How DCLG officials hoped to hide delay
The "climategate" affair involving FOI applications to climate scientists at the University of East Anglia has focused attention on whether public authorities abide by the rules in the way they reply to information requests.
Often the issue for authorities is whether they comply with the time limits they are meant to meet for freedom of information cases.
I have obtained documents from the Department for Communities and Local Government which reveal that its officials discussed whether to pretend they received one of my information requests later than the department actually did, so that they could avoid breaching the time limit on replying - before concluding that "unfortunately" this was not possible, because proof existed of when it was received.
This relates to my application last year for data comparing the energy efficiency of public buildings. My e-mail was apparently missed initially for several days, so one official wrote to another to ask "can I legitimately claim that I did not receive the e-mail until today?", adding that "unfortunately, the requester is from the BBC".
An e-mail in reply stated that "unfortunately we have proof that he request was received in CLG on 27 April, so that is the date that must be recorded".
The document extracts I have received also shed some light on other aspects of how my request, made under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), was considered. The material I eventually was sent could also have been obtained through the laborious task of visiting 28,000 public buildings and noting down the details on the Display Energy Certificates they have to display, but at first the department told me they could not give me all this data in one go as regulations from 2007 prohibited that.
One official wrote:
"The main head-scratching in this case has been to do with the incompatibility of our EIR obligations with the bar to disclosure in the 2007 Regs... those Regs would in that event potentially put the UK in breach of its EU obligations."
The government then changed the 2007 regulations to allow disclosure and released the material to me.
Some officials advocated seeking to charge the BBC the sum of £1,611 for access to the data, but another civil servant wrote: "I consider it likely that Mr Rosenbaum will cavil at being asked for the cost of extracting the information, when it is something that CLG should be making publicly available in any case."
A 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The extracts from emails you have printed don't match up to the spin you are trying to give them. The official is simply asking which date counts, the date it was received by the department or the date it was forwarded to the relevant official. There was no dishonesty or pretending they hadn't received it.
Also why are you printing out emails and scanning them in again squinty? It's an annoying affectation.
Complain about this comment
So, rather than make the effort of finding out who you should e-mail, you send it to a generic enquiries line then kick up a stink because it took a few days to get to the right person. Poor effort at creating news. I'm no fan of government bureaucracy, but this is a shabby attempt at mis-representing what really happened and dressing it up as a conspiracy.
Complain about this comment
Mr Rosenbaum seems to have misread this exchange of emails. The key word is ‘legitimately’: this was nothing more than a request for clarification about whether the relevant date was the date of receipt by the organisation generally, or the date of receipt by the department charged with the task of answering these queries. It was an entirely proper question to ask. The good will of the persons involved is further borne out by the fact that the reference to proof is that “we have proof”, as opposed to “Mr Rosenbaum has proof”; this suggests that there was a factual enquiry into what ought to be done, rather than (as implied) an inquiry for the purposes of ensuring that any attempt to deceive would go undiscovered.
Mr Rosenbaum makes serious allegations. He says (in terms) that there has been an attempt to hide behind a pretence. The clear implication is that the persons involved contemplated an attempt to deceive (which, in the present context, could well have been a criminal offence). That implication is wrong and entirely unsupported on the evidence put forward. One has to wonder how this article made it past the BBC’s procedures for screening out defamatory material.
Complain about this comment
You did better than me, I asked DCSF something last year and didn't get a response for six months. Even then the response turned out to be unhelpful and would entail asking every single local authority in England the same question to get my answer. I wonder what that would cost them?
Complain about this comment
I don't see Martin complaining. To those who think he's wrong to point out what happened, how do you explain the line in the email that says "Unfortunately, the requester is from the BBC." Why is that unfortunate?
Keep up the good work Martin. This is one of the 5 blogs or so I check regularly.
