<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Article: Commissioner gets a grilling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://heatherbrooke.org/2006/article-commissioner-gets-a-grilling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2006/article-commissioner-gets-a-grilling/</link>
	<description>Heather Brooke is an award-winning writer, journalist and activist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:13:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter HOAR</title>
		<link>http://heatherbrooke.org/2006/article-commissioner-gets-a-grilling/comment-page-1/#comment-982</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter HOAR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yrtk.org/2006/article-commissioner-gets-a-grilling/#comment-982</guid>
		<description>ICO  Complaint overload and backlog.   FOI CASE  RECEPTION  PROCEDURES / GUIDANCE NOTES.

Anybody wondering how the ICO handles their complaint should read the above Notes just supplied to me.  With his response to my request for Internal Review,(see http://www.yrtk.org/secret-squirrel/ico20060314/    the ICO sent me (1st June) answers to all my questions about progress with my complaint dated August 2005 (FS50086109)   and copy of the current FOI CASE  RECEPTION  PROCEDURES / GUIDANCE NOTES.

These provide unique insight into the delay/overload situation.  None of this information appears to be readily available elsewhere.   Precised below -  with quotes added from the letter and (comment) by me.

i)	The Case Reception Team strips out the variously ineligible cases  -  (Including cases withdrawn, abandoned etc this appears currently over 50%.)
ii)	Cases for Northern Ireland and Wales are allocated to the respective regional teams, so they run on a separate timescale.
iii)	The Procedural Complaints Team deals with the less complex cases, so the waiting time (for procedural complaints) is currently shorter.
iv)	The Exemption Team deals with the more complex cases  such as mine.
v)	PRIORITISATION OF CASES.   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.
vi)	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 and the changeover date was not indicated.  I shall have to do it myself, in case my refused information is tempted to go astray.)
vii)	OUT OF TURN CASE RESOLUTION.  (My especial gripe)  Of the Exemption cases received after mine  -  ie 13/8/2005  -  I was told  -  17 have been closed and 49 are currently under investigation.      Although complaints are normally dealt with in date order, this is not an absolute policy .     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.   (He did not say if any or all of these junior cases were treated as Urgent/Sensitive.)
viii)   He added  -  &quot;It is therefore difficult to give any realistic estimate as to when your case will be allocated.&quot;

Memo to self   -   Count up the exemption cases received between May and August last year, take out those resolved by published Decision Notice,  factor-in X-dot, for N cases considered or claimed to be Urgent/Sensitive.  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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ICO  Complaint overload and backlog.   FOI CASE  RECEPTION  PROCEDURES / GUIDANCE NOTES.</p>
<p>Anybody wondering how the ICO handles their complaint should read the above Notes just supplied to me.  With his response to my request for Internal Review,(see <a href="http://www.yrtk.org/secret-squirrel/ico20060314/" rel="nofollow">http://www.yrtk.org/secret-squirrel/ico20060314/</a>    the ICO sent me (1st June) answers to all my questions about progress with my complaint dated August 2005 (FS50086109)   and copy of the current FOI CASE  RECEPTION  PROCEDURES / GUIDANCE NOTES.</p>
<p>These provide unique insight into the delay/overload situation.  None of this information appears to be readily available elsewhere.   Precised below &#8211;  with quotes added from the letter and (comment) by me.</p>
<p>i)	The Case Reception Team strips out the variously ineligible cases  &#8211;  (Including cases withdrawn, abandoned etc this appears currently over 50%.)<br />
ii)	Cases for Northern Ireland and Wales are allocated to the respective regional teams, so they run on a separate timescale.<br />
iii)	The Procedural Complaints Team deals with the less complex cases, so the waiting time (for procedural complaints) is currently shorter.<br />
iv)	The Exemption Team deals with the more complex cases  such as mine.<br />
v)	PRIORITISATION OF CASES.   Cases considered Urgent/Sensitive may be given high priority.    Such cases include  &#8211;  Newsworthy    &#8211;    National Media Group  &#8211;  Complainant is an MP  &#8211;  MP has written on behalf of a complainant  and  Complainant has given grounds for suggesting a case is urgent.<br />
vi)	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 and the changeover date was not indicated.  I shall have to do it myself, in case my refused information is tempted to go astray.)<br />
vii)	OUT OF TURN CASE RESOLUTION.  (My especial gripe)  Of the Exemption cases received after mine  &#8211;  ie 13/8/2005  &#8211;  I was told  &#8211;  17 have been closed and 49 are currently under investigation.      Although complaints are normally dealt with in date order, this is not an absolute policy .     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.   (He did not say if any or all of these junior cases were treated as Urgent/Sensitive.)<br />
viii)   He added  &#8211;  &#8220;It is therefore difficult to give any realistic estimate as to when your case will be allocated.&#8221;</p>
<p>Memo to self   &#8211;   Count up the exemption cases received between May and August last year, take out those resolved by published Decision Notice,  factor-in X-dot, for N cases considered or claimed to be Urgent/Sensitive.  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</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
