Does cyngor Gwynedd's response to FOI requests show a lack of knowledge of law?
Browsing through FOI's received via the Whatdotheyknow website it appears so...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/gwynedd_council
First on the list at this time is a FOI from a requestor who gives an initial and surname.
Elain Roberts (ar ran Tîm Rhyddid Gwybodaeth // on behlaf (sic) of the Freedom of Information team) responds with -
Requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must include the
name of the applicant. For a request to be valid, we need to be able to
ascertain the real name of the requester or company name.
In this case, you have not provided any . Your first initial is not sufficient to identify you by itself.
This being the case, your request is currently not valid under the FOIA...
This is not correct...
According to the ICO -
Recognising a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (section 8)
More from the ICO -
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/recognising-a-request-made-under-the-freedom-of-information-act-section-8/
The second in the list is also asked by a requestor who uses an initial and their surname.
But this request is accepted by Elain Roberts and is partially successful.
Why the inconsistency?
Another FOI that raises an eyebrow is -
Employment status and roles of Dafydd Paul and Marion Parry Hughes
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/employment_status_and_roles_of_d#incoming-3350474
After an acknowledgment from the 'Freedom of Information team', the requestor then asks -
For clarity, I request that all correspondence and any substantive
response to this Freedom of Information request is provided via the
WhatDoTheyKnow platform, in order to maintain a complete public record
of the request and response.
Has cyngor Gwynedd responded to this requestor off platform before?
The request was then refused by Lisa Williams of corporate services -
The Council has determined that your requests fall within section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as vexatious. This decision was made based on the pattern, frequency and nature of your requests and correspondance.
An internal review was asked for and was responded to by Nia Grisdale, legal services manager.
Grisdale states -
Review Outcome
After thorough assessment, I have concluded that the original decision was correct. Section 14(1) allows a public authority to refuse a request if it is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation, or distress, without a reasonable public interest justification.
In reaching this conclusion, the following was considered:
• The burden on resources: The request, when viewed in the context of previous correspondence, would require significant and disproportionate time and effort to process.
• The tone and nature of communications: The cumulative effect of the language and frequency of requests has created an unreasonable level of disruption to our ability to carry out core functions.
• Lack of serious purpose or value: I found no new or substantive public interest in the information sought that would outweigh the impact on our resources.
Grisdale's argument is weak considering that the officers are still 'absent from work' after failing children in the Neil Foden case.
Re the burden on resources - this would be a simple task for the HR department.
Also if answering FOI's disrupts the council's ability to carry out core functions then the council is in serious trouble but that is not the fault of this requestor, or any other...
Grisdale's third point that she finds 'no new or substantive public interest in the information sought that would outweigh the impact on our resources' is under the circumstances shocking.
Why would the legal services manager say such a thing?
There is an obvious public interest in information relating to senior officer's failings that meant that a number of children continued to be sexually and physically abused over a number of years.
Senior officers are not exempt from legitimate scrutiny, especially after serious safeguarding failures.
Something is so very, very wrong within Gwynedd council...
