure as a separate Freedom of Information Request in and of itself. They supplied it in a password-protected file. They said if I wanted the password I would have to phone up for it. In the same email, they gave me permission for re-use of the complaints procedure (without me asking for such permission.) I therefore requested an internal review of the whole thing on the 12th July. The council has so far failed to respond, even though the statutory requirement is to respond within 20 working days. Separately I requested information relating to their decision to treat requests for information in this way, see attached 3.pdf, from http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/policy_relating_to_freedom_of_in . They did not acknowledge or respond to this request in any way, or to the internal review I requested on their failure to respond to my request. I am not the only one to be treated in such a fashion. It would appear to be a systemic attempt by Brent council to actively avoid responding to such requests, particularly via whatdotheyknow.com, and to be as obstructive to such enquiries as possible. For another example, see the attached 4.pdf, taken from http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/new_policy_on_whatdotheyknowcom. There are many other FoI requests from other individuals treated similarly by Brent Council, on the website at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/brent_borough_council . I must say that I find it distressing and especially disappointing that Council officers are expending such effort in attempting to find ways to avoid responding to legitimate Freedom of Information Requests. In the process they are apparently prepared to behave exceptionally childishly. This seems like an inordinate waste of Council time and money. It's also clearly against the intention of the lawmakers and against all best practise recommendations. For example, attached (svinformation...pdf) is a decision notice (legally binding) from the Information Tribunal on a different FoI request. It states: "We wish to emphasise at this point that the Freedom of Information Act is applicant and motive blind. A disclosure under FOIA, is a disclosure to the public [ie the world at large]. In dealing with a Freedom of Information request there is no provision for the public authority to look at from whom the application has come, the merits of the application or the purpose for which it is to be used. Consequently, there is no provision for the public authority to create conditions of use pursuant to a FOIA disclosure or to indicate that such disclosure should be treated in confidence. A disclosure by the public authority of information already known to a party may well prove a more useable form of information to that applicant. Confirmation of information through disclosure legitimises it and creates an “official” version of information." It is difficult to see how Brent Council's responses to Freedom of Information Requests are in compliance with this. Brent's behaviour appears to be intentionally obstructionary. In my view, it is a waste of time and money (and ingenuity!) which could be put to better use. It presents a danger of reputational damage to the Council. Perhaps most importantly it undermines the duty for transparency and accountability for the Council's actions. I'd be grateful if you could look at the situation. Thank you ----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
