Information Commissioner demands WBC release information Options

[Simon Kirby]

Story this week that WBC have been ordered to release information by the Information Commissioner.

Jan Giggins, a former Hungerford Town Councillor, asked for information relating to a planning application in which WBC had a financial interest. Mrs Giggins asked the council to investigate the propriety of the planning decision and when she wasn't happy with the usual council whitewash she made a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulations. The Council were embarrassed to release the requested information so they called Mrs Giggins' requests vexatious and refused, and so Mrs Giggins made a complaint to the Information Commissioner who upheld her right to the information. The Council then refused again saying that the request was manifestly unreasonable, but the Information Commissioner insisted, so the Council again refused saying that the requested information was already publicly available. They have 35 days to release the information or face action for contempt of court.

Well done to Mrs Giggins for persevering, it's not easy in the face of such institutional arrogance, and shame on you WBC for yet more shabby contempt for your public.

[Jayjay]

More and more incidences of the council refusing to disclose information is coming to light. It is a very worrying and does make you wonder what they are trying to hide. Does a council have an audit where someone goes through the books, so to speak?

[Bartholomew]

Story this week that WBC have been ordered to release information by the Information Commissioner.

Jan Giggins, a former Hungerford Town Councillor, asked for information relating to a planning application in which WBC had a financial interest. Mrs Giggins asked the council to investigate the propriety of the planning decision and when she wasn't happy with the usual council whitewash she made a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulations. The Council were embarrassed to release the requested information so they called Mrs Giggins' requests vexatious and refused, and so Mrs Giggins made a complaint to the Information Commissioner who upheld her right to the information. The Council then refused again saying that the request was manifestly unreasonable, but the Information Commissioner insisted, so the Council again refused saying that the requested information was already publicly available. They have 35 days to release the information or face action for contempt of court.

Well done to Mrs Giggins for persevering, it's not easy in the face of such institutional arrogance, and shame on you WBC for yet more shabby contempt for your public.

Despite the ruling that the information was not available publicly, council spokeswoman peta Stoddart-Crompton said: “The council is disappointed by this decision, not least because all the information requested by Mrs Giggins is in the public planning file and therefore accessible to her without a request.

“However, it will comply given that to challenge it and take it to the Information Tribunal would be a disproportionate use of public funds.”

I wonder why WBC would take a challenge to the Information Tribunal if the information is in the public domain and already accessible.

[Andy Capp]

I agree, out council's performance, whether parish or district, looks grubbier and grubbier. Note the use of vexatious. Where have we seen that word before?

[Simon Kirby]

I wonder why WBC would take a challenge to the Information Tribunal if the information is in the public domain and already accessible.

The real question is why the council would chose to release information which revealed its shabby dealings. It takes a serious amount of committment and perseverence for an individual to take a complaint this far, having gone through several stages of complaints process at both WBC and with the IC, and at every stage the stress and wearyness erodes your resolve, so most of the time the council just needs to spin any old rubbish and eventually the complainant will undermine their complaint by getting the process wrong or having a psychotic embolism, or more likely just give up in despair. There's absolutely no cost to the council in refusing a FoI request (other than the financial cost to the tax-payer, but that's hardly something to worry the council), so until the final sanction of contempt of court there's nothing to lose. Maybe it makes a bit of a story in the NWN, maybe it doesn't, but the Council hasn't even apologised to Mrs Giggins, their position is that they were right all along but it's just not proportionate to defend the court proceedings, so that's it. They'll publish the requested information, it'll reveal their shabbyness, they'll say they acted properly, and that'll be it.

[dannyboy]

I wonder why WBC would take a challenge to the Information Tribunal if the information is in the public domain and already accessible.

They are not.

However, it will comply given that to challenge it and take it to the Information Tribunal would be a disproportionate use of public funds.”

[dannyboy]

Note the use of vexatious. Where have we seen that word before?

Normally used when a council recieves endless requests from a local resident over some matter which the resident feels agrieved about. ( Such as a development which is right in someone's backyard that they don't want / like ) Rather than incur costs in answering such repeated requests, councils can declare the resident 'vexatious' & thus desist in answering.

[Simon Kirby]

They are not.

However, it will comply given that to challenge it and take it to the Information Tribunal would be a disproportionate use of public funds.”

Ergo: the council accept that the information is not in the public domain, and they just said that to avoid complying with the duty to publish, just like they said it would be manifestly unreasonable to publish, and just like they said Mrs Giggins was vexatious to ask.

[Bartholomew]

They are not.

However, it will comply given that to challenge it and take it to the Information Tribunal would be a disproportionate use of public funds.”

