INTERNAL REVIEW CASE REFERENCE : 2425996

This is an Internal Review into case reference 2425996. The review sets out the
original request, the response provided, the internal review request and then the
outcome of the internal review. The texts of the original request and response
included in this internal review have been redacted to remove personal information
to enable publication in accordance with the councils commitment to transparency.
ORIGINAL REQUEST
On 3 January 2016 the following request for information was received:

Please can you provide all files and information, excluding information relevant to
Council tax, held by Barnet Council concerning the following Barnet Blogs and
individuals.
wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com - Mrs Angry [reacted]
reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Reasonable [redacted]
lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Mustard [redacted]
BarnetBugle.com - The Barnet Bugle [redacted]
Barneteye.blogspot.com - The Barnet Eye [redacted]
Original Response
On 7th January 2016 the following response was sent to the requester:
I can confirm that London Borough of Barnet holds information related to your
request. However, we are withholding some of that information since we consider
that the following exemptions apply to it.
With regard to the first four individuals mentioned, this information falls under the
definition of personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998, and is therefore
exempt. We consider that the absolute exemption set out in Section 40 (Personal
information) subsection 2 applies to the information requested, as the information
requested is third party personal data.. Therefore, we have decided to withhold the
information.
With regard to information related to [redacted], the information you have
requested is your own personal information. Under the Freedom of Information Act,
responses to requests and the information released as part of responses is
considered to be publicly available. The response and information released is
considered to be published to the whole world. Anyone anywhere could request a
copy of the response and the information released and the council would be obliged
to provide it to them. This would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 as it
would be unfair and unlawful processing of your personal data. Therefore under the
Freedom of Information Act information that is the personal data of the requester is
exempt, under section 40(1).
The best method to obtain your personal data from the council is to make a subject
access request. The forms are available here:
https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizenhome/

council-and-democracy/policy-and-performance/information-managementpolicies.
html . You will need to scroll down to SAR request pack and click the link.
This will take you to the form. The guidance notes explain what ID will be required
and the fee that is charged, and the circumstances under which you may not need to
pay the fee. You can complete the form and return it to the address shown to be
processed.
It should be noted that as this request contains and constitutes personal data in and
of itself, the response will not be published on our Disclosure Log.
Request for Internal Review.
On 7th January 2016 an email was received from the requester which was a request
for an Internal Review:
I have read your response and I am very disappointed with the content. Whilst I am
happy to accept your assertation that information regarding the individuals named
may be deemed "personal information" and exempted due to data protection issues,
if you had read my request properly you would have seen that I asked for information
"held by Barnet Council concerning the following Barnet Blogs and individuals.
wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com - Mrs Angry [redacted]
reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Reasonable [redacted]
lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk - Mr Mustard [redacted] BarnetBugle.com - The Barnet
Bugle [redacted] Barneteye.blogspot.com - The Barnet Eye [redacted]"
This clearly states that I have requested information held about BLOGS and
individuals. The Blogs mentioned are clearly not the individuals. Whilst it is right and
proper to withhold any personal information pertaining to specific individuals, there is
absolutely no justification at all for refusing to publish all data held about the BLOGS
that are mentioned. Would you withhold information held on the Daily Telegraph or
the Daily Mail if this was requested? The only information that the council can
reasonably withhold is personal information regarding the individuals mentioned.
If a council briefing stated "The Metpro Scandal was brought to the attention of
Barnet Council by the Barnet Eye, Broken Barnet, LbbSpending and
Reasonablenewbarnet blog" this can in no way be deemed personal information.
The FoI act puts a duty on the council to be as helpful as possible in dealing with all
requests. This response clearly has taken an overarching and unreasonable view as
to what is personal data. All information contained on the blogs mentioned is in the
public domain and as such the Council cannot reasonably expect to use privacy
issues to withhold it. I do accept that any information held by the council about the
individuals mentioned, that they have not chosen to put into the public domain,
should be treated as private data.
Email sent to requester
On 8th January 2016 the following email was sent to the requester:

