I received a 2 page letter yesterday (4th September 2017) sent by Second Class post dated 1st September 2017 from ICO (the regulator).
In summary the letter states that the Information Commissioner’s solicitors are now dealing with the matter as Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council have appealed decision notice FER0672223 to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).
As Wirral Council are the Appellant, the Information Commissioner will be First Respondent.
ICO’s letter also states that due to this the Commissioner won’t be keeping me informed about further developments on the appeal.
Although I’m the person who made the original information request, as I’m not appealing the decision notice, I’m not at the point of writing this blog post a party to the matter.
From past experience it could take ~7 months before a decision is reached.
This is a new situation I find myself in as it’s the first time a public authority has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal a decision notice relating to an information request I’ve made!
A copy of ICO’s two page letter is below, the First-tier Tribunal case reference number is EA/2017/0191.
What would ICO make of these 2 documents open to public inspection?
What would ICO make of these 2 documents open to public inspection?
19th May 2017 Police and Fire Collaboration Committee Chief Constable Andy Cooke Merseyside Police (right)19th May 2017 Police and Fire Collaboration Committee Jane Kennedy PCC Merseyside center
Why did Liverpool City Council release the names of children and their parents in childcare proceedings and a vulnerable adult?
Why did Liverpool City Council release the names of children and their parents in childcare proceedings and a vulnerable adult?
I do not have permission from either the Family Court nor the Court of Protection to publish the names of parties involved in these cases with Liverpool City Council. So those names I have blurred in green.
Yet, in what will not surprise anyone Liverpool City Council’s redactions of these documents during a public inspection meant the names of parents, children and parties was revealed to me. Their staff even let me take away copies.
Before publication I have covered some of these up in green.
Liverpool City Council’s Chief Executive in his capacity as Combined Authority Returning Officer states that we are not a media organisation.
Whereas Liverpool City Council may wish to live in a world where they can control the media, there is a point where it can backfire. The press is independent.
Maybe ICO will slap them on the wrist and tell them to improve.
Or maybe this sort of matter is taken seriously?
I don’t know, but tomorrow voters in Wavertree will get to vote whether they want more of the same or a change.
Is the way Liverpool City Council treats the personal information of vulnerable adults and children replicated in their attitude towards how they treat them? With a lack of care?
Liverpool City Council invoice 1Liverpool City Council invoice 2Liverpool City Council invoice 3 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 4 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 5 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 6 redactedLiverpool City Council invoice 7
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?
What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013?
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (the venue for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2016/0033)
I will start by declaring an interest as I was the Appellant in case EA/2016/0033. I am also married to my McKenzie Friend in this matter Mrs Leonora Brace.
Court | Room: Tribunal Room 5, 3rd Floor, Liverpool Civil and Family Court Hearing Centre, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
Oral Hearing
On: 16th June 2016
Time: 10.15am
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
Case Ref: EA/2016/0033
Parties Mr | John Brace (Appellant) ICO (First Respondent) Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Second Respondent)
Before: Mr. David Farrer QC Tribunal Judge Mr. Michael Hake Tribunal Member Dr Malcolm Clarke Tribunal Member
What was the government’s response to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information report?
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo
I will start this by declaring some interests in the area of freedom of information. I am the appellant in case EA/2016/0033 (which is a case with the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) involving decision notice FS50596346). A further case involving an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) involving decision notice FER0592270 was put in the post on Monday, but is yet to be received by the Tribunal. There are also numerous ICO decision notices that have been issued about FOI requests I have made.
Introducing new fees for FOI requests (above those that can be already charged) has been ruled out partly because this would lead to a reduction in FOI requests from the media and others.
The ministerial statement also refers to updated codes of practice published. Interestingly one of the requirements of this new code of practice will be for public authorities with a hundred or more full-time equivalent employees to publish detailed statistics on how they deal with FOI/EIR requests.
I presume this will be something similar to the quarterly reports issued by central government which give a detailed account of how FOI and EIR requests have been dealt with over that timescale.
As the ministerial statement states “The publication of such data not only provides accountability to the public, but allows the Information Commissioner to identify and target poorly performing public authorities more effectively.”
Certainly once the new code of practice is published, a new requirement on local government bodies to publish this detailed information will provide an insight into how FOI/EIR requests are dealt with.
There is also going to be revised guidance on the application of section 14(1) (vexatious or repeated requests). The ministerial statement states that they expect this only to be used in “rare cases” and that “the ‘vexatious’ designation is not an excuse to save public officials embarrassment from poor decisions or inappropriate spending of taxpayers’ money”.
There is also going to be consideration by the government of whether to include a requirement to publish expenses and benefits in kind received by senior public sector executives. It seems FOI requests have been made for these, but turned down on data protection grounds.
As I’m the Appellant in the Tribunal case EA/2016/0033 (which isn’t classed as “active” yet (as “active” in such cases is defined as from the point when a hearing date is set), I can reveal that the only major development in that case is that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has been added as a party to the appeal as second respondent (originally the case was just between myself and the Information Commissioner).
I’m still awaiting the Information Commissioner’s response (due by the 17th March 2016) and Wirral Council’s response is due not more than 21 days after they receive the Information Commissioner’s response.
Once the Information Commissioner responds and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council responds to the Information Commissioner’s response, I have up to 14 days to respond to their responses.
The Tribunal have asked all parties to notify them of any dates they are not available between 6th June 2016 and 29th July 2016, so I presume a hearing date will be set on some day between those two dates.
I’m sure there are those that could comment better than me about a practice direction that leads to hearings discussing the secret information while one of the parties to the appeal is excluded (secret hearings) and a guide to keeping information secret from one of the parties to the case.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
