IPCC SAR Jun 2015

Below are copies of all exchanges between myself and the IPCC on the matter of a Subject Access Request(SAR).

From : MartynTo : foi@ipcc.gsi.gov.ukDate : 14th Jun 2015
REQUEST FOR PERSONAL DATA UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT Dear Sir / Madam I request copies of all my personal data that the IPCC holds. My identity has recently been validated under IPCC reference 2015/0.... Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : foi@ipcc.gsi.gov.ukDate : 29th Jun 2015
Hi Can you confirm that this request is in progress and the reference number it is logged under. Thanks, Mr
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 30th Jun 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email below. We have received your subject access request and this is being processed. Your reference number for this request is 1005xxx Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas LLB BA PC.dp Freedom of Information & Data Protection Team Leader IPCC
From : MartynTo :Gemma ThomasDate : 27th Jul 2015
Hi Can you give me an update on this request please as today marks day 43 i.e. it is in breach of the DPAs 40 day limit. Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 28th Jul 2015
Hi Could you please advise when I can expect the data requested under the DPA. Regards Mr
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 29th Jul 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email below. I do apologise for the delay in our response. I would like to assure you that we are processing your request and hope to be in touch in the near future. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas LLB BA PC.dp
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 3rd Aug 2015
Hi This request is now 10 days overdue and counting, can you please advise when I can expect the information. Thanks Mr
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 4th Aug 2015
Hi Could you advise when I can expect the SAR pack please. Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 5th Aug 2015
Dear Ms Thomas The SAR pack arrived this morning (12 days overdue), thank you. I am however deeply concerned as to the number of pages that are 100% redacted. Out of 702 pages the pack contained, 143 were entirely redacted with a large X across the page. That equates to 1 in 5 / 20% of all documents. As the data you hold relates to my own personal dealings with the IPCC or as a result of my personal dealings with South Yorkshire Police I fail to see how so much of the data can be classified as not my personal data under the provisions of the Data Protection Act. There are 2 large sections of consecutive pages that are clearly a submission of documents by SYP as they are prefixed by a page titled ‘Documentary Exhibits’ and carry the South Yorkshire Police emblem. Under IPCC ref 2015/0xxxxx, Morgan Harris disclosed a similarly prefixed submission from SYP with no redactions whatsoever. The documents provided were those submitted by SYP as their background papers (BGP) which was in effect their ‘defence’ as to why an appeal should not be upheld. Clearly these documents contain a vast amount of personal data and as such should not be redacted. Can you please initiate an urgent review, given that the IPCC have already breached the DPA limit of 40 days to provide my personal data with a view to explaining why this data is redacted so heavily and the legal basis for doing so. If I do not receive a satisfactory response explaining why the data is redacted or I do not receive the unredacated copies within 7 days I will report this, along with the breach of the 40 day limit, to the Information Commissioner. Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 12th Aug 2015
Dear Ms Thomas It is now 7 days since I contacted you regarding the breach of DPA. To date I do not appear to have had a response from you. Can you please advise the IPCCs position by return email ? Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Leanne CrowleyDate : 19th Aug 2015
Dear Ms Crowley I sent the below email to Ms Thomas but have not had a reply. I did try calling her a number of times towards the end of last week and this week so I am assuming she is away from work currently. In addition to my initial concerns regarding the high volume of redacted pages, I have a number of other items to raise. Would you be able to assist ? Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Leanne CrowleyDate : 20th Aug 2015
I’m rather disappointed that despite reading my email within 2 minutes of my sending it you have not responded. Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Leanne Crowley
Gemma Thomas
Date : 26th Aug 2015
I take it by the lack of responses to my emails that the IPCC are not bothered about complying with the DPA and are happy for me to report this to the ICO ? Regards Mr
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 26th Aug 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email. I would like to assure you that we are conducting an internal review into your subject access request. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas LLB BA PC.dp
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 26th Aug 2015
Dear Ms Thomas Thank you, this was highlighted to you on the 5th August – it might have been an idea to communicate that fact to me earlier. I did also mention in my email to Leanne Crowley (19th August) that there were additional items to raise – neither yourself or Leanne has bothered to ask what these were! Given the SAR was 12 days over the 40 Day limit and you’ve had this concern for 21 days already, can you advise when I can expect the outcome ? Regards Mr
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 27th Aug 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email. I apologise that we have not been in touch sooner. If you would like to raise any additional items with me I will be happy to organise for them to be addressed. I have asked for your subject access request review to be carried out as soon as possible and I hope to be in touch with you in relation to this mater in the near future. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas LLB BA PC.dp
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 1st Sep 2015
Dear Ms Thomas Today marks day 79 of my SAR to the IPCC and to date there is still vast amounts of data missing from the response, not only the redacted pages but much much more. I raised the issue of redaction with you on the 5th August as well as with Leanne Crowley in the following weeks. You have informed me that you have requested an internal review of my SAR and use phrases like ‘as soon as possible’ and ‘near future’ when referring to it and it’s completion. These give me no confidence that I am going to see the data I am entitled to and that the IPCC have so far withheld from me in breach of the DPA. On the 5th August I gave the IPCC 7 days to comply or I would be forced to report the breach to the ICO. That deadline has long since passed and I have been very patient but I now must ask that you commit to a date when this information will be provided. Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 3rd Sep 2015
Dear Ms Thomas Could you please provide a response ? Regards Mr
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 3rd Sep 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email. I hope to be able to respond to you tomorrow on the matter of your subject access request review. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas LLB BA PC.dp
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 4th Sep 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email below. Please find attached our response to your request for internal review. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas Freedom of Information & Data Protection Team Leader

