ICO 'nicks' the IPPC for FOI failures (long)
Discussion
Posted in full for those unable to read PDFs.
Information Commissioner's Office 16 June 2010 said:
Action taken after IPCC fails to respond to FOI requests
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has taken enforcement action against the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The ICO’s enforcement notice, published today, indicates that 69 freedom of information requests were not resolved within the necessary legal timeframe. The action will help ensure requests for information are resolved within the appropriate timescales in future.
The IPCC has repeatedly failed to respond to requests in line with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ICO received a number of complaints about freedom of information requests which the IPCC had failed to respond to within the 20 day time limit. In a letter to the ICO, the IPCC confirmed that it was experiencing difficulties in responding to requests for information under FOIA due to an increase in the volume of requests.
The ICO has issued an Enforcement Notice (1) which requires the IPCC to respond to requests which are overdue by 30 September 2010, either with the information requested or with a valid refusal notice. The IPCC is also required to resolve the cases referred to the ICO within 35 calendar days.
Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said: “I am concerned that the IPCC has denied people access to information by repeatedly failing to respond to requests in line with the Act. The FOIA gives individuals important rights to access information held by public authorities and despite the current strain on resources all public authorities must remember their responsibilities under the Act. This Enforcement Notice serves as a strong signal to all public authorities that failure to respond is unacceptable. I am pleased that the IPCC reported the difficulties it was facing to us and hope that it will treat this notice with the urgency it requires by putting in place the necessary steps to answer all FOI requests in compliance with the Act.”
Failure to comply with the Enforcement Notice could result in the Commissioner referring the matter to the High Court where it may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has taken enforcement action against the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The ICO’s enforcement notice, published today, indicates that 69 freedom of information requests were not resolved within the necessary legal timeframe. The action will help ensure requests for information are resolved within the appropriate timescales in future.
The IPCC has repeatedly failed to respond to requests in line with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ICO received a number of complaints about freedom of information requests which the IPCC had failed to respond to within the 20 day time limit. In a letter to the ICO, the IPCC confirmed that it was experiencing difficulties in responding to requests for information under FOIA due to an increase in the volume of requests.
The ICO has issued an Enforcement Notice (1) which requires the IPCC to respond to requests which are overdue by 30 September 2010, either with the information requested or with a valid refusal notice. The IPCC is also required to resolve the cases referred to the ICO within 35 calendar days.
Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said: “I am concerned that the IPCC has denied people access to information by repeatedly failing to respond to requests in line with the Act. The FOIA gives individuals important rights to access information held by public authorities and despite the current strain on resources all public authorities must remember their responsibilities under the Act. This Enforcement Notice serves as a strong signal to all public authorities that failure to respond is unacceptable. I am pleased that the IPCC reported the difficulties it was facing to us and hope that it will treat this notice with the urgency it requires by putting in place the necessary steps to answer all FOI requests in compliance with the Act.”
Failure to comply with the Enforcement Notice could result in the Commissioner referring the matter to the High Court where it may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
ICO Enforcement Notice 11 June 2010 - truncated by S for space said:
Public Authority: Independent Police Complaints Commission
Address: 90 High Holborn London WC1V 6BH
Summary
The Information Commissioner wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the “IPCC”) and asked it to provide details of its performance in relation to the handling of requests for information. This action was prompted by a letter from the IPCC which stated that it was experiencing difficulties in responding to requests for information under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The IPCC confirmed to the Commissioner that it had a backlog of 72 requests, 69 of which were ‘out of time’. In addition to this backlog, the Commissioner was aware that he had received nine complaints under section 50 of the Act which identified a failure to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits, four of which remained outstanding at the time of drafting this notice. In relation to each request identified within these section 50 complaints, the Commissioner finds the IPCC to be in breach of section 10(1) of the Act and instructs it to provide the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act.
The Commissioner’s Role
1. [snip]
The Investigation
Chronology
2. On 17 March 2010 the Commissioner wrote to the IPCC setting out his concerns about its compliance with section 10(1) of the Act. The letter explained that the ICO recognised that unforeseen growth in the volume of requests submitted cannot always be factored into authorities’ handling procedures, and further, that Freedom of Information (FOI) must take its place amongst competing demands on public authorities’ resources. However, it was explained that as the regulator, the ICO would be unable to accept repeated or systemic non-compliance with the Act or non-conformity to the associated Codes of Practice.
3. In addition to setting out the Commissioner’s concerns the letter of the 17 March invited the IPCC to provide clarification on:
- the extent of the backlog;
- whether a target date had been set for its elimination;
- whether the IPCC was handling new requests separately from those within the backlog;
4. On 14 April 2010 the IPCC responded to the Commissioner, confirming the following:
- that there had been a 40% increase in the number of requests when compared with the same time last year;
- there were currently 72 outstanding requests (backlog), of which 69 were ‘out of time’;
- the date of receipt for the oldest request was 15 May 2009, with the next oldest dated 1 December 2009; the IPCC did however clarify that the May 2009 request was an exceptional case relating to a high profile investigation;
- the present target date for elimination of the backlog was the end of September 2010;
- the weekly target for allocation of cases is presently two FOI requests per team member, per week and the ratio of allocation for requests is one from the backlog and one ‘still in time’ request.
