Information Commissioner Caseload 14 March 2006
Information Commissioner’s Caseload Database (uncorrected) (Excel 429 Kb)
Despite repeated requests from the Society of Editors, activists and journalists, the ICO still refuses to proactively publish its caseload. This database is the only way to effectively monitor the Commissioner’s performance. It is also a valuable educational tool as it allows citizens see what sort of questions are being asked and prevents needless duplication of complaints. Public authorities find it useful, too. When I published the previous caseload, several public authorities contacted me to say it was the first notification they had received about being under investigation!
Yet the ICO drags its feet. This database is the result of another FOI request I filed with the Commissioner in February 2006. I have sorted the data into case type (ie closed, open, etc) and highlighted all those cases open for more than a year. You can sort the data in other ways, for example by public authority. Be aware, however, that this is the original data from the ICO and unlike last time, I have not corrected it. I am not the one in receipt of £13 million of public funds!
The quality of the data is surprisingly poor. There isn’t a stylebook between them by the looks of it. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry is listed in five different ways. So is the Department for Constitutional Affairs, BBC, and many others. Where the complainant is an organisation it is listed first followed by the public authority. This is another sign of a badly built database - the two pieces of information should be held in separate cells.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Thankyou for the ICOs list of cases. My complaint is on line 1933, sent August 2005, against Basingstoke Council. Number 394 of group of 606 - listed as “Open, determining nature of FOI complaint.” I have just filed an FOI request with the ICO asking when he will start investigation and when the Council finds out from the ICO that there is a complaint against it. (I used FOI because they could not answer my questions normally and it took 3 months to get acknowledgement of my complaint part 2 last September)
Also to my surprise, I noted from the ICO website list of Decision Notices, that they had finished investigating a number of complaints that were clearly submitted after mine by date and serial number.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:24 am
Further to my comment on 18th April, concerning my FOI request to the ICO about his progress with my complaint lodged last August 13th. I now see from the ICO list that out of 207 cases shown as “open” ie presumably under current investigation, no less than two thirds (136) were received by the ICO AFTER he received mine. I wonder how he will explain that anomaly, which should be of interest to everyone
who has an unresolved complaint. I will post any progress on this FOI inquiry.
QUESTION - If a complaint can be declared ineligible for undue delay (three months) in complaining - and an appeal must be lodged within three weeks - is there a time limit for the ICO to commence an investigation of a complaint, and might it depend on whether or not the public body was notified of the existence of the complaint by the ICO or the plaintiff, when the complaint was initially filed ?
June 14th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
ICO caselist - overload and backlog.
I made an FOI request to the ICO in April, about progress with my complaint dated August 2005 (FS50086109) There was no reply. When I asked for an Internal Review, to their credit, I got a prompt apology and answers to my questions. My FOI request had not been recognised as such in the Post Room and “was mistakenly attached to your complaint.”
Regrettably the answers I got do not offer much hope for early resolution. Answer d) - “It is difficult to estimate when your case will be allocated, particularly as steps are currently being put in place to better arrange the backlog of cases. Exemption cases received during May 2005 are currently being allocated, and so there may well be further delay …” Answer f) “Of 1291 open cases a total of 757 complaints are currently awaiting allocation, leaving 534 under investigation.” Answer g) - “We are currently restructuring our FOI department and this will of course have an effect on how complaints are dealt with. It is therefore difficult to give any realistic estimate as to when your case will be allocated.”
Answer a) (Notifying the PA.) “Currently public authorities are generally informed when a complaint against them is received. However, last August … this policy had not been put in place.” It seems there is no intention to back notify, so I shall have to do it myself, in case the refused information is tempted to “go astray.”
ICO Procedures. Answers to my other questions will be of considerable interest to all others waiting patiently, especially us private individuals for whom other serious matters
may depend on the outcome of an ICO complaint. I received a copy of the current ICO internal guidance notes. These provide unique insight into the situation, as none of this information appears to be readily available anywhere else. I summarise the interesting ones.
Out of turn case resolution. (My especial gripe) i) Cases for Northern Ireland and Wales are allocated to the respective regional teams, so that explains that. ii) The Case Reception Team strips out the ineligible cases. ii) The Procedural Complaints Team deals with the less complex cases, so “…the waiting time is currently shorter.” iii) The Exemption Team deals with the more complex cases - such as mine. iv) Of the Exemption cases received after mine - ie 13/8/2005 - I was told - “17 have been closed and 49 are currently under investigation.” v) “Although complaints are normally dealt with in date order, this is not an absolute policy ….” And vi) “… Of the 66 cases mentioned above …” (ie junior to mine) “… 40 have been assigned to a new team of case workers who have been employed on short term contracts to assist in clearing a part of the backlog.”
Prioritisation of cases. It appears from the “FOI Case Reception Procedures/Guidance” notes supplied to me, that cases considered “Urgent/Sensitive” may be given high priority. Such cases include - “Newsworthy” - “National Media Group” - “Complainant is an MP” - “MP has written on behalf of a complainant” and “Complainant has given grounds for suggesting a case is urgent.”
Memo to self - Count up the exemption cases received between May and August, take out those resolved by published Decision Notice, factor-in the cases considered or claimed to be Urgent/Sensitive. Calculate. If the answer is a lemon, consider what strings to pull to get on the priority list, or go back to sleep until 2008. Peter HOAR