Complain about this comment
In response to Mr Freeman’s comment, it is impossible to say why the official used the phrase ‘unfortunately, the requester is from the BBC’. One could speculate that he wanted to give a good service rather than a service which met the bare legal minimum standard. Equally, one could speculate that he anticipated problems of the very sort that Mr Rosenbaum has now created. What one cannot do, however, is say that it is evidence of an attempt to create a dishonest pretence.
Complain about this comment
This is simply pathetic, I can't believe I am helping to pay you for churning out drivel like this. If I did not see an FOI request on the day it was sent, I would want to know if I could start the clock on the day I saw it. In reposnse to a previous poster I would say that it is 'unfortunate' that it came from the BBC because if the answer was late for whatever reason they would try and spin up a non-story about it.
I suggest, Mr Rosenbaum, that if you want FOI requests answered in time you should send them to an approriately qualified person and ask them to acknowledge recipt. Don't do the electronic equivalent of pinning it to the Health and Safety notice board.
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with most of those above. Your piece here is nothing but counterproductive drivel. The request for clarification - of whether the date of receipt of the request was when the respondent personally first saw it or the organisation received it - is completely valid and fair.
Shame the BBC and it's staff are so hypocritical on FoI.
Complain about this comment
Interesting.
I've provided two FOI requests to the BBC and both have been acknowledged but neither answered.
Already one is outside the 20-day deadline..........
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
I too must lend my voice to suggestions that this story is vastly inflated. If you actually *read* the e-mail the write states that he is asking whether it's legitimate, given that he didn't get the e-mail until then, to say that that is when he received it.
Unfortunately, the requester is from the BBC, and so what is a simple e-mail for clarification becomes a news story. Get over yourself.
Complain about this comment
This is where wasted license fee payers’ money comes into contact with wasted taxpayers’ money.
Don’t you have anything better to do?
Complain about this comment
What is the point of a CONTACTUS email address if you are not going to read the incoming mail, the internal email system seems to be working fine as the internal query was answered same day.
I can't understand why, instead of trying to find a 'getout of jail free' excuse, the emailer didn't just send a message apologising for the delay and get to work providing the information legitimately requested whilst pointing out to superiors the failings of their current system.
ie. learn from the mistakes rather than try to find a way of covering them up.
On another issue, Martin, would it be possible to find out through the use of FOI how many spoiled ballot papers in an election had 'None Of The Above' written on them or even just a breakdown of how spolit papers are determined ?
ie.
% with X's in more than one box
% with no X
% defaced in some way
Complain about this comment
"The official is simply asking which date counts, the date it was received by the department or the date it was forwarded to the relevant official. There was no dishonesty or pretending they hadn't received it."
-It's the date they receive it. All public sector workers should know the basics of FoI, but some hope.
Complain about this comment
Why are so many annoyed by Rosenbaum's reporting of this? Do any of you work for the Department for Communities and Local Government or something? Surely not! Yes, the official concerned 'may' have simply been unsure of the procedure (although as I state above, he should have been trained in FoI basics) but equally, he 'may' have been looking for a 'cop out'. Fundamentally, they shouldn't be breaching the 20 day deadline and might be better placed expending energy on making sure their inboxes get checked properly than quibbling receipt dates.
Complain about this comment
#15 Bloofs
I’m annoyed because my license fee money is paying the BBC and paying the government to both engage in a waste of everybody’s time.
I am also annoyed because I do not like the FOI act. What good is it? How many lives has it saved? How many injuries has it prevented? How much money has it saved?
I have not heard of any positives. I can think of some negatives, though: taxpayer cost, stifled discussion, poor decision making, to name 3
Complain about this comment
BobRocket: Much of that information is already published. You can find it in Table 5.07 of the latest edition of the reference work British Electoral Facts, compiled by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, published by Total Politics.
Complain about this comment
@16
One man's time-wasting is another man's investigative journalism.
"I am also annoyed because I do not like the FOI act. What good is it? How many lives has it saved? How many injuries has it prevented? How much money has it saved?"
Two words: MP's expenses.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the feedback Martin, I will look into that.
