Freedom of Information – Review of Request 29240

Dr Reddington has asked for a review of his FOI request. He has stated that ‘we are fast approaching its one year anniversary with no response. Since that time there have been many emails and phone calls trying to retrieve the information. In response the trust has ignored queries and appears to be in the habit of treating each email as a separate FOI request.’

I have therefore reviewed the

  • timeliness of handling communication
  • effectiveness of the PCT response
  • practice of treating each email as a separate FOI request

In doing so, I have made reference to emails and correspondence between relevant parties and spoken to the PCT FOI Officer and his line manager, the Head of Communications.

Timeliness of handling communication

I have plotted a timeline of correspondence between Dr Reddington and the PCT. This shows that up until 23 January 2012, correspondence was responded to promptly and within stated timescales.

There then followed a hiatus of some four months, after which Dr Reddington remade contact with the PCT, clearly stating that his request had not been satisfactorily answered and giving further examples of how a response might look. This was replied to promptly, as was all further correspondence.

There is no evidence that the PCT has purposely ignored queries. In the absence of further communication from Dr Reddington after 23 January 2012, it was assumed that matters were closed.

Indeed, on 16 May 2012Dr Reddington wrote ‘I thought I’d give you a few months to settle down before I came back to this’. Dr Reddington should therefore take responsibility for the four month break in handling matters.

Effectiveness of the PCT response

However, it is clear that there have been other failures in communication, which mean that the FOI was not satisfactorily resolved. Examination of correspondence shows that Dr Reddington’s initial request was open to some interpretation. (Indeed, he confirms this lack of clarity on 16 May 2012.) It is though noted that he originally provided examples of what he considered a suitable format for response. The PCT response did not provide the information required and also included extraneous detail.

I believe that Dr Reddington then gave enough information on 4 December 2011 to reasonably expectthe correct response to be researched, or foraction to be taken to clarify anymisunderstanding. However, this misunderstanding was in fact perpetuated. This was somewhat exacerbated by Dr Reddington not making his further clarifications entirely clear. By 27 May 2012there can be little doubt what Dr Reddington was requesting. However, there was again a failure to understand. This failure was not picked up by the PCTs internal quality assurance checking mechanism which takes place when draft responses are signed off by a senior manager.

Treating each email as a separate FOI request

This occurred. It has been stated that it is a process for managing a timely response to queries. The Head of Communications emailed staff on 15 June 2012,asking that clarifications are clearly distinguished from new requests and should not be given a new number.

Conclusions

I find that there has been no purposeful delay in responding to Dr Reddington’s correspondence. However there has been a failure to respond effectively. There is no evidence ofdeliberate obfuscation, but ratherof human error. There appears to have been a failure to understand his request or to act proactively and decisively togain an understanding of it. There has been a failure in the quality assurance checking mechanism. The process of handling this request might be seen to have taken precedence over the quality of response.

This FOI was first placed in October 2011. Since then there has beentime spent on correspondence and research. This has resulted in an unsatisfactory outcome and the need for more time spent on a review. At root of this appears to be a request which although not entirely clear at the outset, could have been clarified.

Despite Dr Reddington’s request for a review, the accurate information has yet to be provided.

Recommendations

  • An apology be made to Dr Reddington for the length of time it has taken to resolve matters.
  • The information be provided as a matter of urgency.
  • The internal quality assurance checking mechanism for FOI requests be reviewed.
  • Responses are monitored to ensure clarifications are not treated as separate requests.
  • Where requests are ambiguous, immediate clarification should be sought.

DREW WALLBANK

COMPLAINTS MANAGER &

INDIVIDUAL FUNDING REQUESTS MANAGER

Timeline

Date / Event / Comment
17 Oct 2011 / Request made:
Would you please send me details of augmentative and alternative communication devices supplied/purchased by your trust between 31 March 2006 and 1 April 2011.
I would like the information broken down by both product name and year.
I would like information for both children and adults, but I don’t require breakdown by age.
(I am attempting to find out how many people who have poor or no speech have a speech aid… how many have been supplied by the trust during the last five years). / Is this supplied or purchased?
Request unclear; supplied and purchased are two different things.
Dr Reddington gave an example of a helpful format where Devon PCT listed quantity/product/make.
Adults plus children or adults and children?
18 Oct 2011 / Request acknowledged.
14 Nov 2011 / Response made. / NHS CIOS gave list of products supplied. However, this data did not match the number of products purchased as it included repeat loans.
Conclusion: Confusion arose from lack of clarity of request.
Comment: NHS CIOS response contained unasked for data
Question: Could clarity of response have been improved by referring to examples given by Dr Reddington?
15 Nov
2011 / Dr Reddington asks for clarification about the names of the manufacturers.
15 Nov 2011 / NHS CIOS acknowledges this as a new FOI. / Should this have been a new FOI?
Conclusion: No. It was a simple request for clarity.
29 Nov 2011 / NHS CIOS response, naming manufacturers.
4 Dec 2011 / Dr Reddington has reviewed information and identified that the original response contains data of the number of loans. He clarifies that he is either looking for number of items purchased by the PCT or supplied permanently. / The original request was unclear. However, Dr Reddington’s clarification is none too clear: ‘Purchased’ and ‘supplied’ permanently can be two different things.
13 Dec 2011 / NHS CIOS response.
This reiterates the fact that the response contains data on the number of loans.
It says that no loans are permanent.
It overlooks the request for number ‘purchased’. / It fails to understand the fact that Dr Reddington had clarified that he does not want this; wanting ‘purchased’/’supplied permanently’.
Comment:*systems failure*
15 Dec 2011 / Dr Reddington ask for clarity on whether there were indeed no aids purchased permanently.
19 Dec
2011 / NHS reiterate that loans are made which may sometimes become permanent.
19 Dec
2011 / Dr Reddington states that FOI has not been answered. He requires information on how many items have been purchased. / Comment: Communication has been convoluted between both parties.
23 Jan 2012 / NHS CIOS response. Confirms that Dr Reddington has asked the question ‘how many items ‘purchased’. Then goes on to say this data was provided… / This appears to have been treated as a new FOI request… and perpetuates incorrect response.
16 May
2012 / Email from Dr Reddington.
I have given you time to settle down…
Wants data on aids purchased from manufacturers or failing that, those on permanent loan. / Comment: Dr Reddington chose to wait 4 months.
Comment: He gives further examples of responses.
Question: As NHS CIOS do not do permanent loans, why can the number purchased not be supplied?
16 May
2012 / Email from NHS CIOS.
In order to respond to your new FOI, you will need to send me the specific questions… / Comment: This has been treated as new FOI request.
Comment: The specific question has surely been established now.
27 May 2012 / Dr Reddington confirms this is not a new request. ‘When can I expect purchase data?’
11 June 2012 / NHS CIOS response.
‘I have provided all data.’
‘… the information given …relates to the number of loans’.
‘This is the full extent of the information we hold’. / Question: Why can we not say how many items have been purchased?
11 June 2012 / Dr Reddington: ‘This is becoming a dark comedy…’ / Comment: He has a point
14 June 2012 / Email from Head of Comms to Dr Reddington. I am concerned… would like to speak to you about it.
15 June 2012 / Email from Head of Comms to PCT staff requesting information on items purchased.
21 June 2012 / Further email from Head of Comms to PCT staff requesting help in resolving. / Unclear whether response made.
Page 1