20150904_ipcc_dpa

20150904_ipcc_dpa_2
20150904_ipcc_dpa_3

From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 7th Sep 2015
Dear Ms Thomas Thank you for your letter of 4th Sept regarding the Internal Review you have conducted in relation to SAR1005xxx. I would like to bring to your attention the following. 1) Throughout the SAR pack there are a number of references to notes being placed on Perito. I understand that Perito is the computerised case management software used by the IPCC for all it’s contact with the public either for general enquiries and the handling of appeals. Clearly from the SAR pack it is obvious that I have had extensive dealings with the IPCC over the last 2 years yet I see nothing in the SAR from Perito. Can you confirm why this is ? 2) Whenever I call the IPCC enquiry centre I believe an entry is placed on some form of computerised system as the person I am speaking with can always bring up the details of these previous calls, presumably from Perito. As I requested all of my personal data, I am somewhat surprised that I have not been provided with any audio recordings of these calls. Can you confirm why this is ? 3) In your letter you inform me that the fully redacted pages (143 containing a X) fall into 1 of 3 categories i. Blank Pages ii. Duplicates of previous pages iii. Contained information which does not contain my personal data citing ‘disclaimer footers on an email’ as an example Taking each of these in turn and using various documents from the ICO I respond as follows i. The DPA encourages redaction to be as minimal as possible and should only be applied to data relating to an identifiable 3rd Party. A blank page does not identify an individual. If a blank page existed then it would be more appropriate to remove that blank page or identify it as such. By placing the ‘X’ and redacted on there implies that under the DPA there is a 3rd parties personal data. ii. By redacting pages that are duplicates of previous pages already disclosed you are acknowledging that my personal data has been redacted in direct breach of the DPA. It is irrelevant whether the pages have already been disclosed, if they contain personal data then I am entitled to them. iii. This has to be most outlandish of the reasons you have given. Disclaimers on the footers of email cannot be used to identify a 3rd party and throughout the SAR pack there are copies of emails from the IPCC, SYP, SYPCC Office all of which openly display their email footers. I numbered each of the pages received in the SAR pack in the ordered they were delivered. In the same manner, can you advise which of the ‘X’ redacted pages fall into each of the 3 categories above, or if after further consideration you believe that your internal review was incorrect in it’s findings provide me with copies of the unredacted pages. 4) I had dealings with Cindy Butts, John Campbell-Ricketts and David Knight. Between these three people I am certain there will have been exchanges of information that will contain my personal data. Can you confirm why I have not received these ? 5) There are a number of emails / communications between SYP / IPCC where only one side of the exchange has been provided, clearly for one side of the exchange to contain my personal data it is fair to assume that my personal data will have been exchanged in the other direction. Can you confirm why I have not received these ? I have attached a scan of one such page, this should be page 677 of the SAR pack. 6) There are a number of documents where redaction has been applied incorrectly. These are minor breaches and I do not expect you to correct these but I believe the IPCC could learn from them. - Redacting names from emails where a person directly refers to a conversation I have had with them. Clearly I know who that person is if I have had the conversation with them. - Redacting names from emails but leaving that persons title and organisation visible. For example, redacting Tracey Cheetham (Deputy PCC at the time) name from the documents but leaving her title visible. This is publicly available information and as such should not have been redacted under DPA. - Redacting a persons name from one section of an email chain but leaving it unredacted in another part of the same email chain. This is just sloppy redaction. 