Read the quote again. This time the first paragraph. Seems clear to me that its all in the public domain.

Despite the ruling that the information was not available publicly, council spokeswoman peta Stoddart-Crompton said: “The council is disappointed by this decision, not least because all the information requested by Mrs Giggins is in the public planning file and therefore accessible to her without a request.

[dannyboy]

Ergo: the council accept that the information is not in the public domain, and they just said that to avoid complying with the duty to publish, just like they said it would be manifestly unreasonable to publish, and just like they said Mrs Giggins was vexatious to ask.

You'd have to know the full story to decided whether Mrs G has been vexatious or not.

Planning applications can be rather complicated documents. To the layperson, they can be rather confusing.

[Andy Capp]

Normally used when a council recieves endless requests from a local resident over some matter which the resident feels agrieved about. ( Such as a development which is right in someone's backyard that they don't want / like ) Rather than incur costs in answering such repeated requests, councils can declare the resident 'vexatious' & thus desist in answering.

Is that is the official reason? However, you'd have to know the full story to decided whether anyone has been vexatious or not.

[dannyboy]

Read the quote again. This time the first paragraph. Seems clear to me that its all in the public domain.

Hmm, yes - the council are not taking anything to the Information Tribunal as per the quote I posted. But, instead, I'd imagine will be pointing out to Mrs G exactly where in the public domain the info she wants is.

Maybe it is me, but as far as I'm concerned the council's job isn't to chaperone people through the complexities of planning applications.

[dannyboy]

Is that is the official reason? However, you'd have to know the full story to decided whether anyone has been vexatious or not.

Exactly. I doubt any council uses the epithet lightly.

[Andy Capp]

Hmm, yes - the council are not taking anything to the Information Tribunal as per the quote I posted. But, instead, I'd imagine will be pointing out to Mrs G exactly where in the public domain the info she wants is.

Maybe it is me, but as far as I'm concerned the council's job isn't to chaperone people through the complexities of planning applications.

The Information Commissioner disagrees with you.

[Simon Kirby]

Normally used when a council recieves endless requests from a local resident over some matter which the resident feels agrieved about. ( Such as a development which is right in someone's backyard that they don't want / like ) Rather than incur costs in answering such repeated requests, councils can declare the resident 'vexatious' & thus desist in answering.

That's probably how the council uses the designation, but they are mistaken.

There is a council classification of "vexatious complainant" which has no statutory meaning and is simply an internal procedural classification which invokes some special measures in dealing with designated individuals, such as only answering through a designated officer, only dealing with the individual in writing, or refusing to discuss specific matters. The council publish criteria which may cause them to designate you as a vexatious complainant, and using FoI to access information in support of a complaint is actually one of the triggers. This is what dannyboy has just described.

However, the FoI act also allows councils to refuse to release information if the request is "vexatious", and this is not the same thing. Whether or not an individual has been designated by the council as a "vexatious complainant" makes no difference at all to their duty to release information under FoI, it's the request that has to be vexatious, and not the individual - FoI is in general opaque to the individual. Therefore, unless the request itself is vexatious, such as a manifestly pointless or repeated request made for not other reason than to frustrate the council, then even if the person making the request is a designated "vexatious complainant" and a complete and utter pain in the rear end, the council must release the information.

Of course a council that is trying to avoid its duty to publish information which is politically embarrassing is more than likely to try and undermine the credibility of the complainant by declaring both them and their requests vexatious. Fortunately the Information Commissioner sees this quite a bit and isn't impressed.

[Andy Capp]

Exactly. I doubt any council uses the epithet lightly.

No-one says they do.

[Simon Kirby]

You'd have to know the full story to decided whether Mrs G has been vexatious or not.

Ah, so we don't know the whole story! It's like you're reading this from a manual. 1. ignore the request, 2. refuse the request, 3. don't uphold the complaint, 4. don't uphold the appeal, 5. call the complainant vexatious, 6. slur the complainant, 7. say you were right all along. Did Machiavelli write for the Local Government Association?

[dannyboy]

The Information Commissioner disagrees with you.

As is his right.

[dannyboy]

Ah, so we don't know the whole story! It's like you're reading this from a manual. 1. ignore the request, 2. refuse the request, 3. don't uphold the complaint, 4. don't uphold the appeal, 5. call the complainant vexatious, 6. slur the complainant, 7. say you were right all along. Did Machiavelli write for the Local Government Association?

Well do you know the whole story?

[dannyboy]

Therefore, unless the request itself is vexatious, such as a manifestly pointless or repeated request made for not other reason than to frustrate the council, then even if the person making the request is a designated "vexatious complainant" and a complete and utter pain in the rear end, the council must release the information.

My point.