3. Mr N complains that the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) did not properly investigate his concerns about how his local authority dealt with his requests for data. He complains the ICO did not adhere to its timescale where public bodies should respond to requests within 20 days, and that no case should take longer than 40 working days.
4. Mr N says this caused delays with his case and the ICO’s conclusions were incorrect.
5. He wants service improvements.
6. Mr N originally requested his local authority send him copies of emails sent between it and the ICO regarding parking permits between 1 October 2019 and 14 February 2020. He is not happy with how the local authority dealt with his requests, so he made a complaint to the ICO about this.
7. Mr N first contacted the local authority on 15 February 2020. He says it did not send him all the information he felt he should have received, nor did it provide a review of this, within the timescales set out in the Act.
8. He initially wrote to the ICO to complain about this on 20 May 2020. When Mr N asked the ICO to review how it managed his complaint about the local authority, more than 80 working days had passed.
Time taken by the ICO
11. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and, we have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
12. Mr N complains when the ICO was dealing with his complaint about his local authority, it did not adhere to its own view that public bodies should respond fully to all requests within 20 working days, and that in more complex cases they should take no more than 40 working days. Mr N’s complaint says as of 8 November 2020, the ICO had taken 81 working days with his case.
13. Mr N asked the ICO to review its handling of his case and it responded on 24 November 2020. It said the reference to 20 and 40 working days to respond are in the Act which applies to requests of public bodies under the Act. It says the service standards by which it aims to deal with complaints are different.
14. Looking at the ICO’s service standards, they say ‘We aim to reach an outcome in 90% of concerns cases within six months... we will consider whether there is an opportunity to improve the practice of the organisations we regulate, and we will share our decisions with you.’
15. Our Principles of Good Administration, being customer focused, says public bodies should be clear about what their customers can and cannot expect from the public body.
16. Taking account that Mr N first contacted the ICO about his concerns with his local authority on 20 May 2020, six months would be 20 November 2020. This is not to say that the ICO should take six months in all cases.
17. However, from Mr N’s papers, we can see the ICO made numerous attempts to ensure the local authority provided information it should provide to Mr N by writing letters and making requests of it. This understandably may take longer than expected.
18. We can also see the ICO’s consideration of his complaint led it to allocate it to a senior caseworker for investigation. This in turn may mean overall, the ICO takes longer than six months to provide an outcome. At the time Mr N complained to the ICO the investigation was still ongoing.
19. It appears this may be one of the 10% of cases that takes longer than six months, which we acknowledge may be frustrating for Mr N.
20. Both in the ICO’s service standards and in its review response, the ICO does make Mr N aware of what he can expect from the service, as well as clarifying the issue of 20 or 40 working days applying to responses to requests under the Act.
21. This is in line with the service standards and our Principles. We can see no indications of a failing here.
22. We understand this is not the outcome Mr N wanted, and we apologise for any further frustration it may cause.
1. We have carefully considered Mr N’s complaint about the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO). We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong.
2. Mr N says the ICO did not adhere to the 20, or maximum 40 working day deadline to respond to his complaint. We found no indications of a failing here because these deadlines refer to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), not the ICO’s service.