5. On 24 May 2010 the Commissioner wrote to the IPCC and informed it of his intention to issue an Enforcement Notice on 11 June 2010.
6. On 4 June 2010 the Commissioner received a letter from the IPCC which reaffirmed its intention to clear its backlog of overdue requests by September 2010. The IPCC also confirmed that a number of complaints which the Commissioner had identified as being outstanding had been addressed.
Conclusions
7. The IPCC has repeatedly failed to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits. Further the Commissioner is concerned that the timescale proposed by the IPCC for the elimination of its backlog of overdue requests may not be met, unless the authority is compelled to take such action by way of an Enforcement Notice.
Nature of Non-Compliance
8. In relation to overdue requests in its backlog and requests identified in section 50 complaints to the Commissioner, the IPCC is in breach of section 10(1) of the Act.
Steps Required
9. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the Act:
In relation to each overdue request which the IPCC has identified as ‘out of time’, the Commissioner requires the authority to:
- Respond to each of the requests by 30 September 2010
In respect of the four section 50 complaints identified in the confidential annex to this Notice, and which remain outstanding, within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice the Commissioner requires the IPCC to:
- Provide the information requested or,
- Issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
[snip]
StreakyAddress: 90 High Holborn London WC1V 6BH
Summary
The Information Commissioner wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the “IPCC”) and asked it to provide details of its performance in relation to the handling of requests for information. This action was prompted by a letter from the IPCC which stated that it was experiencing difficulties in responding to requests for information under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”). The IPCC confirmed to the Commissioner that it had a backlog of 72 requests, 69 of which were ‘out of time’. In addition to this backlog, the Commissioner was aware that he had received nine complaints under section 50 of the Act which identified a failure to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits, four of which remained outstanding at the time of drafting this notice. In relation to each request identified within these section 50 complaints, the Commissioner finds the IPCC to be in breach of section 10(1) of the Act and instructs it to provide the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of the Act.
The Commissioner’s Role
1. [snip]
The Investigation
Chronology
2. On 17 March 2010 the Commissioner wrote to the IPCC setting out his concerns about its compliance with section 10(1) of the Act. The letter explained that the ICO recognised that unforeseen growth in the volume of requests submitted cannot always be factored into authorities’ handling procedures, and further, that Freedom of Information (FOI) must take its place amongst competing demands on public authorities’ resources. However, it was explained that as the regulator, the ICO would be unable to accept repeated or systemic non-compliance with the Act or non-conformity to the associated Codes of Practice.
3. In addition to setting out the Commissioner’s concerns the letter of the 17 March invited the IPCC to provide clarification on:
- the extent of the backlog;
- whether a target date had been set for its elimination;
- whether the IPCC was handling new requests separately from those within the backlog;
4. On 14 April 2010 the IPCC responded to the Commissioner, confirming the following:
- that there had been a 40% increase in the number of requests when compared with the same time last year;
- there were currently 72 outstanding requests (backlog), of which 69 were ‘out of time’;
- the date of receipt for the oldest request was 15 May 2009, with the next oldest dated 1 December 2009; the IPCC did however clarify that the May 2009 request was an exceptional case relating to a high profile investigation;
- the present target date for elimination of the backlog was the end of September 2010;
- the weekly target for allocation of cases is presently two FOI requests per team member, per week and the ratio of allocation for requests is one from the backlog and one ‘still in time’ request.
5. On 24 May 2010 the Commissioner wrote to the IPCC and informed it of his intention to issue an Enforcement Notice on 11 June 2010.
6. On 4 June 2010 the Commissioner received a letter from the IPCC which reaffirmed its intention to clear its backlog of overdue requests by September 2010. The IPCC also confirmed that a number of complaints which the Commissioner had identified as being outstanding had been addressed.
Conclusions
7. The IPCC has repeatedly failed to respond to requests for information within the statutory time limits. Further the Commissioner is concerned that the timescale proposed by the IPCC for the elimination of its backlog of overdue requests may not be met, unless the authority is compelled to take such action by way of an Enforcement Notice.
Nature of Non-Compliance
8. In relation to overdue requests in its backlog and requests identified in section 50 complaints to the Commissioner, the IPCC is in breach of section 10(1) of the Act.
Steps Required
9. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the Act:
In relation to each overdue request which the IPCC has identified as ‘out of time’, the Commissioner requires the authority to:
- Respond to each of the requests by 30 September 2010
In respect of the four section 50 complaints identified in the confidential annex to this Notice, and which remain outstanding, within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice the Commissioner requires the IPCC to:
- Provide the information requested or,
- Issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the Act.
[snip]
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff