A year has passed
One of my complaints has been at the Information Commissioner's Office for over a year now without the ICO even starting on the process of considering it.
On 31 July 2005 I complained to the ICO about a decision by the Department for Education and Skills not to let me see the full information I had asked for in an FOI request.
Since then I have had the following communications with the ICO relating to this case:
鈥 On 16 August 2005 they sent me a standard acknowledgment. This stated "in the early days at least, we may not be able to resolve complaints as quickly as you or we would like." Prophetic words.
鈥 On 22 October 2005 I sent an email asking for an update on progress. No reply received.
鈥 On 4 December 2005 I sent another email complaining about the delay (naive or what?).
鈥 On 5 December 2005 the ICO sent me an apology and told me "we will start work on your complaint as soon as we can".
鈥 On 21 February 2006 I phoned them and was told the case had still not been assigned to a case officer.
鈥 On 6 June 2006 I sent an email asking for an update on progress. No reply received.
鈥 On 21 July 2006 the ICO sent me a letter stating "it may be up 3 to 6 months [sic] before your case is considered".
Still, mustn't grumble, as one thing is going to improve, so they say. They now state they will write to me "every six to eight weeks until your case is opened".
In fairness to the ICO, I should say that other complaints I have sent to them have been dealt with more quickly (well, not quite so slowly). But funnily enough this complaint was one that I sent from my home address, whereas in all the others I have stated that I am a 91热爆 journalist. This is the complaint with the worst delay - just coincidence?
A 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Only one 'personal' request isn't enough to go on, really, but what you bring up is interesting. Have you found this delay 'pattern' to be true of the initial request/response process with government departments, too, or just with the ICO? If yes, this is contrary to what one would expect, if Canada's example is any guide. There, according to Al Roberts, requests from journalists that are identified as such (rather than 'disguised' requests or requests made by someone on behalf of a journalist) are funnelled through the 'amber light process' and sent to the appropriate minister, which delays the response and ostensibly results in less disclosure of information. Though you're talking about the ICO's response time, I think one can make parallels. So either there's nothing to the fact that your 'personal' request took longer, or the ICO recognises that journalists whose requests are delayed are the most capable of broadcasting complaints, which reflects badly on them. However, this doesn't bode well for private individuals' requests, which, as we understand it, form the bulk of all requests. It would be interesting to hear from other requesters...
NOT A COINCIDENCE MARTIN -
I too have just received the same progress letter dated 21st July 2006 from the ICO, (pp Simon Ebbitt - Operations Support Manager) for my FS 500 86109 - August 13th 2005 (I am a private individual complaining about my Council鈥檚 improper refusal.) His letter likewise told me 鈥渋t may be up (sic) 3 to 6 months before your case is considered.鈥 I already had to use an FOI request to the ICO to extract progress information three months ago.
With the FOI reply I was sent the ICO leaflet 鈥淔OI Case Reception Procedures/Guidance.鈥 Page 2 of that leaflet stated - 鈥淯RGENT/SENSITIVE -
鈥 Where case may be newsworthy, or where a complainant has given grounds for suggesting case may be urgent; Consult with Manager.
鈥 Where Complainant is National Media Group or an MP, or MP has written on behalf of complainant - Modify work item to HIGH PRIORITY.鈥 (NB I am happy to mail you a copy of this leaflet, and my calculation is - much more than 3 to 6 months unless they upgrade me for being a nuisance.)
Part of my peevish reply just dispatched, went roughly as follows 鈥
1. 鈥淣otwithstanding the explanation given in your earlier letter 鈥 I wish to record my disappointment that the ICO has allowed the practice of queue jumping for what appears to be a very considerable number of complaints. We are not all journalists and we do not all seek or enjoy the support of our MPs. It was clearly silly of me to assume that all cases would be treated in strict order of receipt. I did not make my request or complaint for fun or impersonal curiosity, nor as an abstract part of my job. The issues involved in my case have caused considerable personal difficulty in trying to close a long-running dispute with a bent Council 鈥 I note that for 鈥淓xemption鈥 cases requiring full investigation, 13 out of 46 Decision Notices published for July 2006, and 14 out of 32 for June, were complaints 鈥渏unior鈥 to mine. Likewise, for 11 out of 42 Appeals currently listed with the Information Tribunal. (And to rub it in, already 4 out of 6 for August.)
2. Secondly you stated - 鈥 Indeed, since the Act came into force the level of complaints has exceeded the volumes projected.鈥 That statement simply is not true. I refer to the 2004 鈥淔orecast of UK Commissioner鈥檚 caseload 2005-2009鈥 commissioned by the ICO from UCL, and to HC991 - Constitutional Affairs Committee - 鈥淔reedom of Information 鈥 One Year on.鈥 Dated 28 June 2006 - Report - Caseload Para 51 with Oral Evidence Questions 11 to 15. In the UCL report, the forecast band for 2005 was 1250 to 3000. HC991 quoted 1200 to 3000. The actual number of complaints received by the ICO in Calendar 2005 was quoted as 2385 - HC991 Para 51 - confirmed from your own Caselist - 2382 for the same period. The actual number of cases received was therefore well within, and little more than the middle of the forecast band. It is difficult to see how you can reasonably claim that the level of complaints 鈥渆xceeded the volumes projected鈥 when clearly from the record, it did not. I hope you did not think I would not know or take the trouble to find out.
3. Just to show there is no hard feeling, I am enclosing a First Birthday Card for my complaint.鈥
Yours, Peter HOAR
Sarah - Thanks for your question. I have sometimes got the impression that a request I have made as a journalist has been diverted into a more convoluted and slower process. But sometimes I have been told that it has been dealt with more urgently. I don't have enough evidence to say what the overall pattern is.
Peter - Many thanks, very interesting.
I have a handful of cases that have been awaiting a decision from the Commissioner for more than a year. On Friday, for example, I received my first contact with a case officer to a complaint I filed 6 June 2005. And, for all the time it took to process this case, the caseworker has cited the wrong law for the investigation! My case ref. FS5007492 is an Environmental Information Regulations complaint, yet the caseworker will be using the FOIA to make decision!
In addition, one of my cases against the Attorney General was closed 7 July 2006 without my knowledge. My other case against the Attorney General for a list on the advice given for ID cards and a listing of all advice sought has simply disappeared! Another case was allocated to the wrong team, and yet another has not been joined with an identical investigation already underway.
Funnily enough, the only case which did race through the Commissioner's office was against the 91热爆. I asked for the minutes to the governor's meeting when Greg Dyke resigned. It seems odd that this request was decided upon far in advance of cases made against the government filed at the same time.