Tag: Freedom of Information Act 2000

ICO issues 2nd decision notice stating Wirral Council breached more laws in how it handled a FOI request

ICO issues 2nd decision notice stating Wirral Council breached more laws in how it handled a FOI request

ICO issues 2nd decision notice stating Wirral Council breached more laws in how it handled a FOI request

                                          

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

So far I’ve written three blog posts about this one FOI request, which in chronological order are ICO issues decision notice stating Wirral Council breached 4 laws in how it handled a FOI request (9th September 2014), Wirral Council take nearly 20 months to respond to a FOI request for SACRE meeting minutes that should only take 20 days (10th November 2014) and Why after 2 years, 3 months and 19 days have Wirral Council U-turned on refusing a FOI request for minutes of a public meeting that they claimed was vexatious? (18th July 2015).

The FOI request this relates to was made through the excellent whatdotheyknow.com website on the 29th March 2013. It’s for minutes of the meetings of 26 different panels, statutory committees, advisory committees and working parties that councillors are appointed to by Wirral Council.

In September 2014, the Information Commissioner’s Office issued 9 page decision notice FS50509081. In a nutshell that decision notice stated that by the 13th October 2014 Wirral Council had to:

a) respond to the FOI request without relying on either section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 c.36 or Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The first relates to a costs exemption and the second relates to that “the request for information is manifestly unreasonable”.

and

b) advise whether it held the minutes of these meetings or not.

Wirral Council did not respond to the decision notice by the 13th October 2014. Instead it took a further three weeks than was allowed and Wirral Council responded on the 4th November 2014. Minutes of seven meetings were supplied (some minutes were supplied with some information blacked out). In response to other parts of the request it provided links to its website.

This left nine disputed parts of the request which were in relation to the bodies below (I’ll use the original numbering). JCC stands for Joint Consultative Committee and Members means councillors. I provide under each one what it’s remit was:

4 (School Appeals Panel)

To consider, as part of a statutory review process, appeals against decisions by the Local Authority (or the Governors of voluntary or aided schools) concerning the allocation of places in primary and secondary schools, and decisions by governing bodies concerning the exclusion of pupils.

The School Appeals Panel is drawn from a “pool” of lay members or members with experience in education. However, Councillors are ineligible to serve on Appeals Panels for schools under local authority control.

5 (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE))

SACRE is responsible for advising the local authority on matters concerning the teaching of religious education and collective acts of worship; it decides on applications for determination of cases in which requirements for Christian collective worship are not to apply; and may require the local authority to review its agreed syllabus.

8 (Adoption / Fostering Panels)

As part of a wider membership, to determine applications for the adoption and for the fostering of children.

10 (Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board)

To consider appeals from applicants who consider they have been unfairly treated or unfairly excluded from the waiting list, having exhausted the Steering Group appeals procedure.

11 (Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel)

To hear requests to discharge service users subject to guardianship upon the application of a professional responsible for their care.

15 (Headteachers and Teachers JCC)

To meet with headteachers’ and teachers’ representatives to discuss educational issues.

18 (Members’ Training Steering Group)

To advise on the preparation of the annual programme of training for Council members and on individual applications to attend courses.

19 (Members’ Equipment Steering Group)

To review IT equipment provision for members.

26 (Safeguarding Reference Group)

Established by Cabinet on 15 April 2010 for the purpose of ensuring that the most senior community leaders of the Council are enabled to carry out their responsibilities of safeguarding children and adults in Wirral.

Minutes of a School Appeals Panel meeting (part 4 of the request) were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education meeting (part 5 of the request) were provided but with names other than that of councillors blacked out based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of the Adoption/Fostering Panels (part 8 of the request) were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board meeting (part 10 of the request) Wirral Council merely stated “Officers are investigating if this Board has ever met/if there are any minutes available and we will answer this part of your enquiry as soon as possible.”

