Internal Review Case Reference

7/25/2019 Internal Review Case Reference

1/6

INTERNAL REVIEW CASE REFERENCE : 2425996

This is an Internal Review into case reference 2425996. The review sets out theoriginal request, the response provided, the internal review request and then theoutcome of the internal review. The texts of the original request and response

included in this internal review have been redacted to remove personal informationto enable publication in accordance with the councils commitment to transparency.

ORIGINAL REQUEST

On 3 January 2016 the following request for information was received:

Please can you provide all files and information, excluding information relevant toCouncil tax, held by Barnet Council concerning the following Barnet Blogs andindividuals.wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com - Mrs Angry[reacted]reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Reasonable[redacted]lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Mustard[redacted]BarnetBugle.com - The Barnet Bugle[redacted]Barneteye.blogspot.com - The Barnet Eye[redacted]

Original Response

On 7thJanuary 2016 the following response was sent to the requester:

I can confirm that London Borough of Barnet holds information related to your

request. However, we are withholding some of that information since we considerthat the following exemptions apply to it.

With regard to the first four individuals mentioned, this information falls under thedefinition of personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998, and is thereforeexempt. We consider that the absolute exemption set out in Section 40 (Personalinformation) subsection 2 applies to the information requested, as the informationrequested is third party personal data.. Therefore, we have decided to withhold theinformation.

With regard to information related to [redacted], the information you have

requested is your own personal information. Under the Freedom of Information Act,responses to requests and the information released as part of responses isconsidered to be publicly available. The response and information released isconsidered to be published to the whole world. Anyone anywhere could request acopy of the response and the information released and the council would be obligedto provide it to them. This would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 as itwould be unfair and unlawful processing of your personal data. Therefore under theFreedom of Information Act information that is the personal data of the requester isexempt, under section 40(1).

The best method to obtain your personal data from the council is to make a subject

access request. The forms are available here:https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizenhome/


2/6

council-and-democracy/policy-and-performance/information-managementpolicies.html . You will need to scroll down to SAR request pack and click the link.This will take you to the form. The guidance notes explain what ID will be requiredand the fee that is charged, and the circumstances under which you may not need topay the fee. You can complete the form and return it to the address shown to be

processed.

It should be noted that as this request contains and constitutes personal data in andof itself, the response will not be published on our Disclosure Log.

Request for Internal Review.

On 7thJanuary 2016 an email was received from the requester which was a requestfor an Internal Review:

I have read your response and I am very disappointed with the content. Whilst I am

happy to accept your assertation that information regarding the individuals namedmay be deemed "personal information" and exempted due to data protection issues,if you had read my request properly you would have seen that I asked for information

"held by Barnet Council concerning the following Barnet Blogs and individuals.wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com - Mrs Angry[redacted]reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Reasonable[redacted]lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Mustard[redacted] BarnetBugle.com - The BarnetBugle[redacted] Barneteye.blogspot.com - The Barnet Eye[redacted]"

This clearly states that I have requested information held about BLOGS andindividuals. The Blogs mentioned are clearly not the individuals. Whilst it is right andproper to withhold any personal information pertaining to specific individuals, there isabsolutely no justification at all for refusing to publish all data held about the BLOGSthat are mentioned. Would you withhold information held on the Daily Telegraph orthe Daily Mail if this was requested? The only information that the council canreasonably withhold is personal information regarding the individuals mentioned.

If a council briefing stated "The Metpro Scandal was brought to the attention ofBarnet Council by the Barnet Eye, Broken Barnet, LbbSpending andReasonablenewbarnet blog" this can in no way be deemed personal information.

The FoI act puts a duty on the council to be as helpful as possible in dealing with allrequests. This response clearly has taken an overarching and unreasonable view asto what is personal data. All information contained on the blogs mentioned is in thepublic domain and as such the Council cannot reasonably expect to use privacyissues to withhold it. I do accept that any information held by the council about theindividuals mentioned, that they have not chosen to put into the public domain,should be treated as private data.

Email sent to requester

On 8thJanuary 2016 the following email was sent to the requester:


3/6

Thank you for your request for a review received on 8 January 2016. I'm sorry tohear that you are unhappy with the councils response to your information request.