7) Your closing paragraphs also make reference to my personal data being withheld and redacted as it has already been disclosed in other documents or withheld as the data could identify third parties. On the latter point, if the data could identify 3rd parties and that information is intertwined with my personal data then it is fair to assume it is because I have dealt directly with that person and as such they are already known to me so disclosure would not be a breach of the DPA. 20150907_ipcc Given the delays that have already occurred in both the delivery of the SAR pack and the internal review, I feel I have been more than patient. I did inform you previously that I would report the breaches to the ICO but have so far not done so as you did indicate an Internal Review was being carried out. I am therefore setting a deadline of Weds 7th Sept 5pm, If I have not received a satisfactory response or at least a timescale (not in the near future, in due course or any other platitudes) when I can receive the outstanding data then I will be left with no option than to refer the matter to the ICO. Regards M
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 14th Sep 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email below. I am in the process of addressing your questions and will contact you in the near future. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 14th Sep 2015
Dear Ms Thomas Did you read the entire email dated 7th Sept? If so then I can only draw the conclusion that you are deliberately setting out to antagonise me with your response and using the phrase ‘the near future’. I am willing to extend the deadline I set of 9th Sept to COB today, the 14th Sept. Regards Mr
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 21st Sep 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email below. I would like to assure that I am still looking into the points you have raised and investigating this matter internally. I am speaking to other member of staff in relation to this matter in order to provide you with the fullest response. I hope to be in contact in the near future about this issue. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 1st Oct 2015
Dear Ms Thomas Following your internal review I raised a number of specific points with you. I also asked for a timescale to be set for the IPCCs response and specifically said I didn’t want to hear phrases like ‘the near future’ or other platitudes. Since that time you have twice responded and used ‘the near future’ in both of these. It is over 2 months since the IPCC breached the DPA with it’s response. I have been more than patient in allowing you extra time in which to comply but from my side it just doesn’t seem that you are taking the matter seriously. Can you please respond by return email with a date when I can expect full compliance from the IPCC on this matter. Regards Mr
From : Gemma ThomasTo : MartynDate : 1st Oct 2015
Dear Mr Thank you for your email below. I can assure you that I have progressed with your complaint since my last response. I have now obtained a batch of documents that were not released to you in your original SAR and the reasons why. I am currently just reviewing these documents before I make a response to you in full in relation to all of the points you raised in your email of the 7 September. I hope to have this response to you in the next two weeks. Yours sincerely Gemma Thomas
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 2nd Oct 2015
Dear Ms Thomas Thank you for providing a timescale but I am puzzled as to why it is so far away! You performed an internal review of the SAR and wrote to me with the outcome of this on the 4th September. I raised very specific points with you on the 7th Sept and 4 weeks later you are telling me you’ve ‘now obtained a batch of documents that were not released to me in the original SAR and the reasons why’. - Surely these were reviewed by you already as part of your internal review? - Why has it taken 4 weeks for you to get sight of these documents? Regards Mr
From : MartynTo : Gemma ThomasDate : 15th Oct 2015
Dear Ms Thomas I find myself again chasing up this matter as another deadline has passed – an update please! Regards Mr