Vexatious Requests to CRT under Freedom of Information Act ?

[alan_fincher]

I'm interested to see CRT are taking a bit of a stance on this point.

 

Quote

This year alone to date your requests account for 24% of all the Freedom
of Information Requests received by the Trust.  You have also requested 1
internal review and have complained to the Information Commissioner. In
2017 your requests for information accounted for 19% of the total number
of requests for information received by the Trust and you submitted 4
requests for an internal review. The volume of requests that you are
submitting to the Trust is placing an undue burden on the Trust and
diverting resources of the Trust. 

I don't think you need to open the link to work out who might be being referred to!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/section_77_complaint?nocache=incoming-1161056#incoming-1161056

No doubt the next step may be driven by this......
 

Quote

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, and Cheshire,
SK9 5AF.

If this is done, I will be interested to see if the Information Commissioner's Office agree with CRT, or support the complainant.

[reg]

Gave myself 8 out of 10 for guessing the "magazine? " 

[Ray T]

Doesn't some gent called Ralph put in a lot of requests too?

[NB Lola]

It all depends on the purpose and value of the requests.  Are your requests genuine?  Are you seeking to hold CRT to account?  Or are you asking frivolous questions designed to frustrate CRT and cause administrative difficulty.  

 

They are are obliged to consider your requests but if you are digging without purpose you are wasting our licence payments.  If you get genuine value....

[alan_fincher]

59 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Doesn't some gent called Ralph put in a lot of requests too?

None I can see in 2018.

Second position (in terms of requests made) for 2018 probably goes to "steve", (aka "Jenlyn"), formerly of this forum, but I didn't actually count.

Back to the original post for those who didn't follow all the material in the link, I also found this challenge from CRT interesting......
 

Quote

I am also aware that you have posted on line the details of officer’s
names and photos of 3 Trust employees without their consent and made
allegations that offences have been committed under section 77 of the
Freedom of Information Act. I would ask that you remove these photos
immediately as I believe that posting these photos without the consent of
the individuals is an invasion of the officer’s privacy.  Posting the
details online along with the content of the article caused unwarranted
harassment and distress to employees of the Trust. 

It will be interesting to see what if any action the Trust are prepared to take if the request that I have highlighted is ignored.

[mrsmelly]

I just go boating. Its fab out there. Nowts changed in my near on thirty years, still fab and still getting awesome service.

[alan_fincher]

8 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

It all depends on the purpose and value of the requests.  Are your requests genuine?  Are you seeking to hold CRT to account?  Or are you asking frivolous questions designed to frustrate CRT and cause administrative difficulty.  

 

They are are obliged to consider your requests but if you are digging without purpose you are wasting our licence payments.  If you get genuine value....

I don't know, but the following from CRT's response is also interesting......

 

Quote

In addition to the volume of requests I am also aware that you are an
author of an online interest and campaigning group called The Floater. One
of the stated aims of Floater is: “Original campaign group protesting the creation of Canal & River Trust”

I'm not sure that itself is a valid reason to decline the requests, although I'm long beyond believing that the person making them is actually always doing so for entirely worthy reasons.  But them in the past not just me but other members of my family have been on the receiving end of some of his very dubious attempts at "journalism", so I will freely admit I'm no longer capable of being impartial about his output.

[nicknorman]

19 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

None I can see in 2018.

Second position (in terms of requests made) for 2018 probably goes to "steve", (aka "Jenlyn"), formerly of this forum, but I didn't actually count.

Back to the original post for those who didn't follow all the material in the link, I also found this challenge from CRT interesting......
 

It will be interesting to see what if any action the Trust are prepared to take if the request that I have highlighted is ignored.

As usual CRT shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the repeated FOI claims are vexatious but clouding the issue by complaining about some pictures of staff is just silly - presuming these photos were taken in a public place, not eg by peering in through their bedroom windows. There is no legal basis for their complaint, it is not an invasion of privacy to post a named photo of someone in a public place. A fundamental element of harassment is that the “thing” must be repeated. So one article naming people in photos and complaining about them cannot be harassment. On the other hand, false accusations about something CRT have done could be libellous. But they choose the wrong things to be exercised about and thus look like silly amateur bar-room lawyers.

[Boat&Bikes]

22 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I just go boating. Its fab out there. Nowts changed in my near on thirty years, still fab and still getting awesome service.

Not boated for as long as you. But the ten years we have done have been great. I hear the complaints and I know it’s not perfect on the canals but it’s still pretty good. Some just look for the problems I believe so they can moan.

