Useless ICO

[Spankymonkey]

I made an FOI request to a local authority many months ago. My request was refused. So I asked for a review. That was ignored. I prompted them again. Also ignored. I appealed to the ICO via their laborious submission process. I got a form e-mail telling me that the ICO would respond within 30 days. 32 days later, still nothing. So I called the ICO. Another week later I got a response. They have written to the local authority and told them they must respond to my review. 1 week later I get said response. Telling me that they will soon be sending that review! Yet more weeks pass. Nothing. I follow up with the ICO to tell them the local authority have ignored them. Not a peep from them either.

It has been six months now since I made the original FOI request.

It seems clear to me that the ICO are toothless and useless. The reason these local authorities wilfully ignore and delay FOI requests is because they know they can. They know the ICO will do nothing about it because they are beyond useless.

So what else can I do to force the local authority to respond, that doesn't involve the ICO?

[Hairyloon]

Write to your MP.

[miner]

Personally, I have found the ICO quite helpful in the past over a particular issue. The verdict of the ICO caused the offending Council to cave in on the absurd position taken [deleted].

[atticus]

Doing my best to ignore the gratuitously offensive adjectives, the OP will only get worthwhile comment if one of a small number of infrequent visitors with specialist knowledge should cime along. Chief among these is b1969.

[miner]

If I am repeatedly lied to by lawyers employed by a local [UK] Council, it is not unreasonable for me to [deleted]. The adjectives used by me were appropriate to the situation which appertained.

[Hairyloon]

If I am repeatedly lied to by lawyers employed by a local [UK] Council, it is not unreasonable for me to [deleted]. The adjectives used by me were appropriate to the situation which appertained.

He makes a fair point.
I think Atti', you are too ready to infer a generalisation where none has been put, but miner, you should have worked that out by now.
Unless you are deliberately trying to wind Atti (and others) up, then can you please try to tone it down a bit?

[blig]

I appealed to the ICO ... the ICO would [aim to] respond within 30 days. 32 days later, still nothing. So I called the ICO. Another week later I got a response. They have written to the local authority and told them they must respond to my review. 1 week later I get said response. Telling me that they will soon be sending that review! Yet more weeks pass. Nothing. I follow up with the ICO to tell them the local authority have ignored them. Not a peep from them either.

The OP expects a faster reponse from the ICO than they work to in complex cases. They aim to reach an outcome on 90% of cases within six months. Their initial acknowledgement is nine days late but their commitment to respond to the second letter saying that the local authority have ignored them is likely to be within 30 days.

See https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/our-in ... standards/ for their service standards.

I'd be inclined to telephone the ICO and politely inquire when a written reply can be expected.

[atticus]

Yes, save you should put it in writing. An e-mail may suffice. Sometimes having things on record can be useful.

[miner]

If I am repeatedly lied to by lawyers employed by a local [UK] Council, it is not unreasonable for me to [deleted]. The adjectives used by me were appropriate to the situation which appertained.

He makes a fair point.
I think Atti', you are too ready to infer a generalisation where none has been put, but miner, you should have worked that out by now.
Unless you are deliberately trying to wind Atti (and others) up, then can you please try to tone it down a bit?

I assure you I was not trying to wind anyone up. WYSIWYG with me. I don't pussy-foot around. [deleted]. I don't tolerate fools gladly and I have no respect whatsoever for anyone abusing their exalted publicly-funded position of trust.

[miner]

Yes, save you should put it in writing. An e-mail may suffice. Sometimes having things on record can be useful.

Very true, but progress can sometimes be made by reaching someone relevant on the telephone for their spontaneous answer.