Minutes of a Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel (part 11 of the request) were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Headteachers and Teachers Joint Consultative Committee meeting were refused based on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Members’ Training Steering Group meeting were refused based on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Minutes of a Members’ Equipment Steering Group meeting were refused based on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Finally, minutes of a Safeguarding Reference Group meeting were refused based on section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

So I requested an internal review of the application of these exemptions on the 12th November 2014. On the 30th April 2015 Wirral Council responded to the internal review request. I’ll point out here that internal reviews are supposed to be completed within 40 days, but Wirral Council took 5 months.

Wirral Council’s response was that section 14 (vexatious or repeated requests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied and it didn’t have to do an internal review.

This decision was then appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

On the 17th July 2015, Wirral Council did a U-turn. In respect of part of the internal review that challenged obscuring names (other than councillors) in minutes released of the Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (part 5 of the request), I’d pointed out that the minutes of this public meeting were open to public inspection because of regulation 7 of the Religious Education (Meetings of Local Conferences and Councils) Regulations 1994. Wirral Council agreed with me and released the complete minutes of the SACRE meeting (which meets in public).

Wirral Council also pointed out that since the Council’s housing stock was transferred out of Wirral Council’s control in 2009, that the Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board (part 10 of the request) hadn’t met.

In relation to part 21 (Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee) Wirral Council stated “There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”

However Wirral Council still regarded the rest of the internal review request to be vexatious.

On the 29th July 2015 the Information Commissioner’s Office issued a further 13 page decision notice (FS50569254).

This decision notice found in relation to part 4 (School Appeals Panel) and part 11 (Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental Health Act 1983 Panel) that Wirral Council does not hold information related to this part of the request.

This finding on the school appeals panels I find odd since the school appeals panel meets at Wallasey Town Hall. In response to a previous FOI request Wirral Council stated that it pays the taxi expenses for school appeals panel members and Wirral Council employees from the Legal & Member Services section of Wirral Council take the minutes of these meetings. Apparently Wirral Council states that there were School Appeal Panel meetings in 2012 but as they only keep the decision notices for 2 years that now it’s 2015 that Wirral Council don’t have them any more.

ICO also found that Wirral Council didn’t hold meetings of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee and believed Wirral Council when it stated “There are no minutes from 2013 the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee as the present Committee was formed in March 2014.”

This is disputed by both Cllr Chris Carubia and Cllr Pat Williams as you can see by their response to a tweet below:

https://twitter.com/cllrccarubia/status/622150465715859456

However, ICO stated that Wirral Council breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regards to part 5 (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE)) of the request and part 10 (Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board) because “it did not disclose information or provide a response in relation to these parts within 20 working days”.

ICO also stated in its decision notice that Wirral Council had incorrectly applied section 14(1) (vexatious or repeated requests) to parts 15 (Headteachers and Teachers JCC), 18 (Members’ Training Steering Group), 19 (Members’ Equipment Steering Group) and 26 (Safeguarding Reference Group) of the request, because “these elements of the request are not vexatious”.

ICO did decide that Wirral Council had correctly applied section 14(1) to part 8 (Adoption/Fostering Panels) of the request because it deemed it to be vexatious (but is clarified in the decision notice as being a “disproportionate burden”). Wirral Council supplied the minutes of one adoption panel meeting and one fostering panel meeting to the Information Commissioners Office which came to a total of 95 pages. Wirral Council estimated it would take 23.5 hours of staff time (just over 15 minutes a page) to make the necessary redactions.

However the minutes of the Headteachers and Teachers JCC meeting, Members’ Training Steering Group meeting, Members’ Equipment Steering Group meeting and Safeguarding Reference Group came to less than 15 double-sided pages (30 sides of A4).

The decision notice also states “The complainant will not receive a response to some parts of his request until more than two years after he submitted it.”

Either Wirral Council or myself could appeal this ICO decision notice to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) within the next 28 days.

So do you think that now Wirral Council can’t rely on section 12 (exemption where the cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) or section 14 (vexatious or repeated requests) in respect to the Headteachers and Teachers JCC meeting, Members’ Training Steering Group meeting, Members’ Equipment Steering Group meeting and Safeguarding Reference Group meeting part of this request that I’ll finally get the information?

Here are some quotes from the decision notice (committee in the first quote refers to Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee).

“The Council, however, confirmed to the Commissioner on 20 July 2015 that, having undertaken a thorough search, it does not hold any Committee minutes from 2013 or earlier.

ICO believed Wirral Council so I suppose these published minutes of the Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee published on Wirral Council’s website from the 13th April 2007, 23rd November 2006, 13th July 2005 and even as far back as 6th April 2001 are just figments of my imagination. Perhaps I’m not “on message” enough!

Here’s another quote:

“The Council’s information manager had calculated that it took 70 hours and £1,750 to provide its response to the complainant dated 4 November. It argued that the amount of time the information management team had to spend on locating, retrieving and reading information falling within the scope of the request had a detrimental impact on the team.”

On the 4th November 2014 Wirral Council provided 22 A4 pages of information. The rest it either said it didn’t hold, was already on its website or that an exemption applied. That’s £79.54 per a page (or over 3 hours per an A4 page) of released information! How can it have had a “detrimental impact on the team” when Wirral Council took the 35 days the decision notice allowed plus an extra 22 days!

and another

“The Council says this work would cause a disproportionate burden because the request does not appear to have an inherent purpose or value.”

So knowing what and how councillors make important decisions on the public’s behalf doesn’t have an “inherent purpose or value”?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

ICO issues decision notice stating Wirral Council breached 4 laws in how it handled a FOI request

ICO issues decision notice stating Wirral Council breached 4 laws in how it handled a FOI request

ICO issues decision notice stating Wirral Council breached 4 laws in how it handled a FOI request

 

Ed – 19/9/14 – ICO have uploaded the decision notice (FS50509081) to their website.

Received through the post today from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was the result of an appeal to them of an internal review of Wirral Council’s dated 30th July 2013 which related to a request made by myself on the 29th March 2013.

The whole decision goes on for nine A4 pages (plus one page accompanying letter from ICO). It’s not been published yet on ICO’s website but will be in the near future. Wirral Council (and myself) have 28 days from the date of the decision made on the 8th September 2014 to make our minds up as to whether either or both parties wishes to appeal this decision notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights).

Below is the text of the decision notice (but not the accompanying one page letter).

Reference: FS50509081

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Decision notice

Date: 8 September 2014
Public Authority: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Address: Wallasey Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED
Complainant Mr John Brace
Address Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH

Decision (including any steps ordered)

———————————————————————————————————————-
1. The complainant has requested information from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) about the last minuted meetings that were held by 24 different committees. The council refused to comply with the requests on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit in costs set by section 12(1) Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”), and would be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).

2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to provide sufficient evidence for the application of section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and has breached the requirement of section 16(1) of the FOIA and regulation 9(1) of the EIR by failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The council has further breached section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.

3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:

  • Issue a response to the complainant’s request that does not rely upon section 12(1) of the FOIA or regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
  • Provide advice and assistance to the complainant about which of the requested information is held by the council, and therefore falls under the terms of the FOIA or EIR.

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of that fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Request and response
———————————————————————————————————————-
5. On 29 March 2013, the complainant wrote to the council and requested the following:

“Please could you provide minutes of the previous meetings of the following committees. If minutes whether in draft form or not are not available of the previous meeting, please provide the minutes of the meeting directly before. I have given each of the committees a number in order which can be used in future communications to avoid misunderstandings.

If minutes for any of these committees are not available in electronic form and to provide them in digital form would exceed the 18.5 hours rule then I am happy to collect paper copies from Wallasey Town Hall instead.

1. Complaints Panel (School Curriculum and Related Matters)
2. Education Staff Panel
3. Headteacher Appointments Panel
4. School Appeals Panel
5. Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE)
6. Wirral Schools Forum (Funding Consultative Group)
7. School Admissions Forum
8. Adoption / Fostering Panels
9. Housing Review Panel
10. Unified Waiting List Management Advisory Board
11. Discharge from Guardianship by Wirral Council under the Mental
Health Act 1983 Panel
12. Independent Remuneration Panel
13. Youth and Play Service Advisory Committee
14. Corporate Parenting Group (formerly known as Virtual School
Governing Body)
15. Headteachers and Teachers JCC
16. SEN Advisory Committee
17. Wirral Schools’ Music Service Consultative Committee
18. Members’ Training Steering Group
19. Members’ Equipment Steering Group
20. Birkenhead Park Advisory Committee
21. Hilbre Island Nature Reserve Management Committee
22. Wirral Climate Change Group
23. Anti-Social Behaviour Partnership Body
24. Birkenhead Town Centre Consultative Group
25. Wirral Trade Centre Working Party
26. Safeguarding Reference Group”

6. The council responded on 30 April 2013 and refused the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA, but advised the information sought by request 12 was available on the council’s webpages.

7. The council provided an internal review on 30 July 2013 in which it revised its position and refused the requests under section 14(1), and further advised that the information sought by request 13 was available on the council’s webpages.

Scope of the case
———————————————————————————————————————-
8. The complainant contacted the Commissioner on 14 August 2013 to contest the council’s response.

9. Following the Commissioner writing to the council on 10 February 2014, the council further revised its position on 19 June 2014 and refused the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The complainant subsequently advised the Commissioner that he wished to contest this new position.

10. The Commissioner has identified that the information sought by requests 12 and 13 is available on the council’s webpages. This was confirmed in the council’s initial response and subsequent internal review. The complainant has subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that he accepts that this information is already publically available, and only wishes to contest the council’s response in respect of the remaining 24 requests.

11. The Commissioner therefore considers that the scope of this case is the determination of whether the council’s refusal under section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) is correct.

Reasons for decision
———————————————————————————————————————-
Is part of the requested information environmental?

12. Information is “environmental” if it meets the definition set out in regulation 2 of the EIR. Environmental information must be considered for disclosure under the terms of the EIR. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner does not have sight of the requested information, but has identified that part of it derives from committees that are responsible for environmental matters, including climate change and local parkland. As such, the Commissioner considers it highly likely part of the requested information that derives from those committees would be environmental information as defined by regulation 2 of the EIR.

Section 12 (FOIA) and regulation 12(4)(b)(EIR) – Cost of compliance

13. Section 12(1) of the FOIA states that:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

14. The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (“the Fees Regulations”) sets the appropriate limit at £450 for the public authority in question. Under the Fees Regulations, a public authority may charge a maximum of £25 per hour for work undertaken to comply with a request. This equates to 18 hours work in accordance with the appropriate limit set out above.

15. A public authority is only required to provide a reasonable estimate or breakdown of costs and in putting together its estimate it can take the following processes into consideration:

  • determining whether it holds the information;
  • locating the information, or a document which may contain the information;
  • retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information; and
  • extracting the information from a document containing it.

16. The EIR do not have a provision where a request can be refused if the cost of complying with it would exceed a particular cost limit. Rather the EIR contain an exception, namely regulation 12(4)(b), which the public authority can rely on to refuse a request if they consider it to be ‘manifestly unreasonable’ on the basis that the cost of compliance with the request would be too great.

17. Although the Fees Regulations are not directly applicable to the EIR, in the Commissioner’s view they can provide a useful point of reference when public authorities argue that complying with a request would incur an unreasonable cost and therefore could be refused on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b).

18. However, there are additional factors that should always be considered in assessing whether the costs of complying with a request for environmental information are manifestly unreasonable, in particular the proportion of burden on the public authority’s workload (taking into consideration the size of the public authority), and the individual circumstances of the case (including the nature of the information requested and the importance of the issue at stake). In additional to these factors, regulation 12(4)(b) is also subject to a public interest test.

Can the requests be aggregated?

19. In cases were a single piece of correspondence contains multiple requests for information, the Commissioner’s position is that each request is separate. This was confirmed by the Information Tribunal in the case of Fitzsimmons v Information Commissioner and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (EA/2007/0124).