Thank you for your request for a review received on 8 January 2016. I'm sorry to
hear that you are unhappy with the councils response to your information request.
We will now conduct an internal review. The review will be independent and
impartial, will reconsider the merits of the case, and will identify any errors in the
handling of your request.
We aim to complete internal reviews promptly and in any event within 20 working
days from receipt of a complaint. In exceptional cases we may take longer, but we
will not exceed 40 working days. This is in line with guidance issued by the
Information Commissioner.
If, following our review, you are still unhappy with the way we have applied the Act,
you can appeal directly to the Information Commissioner at: The Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
(telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45; website: www.ico.gov.uk). There is
no charge for making an appeal.
The internal review will deal only with the part of the request that deals with the
named individuals' blogs, as you have accepted the section 40(2) refusal regarding
their personal information.
Without prejudging the outcome of the review, I note that there is no time span to the
request. If the original request is overturned a search would need to be made for
information, and given there is no time specified the council would be required to
search all records held. There is the chance that, given the number of blogs cited
and the council wide range of the request, that the section 12 time limit of 18 hours
could be exceeded. At this stage, without prejudicing the outcome of the review, I
would invite you to provide either a time scale for the request and or a number of
subject areas that you would like information on. You do not have to do so, but if
you were to suggest a specific time period and or subject area/s this may avoid a
section 12 refusal. At this stage I am not stating that a section 12 refusal would be
made, but in these cases I would always advise requesters of the possibility.
I will hold working on the review for a week to enable you to consider if you wish to
provide a time scale and or subject range for the request, please let me know either
way.
If you'd like to discuss please email me or you are welcome to call me on 020 8359
2587.
Internal Review Outcome
On 20th January 2016 no contact had been made by the requester and so there has
been no reduction or refinement of the scope of the request.
The original response refused the entire request under section 40(1) (in respect of
[redacted]) and section 40(2) regarding the rest of the request. The requester has
accepted this refusal with respect to information about the named individuals, but not
in respect of the blogs themselves.

Therefore this internal review has only considered whether the application of section
40(1) / 40(2) to the information requested concerning the blogs themselves was
correct.
Personal Information is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 and is defined as
any data which relate to a living individual who can be identified) from those data, or
from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to
come into the possession of, the data controller. Section 40 (2) FOIA precludes the
disclosure of personal information relating to third parties. Section 40(1) prevents its
release where it is the personal information of the requester. This is because
responses to FOI requests and the information released is considered to be released
to the whole world, which would not be appropriate for the requesters own data.
The requester can ask for their own information as a subject access request under
the Data Protection Act 1998.
For the blogs, the question of whether any information held by the council is personal
data or not is not as clear cut as it may first appear. Although information held
about eg a newspaper or media organisation would not be personal data, the blogs
are closely identified with particular individuals. Indeed the requesters request
names the individuals in their personal capacities as well as their blogging
pseudonym. The bloggers own real names are well known and link them to their
blogs in addition to their blogging name. Information regarding a blog could be
considered to be so intrinsically bound with the blogs author that it comprised
personal information.
I have considered that although this could be the case, the boundaries are not totally
clear cut. Therefore in this instance the internal review has proceeded on the basis
that information regarding the blog itself, rather than the blogger, is not personal
data.
Therefore the part of the response dealing with this issue is overturned. The
following is substituted as the response to this part of the request:
The requester has asked for all information the council holds regarding the following
blogs:

wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com
reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk
lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk
BarnetBugle.com
Barneteye.blogspot.com
Although the requester was asked to consider giving a time frame for the requests
one has not been given. Therefore the date range will extend to the earliest date of
any information held by the council in any systems.
The council does not have a council wide overarching comprehensive electronic
document management system. This means that there is not one set of master
files for the council as a whole. Each service area has its own specific computer

