We responded to @ICOnews consultation on prioritising #FOI complaints. We welcome the objective of prioritising complaints of significant public interest & target of prioritising 10-15% of all complaints, while improving the speed with which non-prioritised cases are dealt with.
If these ambitious targets are achieved they will – together with the ICO's proposed action to address public authority delays – reinvigorate the #FOI system.
However we do not agree that particular types of requester, including journalists & civil society orgs, should be prioritised. Others, such as independent experts, researchers, bloggers, prof bodies & unions may equally contribute to public debate and should not be disadvanaged.
We are concerned about the proposal to reject more complaints as ‘frivolous or vexatious’ without investigation - removing complainants' right of appeal against poor ICO decsions.
If an authority refuses a request as vexatious correctly citing ICO guidance the ICO may refuse to investigate in future, apparently without checking the facts. The ICO now overturns 30% of vexatious refusals - some of these may be denied a remedy in future.
Read our detailed response:
cfoi.org.uk/2022/12/ico-co…
cfoi.org.uk/2022/12/ico-co…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