20. Under the Fees Regulations, public authorities can aggregate the cost of complying with requests if they ‘relate, to any extent’, to the same or similar information’. The Commissioner interprets this phrase broadly, and considers that providing there is an overarching theme or subject matter that connects the requests, the cost of compliance with each request can be aggregated.

21. In the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has reviewed the correspondence in which the complainant requested information, and has identified that it contains 24 numbered requests for specific information. The complainant has advised the Commissioner that he has made these requests for the purpose of ensuring transparency on the part of councillors who have taken part in committees. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the requests are connected through an overarching theme, and that the cost of compliance can therefore be aggregated.

Can the requests spanning different access regimes be aggregated?

22. It is the Commissioner’s position that when considering the cost of compliance under section 12(1) of the FOIA or regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, requests that clearly fall under one access regime cannot be aggregated with those that fall under the other.

23. However, when an individual request is likely to span both access regimes, then the Commissioner recognises that the initial collation of the information will incur costs before the information can be subsequently assessed to decide which access regime applies. As such, the Commissioner considers it appropriate to consider the costs of such collation under the FOIA.

24. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner considers it highly likely that the information sought in requests 20, 21, and 22 will include environmental information (such as that relating to the environmental remit of the committee), and non-environmental information (such as that relating to the administration of the committee). The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to consider the initial collation of any held information under the FOIA.

Does the aggregated cost of compliance exceed the appropriate limit?

25. The council’s position is that the combined costs of identifying whether the information is held in response to the 24 requests, in conjunction with any ensuing costs of locating and retrieving the information, would exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours.

26. The council has explained to the Commissioner that the requests cover a broad range of committees, many of which are advisory in nature, and have minutes that are not electronically available through the information system that the council uses to manage its committees. The council has also suggested that due to many of the committees being advisory in nature, they may not subject to the terms of the FOIA or EIR.

27. The Commissioner, in reviewing the content of the council’s response, has identified that it has not provided the results of any sampling exercise, nor has it provided a detailed time or cost estimate to support its position that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit.

28. The Commissioner has further identified that whilst committee minutes may not be directly retrievable through the normal information system that the council uses to administrate committee minutes, he considers it reasonable to consider that the information would still be contained within a relevant filling system, either manual or electronic, which would allow the council to both identify whether the information was held, and take steps to collate it.

29. The Commissioner also considers that the council’s position that a proportion of the committees are not subject to the FOIA or EIR, further weakens the council’s grounds for refusal. Should specific committees not fall under the council’s responsibility, this would suggest to the Commissioner that the council’s compliance with the requests would only comprise meeting its duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held under section 1(1) of the FOIA or regulation 5(1) of the EIR.

30. Having considered the above factors, the Commissioner has concluded that the council has not provided sufficient evidence to support its refusal under section 12(1) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. As the Commissioner has concluded that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is not engaged, he does not need to consider the required public interest test under regulation 12(1)(b).

Section 16 (FOIA) and regulation 9 (EIR) – Advice and assistance

31. Section 16(1) of the FOIA imposes an obligation on a public authority to provide advice and assistance to a person making a request, so far as it would be reasonable to do so. Section 16(2) states that a public authority is to be taken to have complied with the provisions in the Section 45 Code of Practice (“the Code of Practice”) in relation to the provision of advice and assistance.

32. Regulation 9(1) of the EIR likewise imposes an obligation on a public authority to advice and assistance to a person making a request, as far as it would be reasonable to do so.

33. In the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner has reviewed the council’s refusal dated 19 June 2014, does not consider that advice and assistance has taken place, despite the council refusing the request on the basis of cost. The Commissioner further considers that the council’s position that some of the relevant committees do not fall under the control of the council, suggests that advice and assistance about the extent of what information is held by the council could have been provided. Therefore, in respect of its revised position dated 19 June 2014, the council has breached section 16(1) of the FOIA and regulation 9(1) of the EIR.

Section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulations 5(2) of the EIR – Time for compliance

34. Section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR requires that an information request should be responded to within 20 working days following the date of receipt. In this case a response was not provided until after that length of time. The council therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR.

