Fake news on NBW

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 31/10/2018 at 15:29, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

 

It's an ongoing saga, Paul.

With regards to refusal of two requests as vexatious and non-compliance with statutory and advisory timescales -

 A 'test' complaint regarding one, together with supporting evidence, has been lodged with the Information Commissioners Office - 

I have asked -
 

• That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT failed to respond within appropriate timescales both to this request and its subsequent request for review.

• That the Information Commissioner takes note of C&RT’s general delay in responding to requests and requests for review and takes appropriate action (I quoted Dave Mayall's request and others in the public domain as examples).

• That the Information Commissioner overturns C&RT’s decision to refuse this request.

• That C&RT be required to provide the information requested in part 3 and part 4 information.

• That the Information Commissioner rules that C&RT may not use the reviewing officers decision as a reason to refuse any other request (I think that answers Alan Fincher's earlier question).

 

I am not expecting a decision from ICO until the new year.
 

With regards to the allegations of "harassment of many staff"  made by Tom Deards, (C&RT's Head of Legal & Governance Services and Company Secretary), his threat of legal action and his demands that I remove articles, Mr Deards refuses to say which staff or which articles .

Thus, Mr Deards accusations remain vague and I am put in the position of being unable to comply even if I chose to do so ...

I have put this to him and the silence is deafening.

With regard to the second bullet point above, this is being handled separately from the rest of my complaint. Today I was informed that, C&RT had finally and publicly responded to Dave Mayall's request for review -
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costs_of_rebranding?nocache=incoming-1266538#incoming-1266538

 

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Today I was informed that, C&RT had finally and publicly responded to Dave Mayall's request for review

And said “Screw you, we’re still not telling”. Way to go, CRT. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 minutes ago, WotEver said:

And said “Screw you, we’re still not telling”. Way to go, CRT. 

Worse still, the director has left it to one of his staff to apologise for the delay and fails to admit that he is responding to a request for review ...

[Paul C]

Allan if you did a quick survey of your previous FOI requests how many would you say are not answered because it falls outside the scope? It seems that quite a lot are, these days.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

13 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Allan if you did a quick survey of your previous FOI requests how many would you say are not answered because it falls outside the scope? It seems that quite a lot are, these days.

Here, we are talking about a request from Dave Mayall which C&RT say falls outside the scope of FOI rather than one of mine ...

I don't agree with you that a lot of my recent requests have been refused because they fall outside the scope of FOI as it applies to C&RT. It is more a case of C&RT not replying to requests for review and rejecting requests as 'vexatious'.

It is perhaps worth quoting C&RT's responsibilities as they appear on the whatdotheyknow.com website -
 

Quote

Canal & River Trust is subject to Environmental Information Regulations and also subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with respect to functions inherited from British Waterways. The Canal & River Trust have undertaken to voluntarily release information where they can regardless of whether they are obliged to do so.

Unfortunately, C&RT fail to release information in accordance with its voluntary undertaking and try to hide behind 'functions inherited from British Waterways'.

Dave Mayall's request, because of the way it was worded, has given C&RT the opportunity to do this.

[Paul C]

Sorry Allan you're a bit confused....I did mean my question exactly as I worded it.....how many, of YOUR requests, have been unanswered because (they said) it was out-of-scope?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

16 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Sorry Allan you're a bit confused....I did mean my question exactly as I worded it.....how many, of YOUR requests, have been unanswered because (they said) it was out-of-scope?

I'm not confused. If C&RT have said a request was out of scope then they would have answered as such ...
As stated in my previous reply -
 

Quote

I don't agree with you that a lot of my recent requests have been refused because they fall outside the scope of FOI as it applies to C&RT. It is more a case of C&RT not replying to requests for review and rejecting requests as 'vexatious'.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Paul C]

I thought rejecting the requests as vexatious was a relatively new phenomenon; and that you had made a large number of requests before this occurred.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I thought rejecting the requests as vexatious was a relatively new phenomenon; and that you had made a large number of requests before this occurred.

I'm not sure what this has to do with your earlier post -

Quote

Allan if you did a quick survey of your previous FOI requests how many would you say are not answered because it falls outside the scope? It seems that quite a lot are, these days.