We will now conduct an internal review. The review will be independent andimpartial, will reconsider the merits of the case, and will identify any errors in the

handling of your request.

We aim to complete internal reviews promptly and in any event within 20 workingdays from receipt of a complaint. In exceptional cases we may take longer, but wewill not exceed 40 working days. This is in line withguidance issued by theInformation Commissioner.

If, following our review, you are still unhappy with the way we have applied the Act,you can appeal directly to the Information Commissioner at: The InformationCommissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF(telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45; website:www.ico.gov.uk). There is

no charge for making an appeal.

The internal review will deal only with the part of the request that deals with thenamed individuals' blogs, as you have accepted the section 40(2) refusal regardingtheir personal information.

Without prejudging the outcome of the review, I note that there is no time span to therequest. If the original request is overturned a search would need to be made forinformation, and given there is no time specified the council would be required tosearch all records held. There is the chance that, given the number of blogs citedand the council wide range of the request, that the section 12 time limit of 18 hourscould be exceeded. At this stage, without prejudicing the outcome of the review, Iwould invite you to provide either a time scale for the request and or a number ofsubject areas that you would like information on. You do not have to do so, but ifyou were to suggest a specific time period and or subject area/s this may avoid asection 12 refusal. At this stage I am not stating that a section 12 refusal would bemade, but in these cases I would always advise requesters of the possibility.

I will hold working on the review for a week to enable you to consider if you wish toprovide a time scale and or subject range for the request, please let me know eitherway.

If you'd like to discuss please email me or you are welcome to call me on 020 83592587.

Internal Review Outcome

On 20thJanuary 2016 no contact had been made by the requester and so there hasbeen no reduction or refinement of the scope of the request.

The original response refused the entire request under section 40(1) (in respect of

[redacted]) and section 40(2) regarding the rest of the request. The requester has

accepted this refusal with respect to information about the named individuals, but notin respect of the blogs themselves.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/internal%20reviewsv1.pdfhttp://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/internal%20reviewsv1.pdfhttp://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/internal%20reviewsv1.pdfhttp://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/internal%20reviewsv1.pdfhttp://www.ico.gov.uk/http://www.ico.gov.uk/http://www.ico.gov.uk/http://www.ico.gov.uk/http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/internal%20reviewsv1.pdfhttp://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/internal%20reviewsv1.pdf


4/6

Therefore this internal review has only considered whether the application of section40(1) / 40(2) to the information requested concerning the blogs themselves wascorrect.

Personal Information is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 and is defined asany data which relate to a living individual who can be identified) from those data, orfrom those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely tocome into the possession of, the data controller. Section 40 (2) FOIA precludes thedisclosure of personal information relating to third parties. Section 40(1) prevents itsrelease where it is the personal information of the requester. This is becauseresponses to FOI requests and the information released is considered to be releasedto the whole world, which would not be appropriate for the requesters own data.The requester can ask for their own information as a subject access request underthe Data Protection Act 1998.

For the blogs, the question of whether any information held by the council is personaldata or not is not as clear cut as it may first appear. Although information heldabout eg a newspaper or media organisation would not be personal data, the blogsare closely identified with particular individuals. Indeed the requesters requestnames the individuals in their personal capacities as well as their bloggingpseudonym. The bloggers own real names are well known and link them to theirblogs in addition to their blogging name. Information regarding a blog could beconsidered to be so intrinsically bound with the blogs author that it comprisedpersonal information.

I have considered that although this could be the case, the boundaries are not totallyclear cut. Therefore in this instance the internal review has proceeded on the basisthat information regarding the blog itself, rather than the blogger, is not personaldata.

Therefore the part of the response dealing with this issue is overturned. Thefollowing is substituted as the response to this part of the request:

The requester has asked for all information the council holds regarding the followingblogs:

wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.comreasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uklbbspending.blogspot.co.ukBarnetBugle.comBarneteye.blogspot.com

Although the requester was asked to consider giving a time frame for the requestsone has not been given. Therefore the date range will extend to the earliest date ofany information held by the council in any systems.