35. Either party has the right of appeal against this decision notice to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Information about the appeals process may be obtained from:

First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
GRC & GRP Tribunals,
PO Box 9300,
LEICESTER,
LE1 8DJ

Tel: 0300 1234504
Fax: 0870 739 5836
Email: GRC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/general-regulatory-chamber

36. If you wish to appeal against a decision notice, you can obtain information on how to appeal along with the relevant forms from the Information Tribunal website.

37. Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 (calendar) days of the date on which this decision notice is sent.

Signed (signature of Andrew White)
Andrew White
Group Manager
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

39 ICO decision notices, 2 monitoring periods & a scrutiny review, is Wirral Council response to FOI requests better?

                                    

On Thursday I wrote about the Transformation and Resource’s Policy and Performance Committee’s Scrutiny Review on Freedom of Information.

Scrutiny reviews are not held in public. It could be argued that scrutiny review panels are subcommittees of their parent committee, therefore as a subcommittee they should meet in public. Although Wirral Council’s constitution states that citizens have the right to “participate in the Council’s question time and contribute to investigations by the Policy and Performance committees”, this scrutiny review was just officers and councillors meeting behind closed doors and there is no mention of anyone else being involved such as councillors actually talking to people who make Freedom of Information requests to Wirral Council.

Councillors seem to just be relying on information from Wirral Council employees (which then appears in their final report. The report mentions the monitoring action undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office between January and March of 2013 and July to September of the same year.

The way things are written in the report are a little misleading too, for example “The scrutiny review was conducted to ensure Wirral Council is moving in the right direction to manage Freedom of Information in compliance with the Information Commissioner’s Office.” Wirral Council have legal requirements to comply with the Freedom of Information legislation, whereas this sentence implies that Wirral Council just have to persuade the Information Commissioner’s Office that they’re improving and everything will be OK.

Recommendation one renames what used to be called the Freedom of Information departmental leads as “Freedom of Information Champions”. It also means that each champion will have a deputy and receive training and hopes this will be done by December 2014. Maybe the training is to try to speed up requests by the “Freedom of Information Champions” not having to ask Wirral Council’s legal department so much whether exemptions apply. However with so many exemptions and existing cases which determine the interpretation of how these exemptions should be applied (as well as guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office as to how exemptions should be applied) I still think that “Freedom of Information Champions” will be asking Wirral Council’s legal department for advice in the future.

Recommendation two (Freedom of Information Champions access to the customer relationship management software) should also include their deputies too if it’s going to be effective. If a request is made to Streetscene by email then an automatic email is sent out allocating a case number. I really don’t understand why this couldn’t be the case with Freedom of Information requests made via email and why they have to be entered manually which leads into recommendation three. If this is already being done for Streetscene requests why does they need a “technical solution identified” and “proper business case developed”? I have no problem with Wirral Council using case management software for freedom of information requests as it would save staff time.

Recommendation four refers to Freedom of Information performance information supplied to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group. Rather ironically Surjit Tour deems minutes of the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group to be exempt from Freedom of Information requests under s.36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) yet the scrutiny review “identified specific improvements to the performance information presented to” “the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group”.

Recommendation five states that the percentage of Freedom of Information requests responded to within twenty days (broken down at department and directorate level too) should be included in the information going to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.

Recommendation six is interesting as it suggests “identifying emerging themes and trends” of all Freedom of Information requests received by Wirral Council and publishing this information as well as including it in the Council’s publication scheme. It refers to other bodies publishing Freedom of Information requests. Wirral Council could go further than this and publish (with the requester’s details removed) its responses to Freedom of Information requests. This forms part of recommendation seven (but only for commonly asked requests). Problems with the search function on Wirral Council’s website leading to Freedom of Information requests for information that is already published is referred to. Recommendation eight recommends that the search function should be improved.

This particular paragraph in the report (page eleven) states what was known already, that Wirral Council involves its press department over some Freedom of Information requests.