[matty40s]

If CRT just got with it and published meeting notes as soon as they were typed up Mr Richards wouldn't be able to annoy them so often

[haggis]

13 minutes ago, matty40s said:

If CRT just got with it and published meeting notes as soon as they were typed up Mr Richards wouldn't be able to annoy them so often

Do you not think he would find something else to ask F of I requests or complain about? I can off the top of my head think of three people who seem to spend their time looking at something which they believe to be wrong with the canals and/or their management and I think they must have very boring uninteresting lives if that is what gives them "kicks".  OK all is not perfect but what in life is? and to my mind we should work more with than against organisations to improve things. 

Haggis

[MtB]

27 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

So one article naming people in photos and complaining about them cannot be harassment.

 

If you read it more carefully you'll notice that is not what CRT claim. They say posting the photos caused harassment, which I take to be from another source e.g. the genertal public. Multiple people reading the article and challenging the employees over it adds up to harassment caused, I reckon.

[roland elsdon]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

I just go boating. Its fab out there. Nowts changed in my near on thirty years, still fab and still getting awesome service.

That's where you are making a mistake. You go boating. The scenery changes, the neighbours change, your batteries get charged you pay your dues without incident. You should be ashamed of your perfect life.

[NB Lola]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

As usual CRT shoot themselves in the foot. No doubt the repeated FOI claims are vexatious but clouding the issue by complaining about some pictures of staff is just silly - presuming these photos were taken in a public place, not eg by peering in through their bedroom windows. There is no legal basis for their complaint, it is not an invasion of privacy to post a named photo of someone in a public place. A fundamental element of harassment is that the “thing” must be repeated. So one article naming people in photos and complaining about them cannot be harassment. On the other hand, false accusations about something CRT have done could be libellous. But they choose the wrong things to be exercised about and thus look like silly amateur bar-room lawyers.

You may be wrong, see EU v Lindqvist

[Paul C]

The net long term effect might be that CRT are fully relieved of their duties of FOI requests.

[Clodi]

Who are you talking about, I'm worried as my surname is Richards and I don't think I moan that much

Edited May 21, 2018 by NB Lola
Language

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

If you read it more carefully you'll notice that is not what CRT claim. They say posting the photos caused harassment, which I take to be from another source e.g. the genertal public. Multiple people reading the article and challenging the employees over it adds up to harassment caused, I reckon.

Firstly, I don’t think that’s what she means as it seems an unlikely scenario, and secondly the crime of harassment relates to repeated action by one person, not lots of people doing it once. “Causing” harassment by highlighting an issue which is then taken up by others, isn’t harassment in the legal sense and there is no crime of causing others to harass as far as I know.

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, NB Lola said:

You may be wrong, see EU v Lindqvist

No that case is different. Posting people’s phone numbers or other personal data is both discourteous and on dodgy data protection ground. But posting a photograph of someone in a public place isn’t personal data. If you go into a public place it’s fair game that you will be seen by members of the public.

[NB Lola]

7 hours ago, nicknorman said:

No that case is different. Posting people’s phone numbers or other personal data is both discourteous and on dodgy data protection ground. But posting a photograph of someone in a public place isn’t personal data. If you go into a public place it’s fair game that you will be seen by members of the public.

So long as the photograph of a person is incidental, it’s different if they are the focus and they can be identified from the shot taken or with other information added

[LadyG]

9 hours ago, Clodi said:

Who are you talking about, I'm worried as my surname is Richards and I don't think I moan that much

please don't swear, other forums are availanle. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by NB Lola
Abusive language

[nicknorman]

33 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

So long as the photograph of a person is incidental, it’s different if they are the focus and they can be identified from the shot taken or with other information added

Can you cite any source for your claim? Custom and practice suggests you are wrong - the newspapers are full of pictures of named people taken without permission and yet one never hears of people suing when they don’t like it, nor of newspapers being prosecuted for it  - the exception being if the photo was taken in a private place eg someone’s back garden, private beach etc taken with a long telephoto lens. Common sense says you cannot invade someone’s privacy by showing them in a public place where anyone could have seen them.

[mark99]

Esp if FOI requested are then used to generate a rant to peddle a miserable rag.

[NB Lola]

On this basis there is no breach unless an individual complains.  However, the press has an exemption for journalistic purposes.

 

section 32 I believe

Edited May 21, 2018 by NB Lola

[rgreg]

12 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I just go boating. Its fab out there. Nowts changed in my near on thirty years, still fab and still getting awesome service.

I can only agree that this also is my experience in the last 16 years. The only deterioration I have noticed in that time is the increase in "pretend" CCrs clogging up VMs and that's another distraction for CRT's precious resources. 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Can you cite any source for your claim? Custom and practice suggests you are wrong - the newspapers are full of pictures of named people taken without permission and yet one never hears of people suing when they don’t like it, nor of newspapers being prosecuted for it  - the exception being if the photo was taken in a private place eg someone’s back garden, private beach etc taken with a long telephoto lens. Common sense says you cannot invade someone’s privacy by showing them in a public place where anyone could have seen them.

 

So, do you know how the photos of the three CRT staff were acquired then?