system and or paper files. Although this may seem inefficient the specific varied
business needs of different delivery units means that different service areas need
tailored systems. Also, under the Data Protection Act 1998, council officers may
only have access to information that they need to undertake their roles. Therefore
for example, officers dealing with planning applications do not need to have access
to child care files and so do not have access to those systems (and vice versa).
To ascertain what information is held across the council in respect of the blogs will
mean a search being made of relevant computer systems. The subjects covered by
the blogs are council wide. They include, for example, parking, libraries, council
spending, council meetings, regeneration etc. Although the requester was invited to
produce a list of subject areas they have not done so. Therefore given the council
wide range of the subjects covered by the blogs searches will need to be undertaken
of all council systems.
Many systems work on a case by case basis rather than by requester or data
subject. This means that it is not always straightforward to locate relevant data.
Searches will need to be made of the blog name and part name (to cover incorrect
data entry) in all council systems. The council does not hold central files on the
blogs, information will be held in a piecemeal fashion where it has been needed as
part of eg a service complaint, a FOI request, dealing with issues over responding to
matters raised etc.
The scope of the request also includes information held otherwise than on casework
systems. It will include paper file, emails, information on share drives etc. Searches
of these cannot be undertaken centrally, and will need to be undertaken by the
individuals who hold the drives/email accounts etc.
The scope of the request is council wide; however we do not consider it to be
necessary to ask every member of staff to search their email accounts and shared
files. We have excluded childrens and family services and adult social care and
health (with the exception of libraries) from consideration as these seem not to be
covered in the blogs. We consider that the following areas will need to undertake
comprehensive searches of case files, emails, home drives, shared files and any
other storage:

Information management team

Communications team
Parking
Libraries
Planning and Regeneration
Finance
Assurance (including governance and democratic services)
Commissioning group/commercial
Waste and recycling
Procurement
Highways
HBPL

Councillors (in so far as any information may be held in their capacity as

council members rather than ward members or in their political capacity, as
information will be held for the purposes of FOI only in their role as
councillors).

The council has estimated that to search for, locate, extract and locate the
information requested will take in excess of 18 hours and therefore will exceed the
appropriate limit as set down in the The Freedom of Information and Data Protection
(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (fees regulations). The appropriate
limit given in the fees regulations is 450 which is calculated at a notional rate of
25/hour. This rate is not the rate that staff are paid, but the rate that is set down as
the hourly cost for calculation purposes. 450 at 25 / hour equates to 18 hours.
Where the council estimates that it will take in excess of 18 hours to locate, extract
and collate the information requested it may refuse the request under section 12.
We have estimated that it will take each relevant employee 20 minutes to search
their emails, archives, personal folders, shared drives and any case management
system and paper filing for relevant information. This is considered, at 4 minutes per
blog address to cover all systems a very conservative estimate. We have taken a
very conservative estimated the number of staff required to search in each service
area will be five. This is accurate for the Information Management Team and
approximate for the parking team and considered a low estimate for other areas. 5
employees for 12 areas totals 60 employees and will take an estimated 20 hours.
Where employees locate information this will need to be extracted and collated. It is
impossible to estimate the time this will take in advance of searches being made.
We consider it will take councillors (who will only need to search emails) approx. 7
minutes each (less than 2 minutes per blog address). Time estimate for councillors
is 63x4 minutes totalling 4.2 hours.
It is estimated that searching for information will take in excess of 24 hours which
exceeds the appropriate limit and therefore the request is refused under section 12.
Advice and Assistance
In the email to the requester of 8th January, it was suggested the requester may wish
to provide a time frame or a subject area to the request to avoid a possible section
12 refusal. Although the requester did not respond to this, if they now wish to submit
a fresh request with a smaller scope in terms of time and or subject matter this is
likely to enable a request to avoid a section 12 refusal. The requester is invited to
submit a reduced request. The requester is also welcome to contact the council to
discuss how a request could be worded or reduced.
Your rights
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you will
have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
(telephone: 0303 123 1113; website www.ico.org.uk). There is no charge for making
an appeal.