The council does not have a council wide overarching comprehensive electronic

document management system. This means that there is not one set of masterfilesfor the council as a whole. Each service area has its own specific computer


5/6

system and or paper files. Although this may seem inefficient the specific variedbusiness needs of different delivery units means that different service areas needtailored systems. Also, under the Data Protection Act 1998, council officers mayonly have access to information that they need to undertake their roles. Thereforefor example, officers dealing with planning applications do not need to have access

to child care files and so do not have access to those systems (and vice versa).

To ascertain what information is held across the council in respect of the blogs willmean a search being made of relevant computer systems. The subjects covered bythe blogs are council wide. They include, for example, parking, libraries, councilspending, council meetings, regeneration etc. Although the requester was invited toproduce a list of subject areas they have not done so. Therefore given the councilwide range of the subjects covered by the blogs searches will need to be undertakenof all council systems.

Many systems work on a case by case basis rather than by requester or data

subject. This means that it is not always straightforward to locate relevant data.Searches will need to be made of the blog name and part name (to cover incorrectdata entry) in all council systems. The council does not hold central files on theblogs, information will be held in a piecemeal fashion where it has been needed aspart of eg a service complaint, a FOI request, dealing with issues over responding tomatters raised etc.

The scope of the request also includes information held otherwise than on caseworksystems. It will include paper file, emails, information on share drives etc. Searchesof these cannot be undertaken centrally, and will need to be undertaken by theindividuals who hold the drives/email accounts etc.

The scope of the request is council wide; however we do not consider it to benecessary to ask every member of staff to search their email accounts and sharedfiles. We have excluded childrens and family services and adult social care andhealth (with the exception of libraries) from consideration as these seem not to becovered in the blogs. We consider that the following areas will need to undertakecomprehensive searches of case files, emails, home drives, shared files and anyother storage:

Information management team

Communications team Parking

Libraries

Planning and Regeneration

Finance

Assurance (including governance and democratic services)

Commissioning group/commercial

Waste and recycling

Procurement

Highways

HBPL


6/6

Councillors (in so far as any information may be held in their capacity ascouncil members rather than ward members or in their political capacity, asinformation will be held for the purposes of FOI only in their role ascouncillors).

The council has estimated that to search for, locate, extract and locate theinformation requested will take in excess of 18 hours and therefore will exceed theappropriate limit as set down in the The Freedom of Information and Data Protection(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (fees regulations). The appropriatelimit given in the fees regulations is 450 which is calculated at a notional rate of25/hour. This rate is not the rate that staff are paid, but the rate that is set down asthe hourly cost for calculation purposes. 450 at 25 / hour equates to 18 hours.Where the council estimates that it will take in excess of 18 hours to locate, extractand collate the information requested it may refuse the request under section 12.

We have estimated that it will take each relevant employee 20 minutes to search

their emails, archives, personal folders, shared drives and any case managementsystem and paper filing for relevant information. This is considered, at 4 minutes perblog address to cover all systems a very conservative estimate. We have taken avery conservative estimated the number of staff required to search in each servicearea will be five. This is accurate for the Information Management Team andapproximate for the parking team and considered a low estimate for other areas. 5employees for 12 areas totals 60 employees and will take an estimated 20 hours.Where employees locate information this will need to be extracted and collated. It isimpossible to estimate the time this will take in advance of searches being made.

We consider it will take councillors (who will only need to search emails) approx. 7minutes each (less than 2 minutes per blog address). Time estimate for councillorsis 63x4 minutes totalling 4.2 hours.

It is estimated that searching for information will take in excess of 24 hours whichexceeds the appropriate limit and therefore the request is refused under section 12.

Advice and Assistance

In the email to the requester of 8thJanuary, it was suggested the requester may wishto provide a time frame or a subject area to the request to avoid a possible section

12 refusal. Although the requester did not respond to this, if they now wish to submita fresh request with a smaller scope in terms of time and or subject matter this islikely to enable a request to avoid a section 12 refusal. The requester is invited tosubmit a reduced request. The requester is also welcome to contact the council todiscuss how a request could be worded or reduced.

Your rights

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you willhave a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The InformationCommissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

(telephone: 0303 123 1113; website www.ico.org.uk). There is no charge for makingan appeal.

Documents

Internal Review Case Reference