Complain about this comment
Re: 17 Martin
Yes, the book is available at a very reasonable £14.62 but presumably the raw data, already payed for by taxpayers, is available from the electoral commission or some such other public body.
I also payed to be statistic in so far as I went out of my way to vote in the last General Election.
I'm pretty sure that MySociety and others would love to have access to this kind of thing, this is the sort of routinely collected data that should be made available as a matter of course.
I'm sure that Railings and Thrasher add invaluable insight and comment which make the book worthwhile, but at the end of the day this is publicly funded information that should be freely available to the public (like a library :)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#18 Bloofs The amount spent on MPs expenses is peanuts compared to FOI costs. I am looking for a net benefit to the taxpayer and I don't see one.
Remember that those shouting loudest for FOI are journalists who happen to have access to the printing presses and transmitters.
The BBC suddenly discover the worth of taxpayers’ money when talking about banks and MPs expenses but conveniently forget about it when they want to spend it themselves.
Complain about this comment
@22
Well, some things are more important than 'net benefit' - rights to access are important in themselves. However, public scrutiny via FoI can also ensure that public money is not wasted, but this is difficult to quantify, as the prevention of waste by FoI cannot be easily measured.
I myself use FoI requests frequently and am not a journalist, nor do I have anything to do with the media.
"The BBC suddenly discover the worth of taxpayers’ money when talking about banks and MPs expenses but conveniently forget about it when they want to spend it themselves."
While I'm not a massive fan of the licence fee myself, there is the argument that it is not really in the same league as a tax, because you can opt out of the licence fee by getting rid of your TV.
One thing I would ask you, is how would you hold the BBC to account for the way it spends its money without FoI? The BBC is coming under increasing pressure to reveal 'talent' salaries for example, and I believe this is in part due to FoI. So FoI actually helps you with your objective of scrutinising BBC spending, Kenneth.
Convinced?
Complain about this comment
@21
I don't understand your point. I have read the email too. FoI deadline is from the moment the body receives a written request (including emails) - there's no extra time allowed for passing it on to the right person or department - that has to be done within the 20 days.
Even if you believe Rosenbaum is making too much of this, this story does highlight the lack of awareness of FoI within government.
Complain about this comment
#23 Bloofs
I think the BBC is spending taxpayers’ money by not paying for FOI requests. Each request that is made costs council tax payers or tax payers (or indeed licence fee payers) money. If we are to have FOI then it must surely be right that the requesters pay for the service.
By the way, as the FOI appears to have no value, i.e. it costs more money than it saves; it doesn’t not make our lives better and it does not save us from harm, what is the ‘some things that are more important than net benefit’ Can you please tell me why we are paying for it? What are your ‘some things’? What is the benefit?
As far as the BBC is concerned, the way to hold it to account is through our Members of Parliament. A letter to an MP usually goes a long way. We also have the audit commission to check up on it. The amount of money the BBC wastes on a web sites that goes in to £millions, expensive foreign trips, expensive opinionated journalists whose opinions would have no merit without the transmitters and journalist making frivolous FOI request. All of this is scandalous. We do not need to find out about these things through FOI. The waste is there for us all to see and hear.
Of course, FOI is not always a good way to hold the BBC to account due to the exemptions it has that result in a lot of FOI requests being turned down by the BBC.
In any case, if us amateurs are expected to check up on the BBC through FOI requests, why do we bother to have MPs and an audit commission?
Complain about this comment
@18
"I am also annoyed because I do not like the FOI act. What good is it? How many lives has it saved? How many injuries has it prevented? How much money has it saved?"
-Two words: Lord Cashcroft
Complain about this comment
Martin,
Have you looked at all into the Valuations Office? They don't look at energy performance of buildings, but as far as i can see they are a subsection of the treasury. They collate data on the value of buildings across the UK. Similar to the EPC 'public realm internet site' sga you experienced, the Valuation Office will share the data they hold on an give building if you have the postcode. However, one can only access all of it all at once if one pays for a CD and then this can only be used for 'valuation purposes'. What do you think?
Thanks,
Sara
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS