He's requested an internal review http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/institutional_abuse_and_eviction_41#outgoing-74746
And I'm sure if that doesn't work then he'll take it to the ICO... Francis On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 07:51:05PM +0000, Abdul Hai wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