“The Panel was interested in how departments dealt with disclosing information that could be deemed sensitive or damaging. Officers explained that if any exemptions to information being disclosed were to be applied, as defined by the Freedom of Information Act, these could be made by departments. Advice from either the Information and Central Services Manager or the Head of Legal and Democratic Services is available if required. The Council has a legal duty to disclose information and reputational damage does not enter into the equation. There is a quality assurance process by Legal and Member Services and, where appropriate, Press and Public Relations.”

However the following areas of Freedom of Information requests are either only referred to briefly or not at all. The only reference to internal reviews is “The hours and respective costs for Legal Services also includes: The additional time and resources expended by solicitors dealing with internal reviews”. No mention is made over the fact that there have been freedom of information requests made to Wirral Council where the requester has submitted an internal review request and even years later has not received a response! Although the Information Commissioner’s Office suggests (if memory serves me correctly) a maximum time of forty days for internal reviews, there is no specific time limit for internal reviews specified in the legislation and in the past Wirral Council has taken full advantage of it by effectively ignoring internal review requests for requests it doesn’t wish to be answered or appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Once Wirral Council has completed an internal review, the requester can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The past four years have seen the Information Commissioner’s Office issue thirty nine decision notices about Freedom of Information requests made to Wirral Council. Most appeals are upheld. Here’s a brief summary of each decision notice.

Decision notice FS50141012 3/3/08 Wirral Council claimed a s.43 (commercial interests) exemption, then a s.22 (information intended for future publication) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with both (complaint upheld).

Decision notice FS50234468 18/5/10 Wirral Council claimed a s.14 (vexatious) exemption. The Information Commissioner considered that Wirral Council should’ve considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations and therefore breached Regulation 14(3) by not providing an adequate refusal notice.

Decision notice FER0262449 22/11/10 The Information Commissioner’s Office found Wirral Council had failed to comply with regulation 5(1), 5(2) and 6(1).

Decision notice FS50398901 21/11/11 Wirral Council claimed a s.12 (Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) exemption. The information was later supplied to the requester after the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved. The Information Commissioner’s Office said that Wirral Council breached s. 10 by not supplying the information within twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50414910 15/11/11 Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414911 15/11/11 Once again Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414915 15/11/11 Wirral Council didn’t provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50414916 15/11/11 A response to a request was not provided by Wirral Council within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50406724 15/2/12 Wirral Council claimed a s. 40 (personal information) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed that a s.40 exemption applied and required Wirral Council to provide the information to the requester.

Decision notice FER0422498 8/5/12 Wirral Council claimed they didn’t have to release the information because of exemptions under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(b). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that this applied to some of the information, but decided that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemptions claimed under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) and therefore required Wirral Council to release some of the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0117 was allowed.

Decision notice FS50416628 13/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. It required Wirral Council to disclose the information and reminded Wirral Council of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137).

Decision notice FS50428877 30/8/12 Wirral Council relied on a s.36(2)(b)(i) and s.36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council also claimed an exemption under s.40 (personal information). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that some information would fall under a s.40 exemption, however disagreed that either a s.36 or s.40 exemption applied to the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to supply the information it didn’t agree was covered by the s.40 exemption.

Decision notice FS50435531 16/8/12 The requester made various requests to Wirral Council to which it failed to respond to within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.

Decision notice FS50440547 16/8/12 Various requests were made that were not answered by Wirral Council. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that this breached s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to answer the requests.

Decision notice FS50440548 16/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to answer the requests made by the requester as they had not done so within the twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50440553 16/8/12 Wirral Council failed to respond to various requests within the twenty day time limit. The Information Commissioner’s Office saw this as a breach of s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.

Decision notice FS50440555 14/8/12 Wirral Council stated it didn’t hold the information requested. During the course of the investigation Wirral Council provided the requester with the names of staff requested. However as this information was recalled from memory it fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s view that it did not hold the information requested.

Decision notice FS50445302 10/10/12 Wirral Council did not provide a response to the Freedom of Information Act request or a refusal notice. The Information Commissioner’s Office required it to either respond to the request or provide a refusal notice to the requester.

Decision notice FS50430602 22/11/12 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Information Commissioner’s decision was that on the balance of probabilities it did not.

Decision notice FS50438500 29/11/12 Wirral Council refused a request claiming a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied. It later disclosed information on the severance payments to two individuals. The Information Commissioner agreed with Wirral Council that a s.40 exemption applied, however ruled that Wirral Council had breached 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act by taking longer than twenty days to respond and a further breach of 10(1) by taking longer than twenty days to disclose the information on severance payments. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0264 was dismissed.

Decision notice FS50468400 30/4/13 Wirral Council relied on a s.40 (personal data) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved, Wirral Council stated that the information was publicly available. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a), s.1(1)(b) and s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and upheld the complaint.

Decision notice FS50468862 23/5/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to respond to the request.

Decision notice FS50470254 4/6/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with Wirral Council’s interpretation that a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied to information which contained names of its employees. It found that Wirral Council was in breach of s.10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to release the information requested by the requester that it didn’t agree that the s.40 exemption applied to.

Decision notice FER0488228 5/8/13 The requester requested an independent viability assessment report in relation to a planning application for a site on Ingleborough Road, Birkenhead. Wirral Council released some information from the report but relied on an exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e) in the Environmental Information Regulations over the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s application of the exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e), but ruled that Wirral Council had breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4).

Decision notice FS50475685 15/8/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption under s.40 (personal data). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s use of the exemption but ruled that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.

Decision notice FS50485049 8/8/13 The Commissioner’s decision was that, on the balance of probabilities, Wirral Borough Council did not hold the requested information so the complaint was not upheld.

Decision notice FS50482286 9/9/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.32 (court records, etc) and s.40 (personal information). Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council decided not to rely on s.32 (court records, etc) and released the document with the names redacted. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.

Decision notice FS50512385 26/9/13 The Information Commissioner found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response and required Wirral Council to provide a response.

Decision notice FS50474741 3/10/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.41 (information provided in confidence) and s.42 (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation Wirral Council dropped its reliance on s.42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decided that Wirral was not entitled to rely on section 41 in relation to some of the information, as it was not provided by another party and had not provided sufficient justification for the application of section 41 to the remainder of the information. It required Wirral Council to disclose the requested information.

Decision notice FS50478733 30/10/13 In response to a request Wirral Council linked to some information in the public domain but claimed a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied to the rest. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it released a further three documents to the complainant. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) as its response to the complainant had taken longer than twenty days.

Decision notice FS50491264 8/10/13 Wirral Council relied on s.14 (vexatious or repeated requests) to refuse a request. The Information Commissioner disagreed that a s.14 exemption applied to the requested information and that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to issue a fresh response without relying on a s.14 (vexatious or repeated request) exemption.

Decision notice FS50496446 17/10/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty working days.

Decision notice FS50501894 18/12/13 Wirral Council refused a request using a s.40 exemption (personal information). The Information Commissioner decided that s.40 wasn’t engaged and therefore couldn’t be used to withhold the information. It ruled that Wirral Council issued a refusal notice outside of the twenty days breaching s.17(1). It required Wirral Council to provide the information.

Decision notice FS50489913 13/1/14 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold information in response to a request. The Commissioner’s decision was that the Council is likely to hold relevant information so had therefore breached sections 1 and 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. Wirral Council was required to issue a fresh response to the complainant.

Decision notice FS50496910 15/1/14 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption in s.40 (personal information). During the Commissioner’s investigation, Wirral Council provided some of the information requested. The Commissioner agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption to the rest of the information but that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing the information it did provide within twenty days of the original request.

Case FS50506771 11/2/14 Wirral Council refused a request stating that a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had issued a refusal notice outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).

Case FS50506844 11/2/14 Wirral Council stated that information requested was not held. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had provided a response outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).

Decision notice FS50502536 19/3/14 Wirral Council claimed that in response to a request that exemptions under s.40 (personal information) and s. 42 (legal professional privilege) applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption, however as its response was outside the twenty day limit ruled it had breached s.10(1).

Decision notice FS50506802 26/3/14 Wirral Council had not provided a response to a request within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.