Doug Paulley's blog

disability, data protection, activism and other such

The ICO shouldn’t decide what a S50 assessment is about

Posted on by Doug Paulley

Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act gives requesters the right to ask the Information Commissioner to decide if a public authority’s handling of the requester’s Freedom of Information Request is in compliance with the Act.

Application for decision by Commissioner.

(1)Any person (in this section referred to as “the complainant”) may apply to the Commissioner for a decision whether, in any specified respect, a request for information made by the complainant to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part I.

Here’s the bit I’m interested in: (my emphasis)

Any person … may apply to the Commissioner for a decision whether, in any specified respect, a request for information made by the complainant to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance…

I don’t think the Commissioner complies with this, and I think she / her office should.

Here’s a current example, in which the ICO is refusing to decide whether an authority’s handling of my request complied with the Act in my specified respect – whether they were correct to use the S43 exemption:

In January 2015, as part of my campaign to make Leonard Cheshire pay carers the living wage, I put in Freedom of Information requests to many councils for details of how much they pay care providers including Leonard Cheshire. Surrey Council (alone, out of the 172 I surveyed) maintained that the S43 exemption (Commercial Interests), partly because they were currently undertaking a review of care home contracts.

In February 2016, on the assumption that the review would be over, I sent a new request for the original data. Their dilatory response of 19 April 2016 cited S43 again. I requested an internal review; their usual dilatory response of 21 July 2016 upheld S43.

On 29th June 2016, I sent the ICO a S50 request. It read, in its entirety,

Hello

Please can you conduct a S50 request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/surrey_council_leonard_cheshire

1) failure to respond within 20 working days

2) inappropriate reliance on S43

I have given them every opportunity to respond, including requesting
an internal review, but they have neglected to so so.

Thank you

Doug Paulley

After Surrey had completed their internal review, the ICO contacted me to ask if I was still unhappy. I emailed them on 23rd July to say that I was most definitely still unhappy about their use of the commercial interests exemption and repeated my request for a S50 assessment. The ICO appointed an investigator, who emailed me on 20th September 2016, stating:

The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether the Council is entitled to rely on section 43(2) as a basis for withholding the information described in your requests

I was entirely clear in my initial S50 request, and throughout all following correspondence, that my S50 request was about their use of S43. I initially included their failure to respond within the deadline, but still it was clear throughout, and in both my S50 requests, that my concern was about the authority’s illegitimate use of S43.

On 6th February 2017 (nigh on a year after the request) Surrey Council released info that arguably satisfied the request:

Following on from the email below and subsequent correspondence with the Information Commissioner, given the passage of time, we are now able to confirm…

The Information Commissioner’s Office emailed me to say they would drop their investigation.

Surrey Council has now sent me a copy of an email it sent to you disclosing the range of fees for LCD as at the date of your request. This would appear to satisfy your request and I therefore now propose to close this case as having been informally resolved.

(One wonders if the Act allows them to unilaterally decide not to complete the S50 assessment.)

I wasn’t happy with this. I stuck to my guns on the S50 assessment. However the ICO then refused to look at the use of S43:

I will do a decision notice. It will be on the narrow issue of Surrey Council’s delay in providing the information to you.

I said: hang on, my S50 request was about their use of S43:

I appreciate your position, but it is clear that the substantial delay was caused by the authority’s inappropriate and prolonged reliance on the exemption. If you hadn’t intervened they wouldn’t have responded at all because they would have maintained that exemption. Writing a decision notice solely on the a time limit issue is disingenuous.

When I sent you my S50 request, back on June 29 2016, I asked you to conduct a S50 assessment into “1) failure to respond within 20 working days 2) inappropriate reliance on S43.”

I didn’t ask you to take 7.5 months to persuade the authority to release the information, then to count the case as closed; then on my remonstration to write a decision notice solely about their delay in response. I asked you to do a DN about their delay, and the fact that they inappropriately used S43.

I appreciate you always prefer an informal resolution to requests as being better all round, but in this case it’s not acceptable. They are dodging the issue by saying that the time since the request has meant they can release the information. This gives me no confidence whatsoever that when I ask for updated information they will supply the information.

Don’t just do a DN about delay. Do it on their S43 refusal also.

Once again the ICO flat refused:

I consulted with senior colleagues regarding your concern about the position I set out for you: namely, that we will do a decision notice addressing the delay in response. They have agreed with my position and I do not intend to change my approach.

If you wish to challenge the scope of our decision notice in that regards, you will be able to appeal the decision notice to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).

I quoted S50 again, and in no uncertain terms set out what I believe is the Information Commissioner’s obligation in the Act:

I require the Information Commissioner to make a decision as to whether the authority’s reliance on the S43 exemption was legitimate. As the complainant, I specify that specific: that is my “specified respect”.

I appreciate that you have asked your seniors, but frankly they are not infallible and in this instance they are wrong. The Information Commissioner does not have the ability to pick and choose whether to respond to the “respect” specified by the complainant.

Please register and investigate a complaint under your complaint procedures that the Commissioner is refusing to comply with her legal obligation set out in the Act to make a determination as to whether the authority was legitimate in refusing to provide the Information for 11 months because they believed S43 was engaged.

Should the Commissioner either not respond to this complaint, or respond but not rescind the decision to ignore the respect I specified, I will apply for a judicial review, in order to ensure that the decision notice addresses the specific point I raised and to ensure that the Commission re-evaluates their obligations set by the Act.

But the Commissioner’s office still refused.

Thank you for your further comments. I will ensure that your comments are passed on to my line manager, [name redacted], who is a Group Manager at the ICO. However, I should be grateful if you would complete our complaints form…

I will, in the meantime, continue to draft a decision notice in the terms previously explained. I acknowledge that you disagree with the scope I have outlined.

I shall send the complaint; and, given that she is continuing to draft the decision notice, I will apply for judicial review; and when they issue the decision notice, I will go to the FTT if need be. But I must say I do think this is ridiculous.

I was perfectly clear all along that my S50 application was for an IC determination as to whether the authority’s use of the S43 exemption was engaged. S50 states that the ICO must decide whether the authority’s actions were compliant with the Act “in any specified respect”. To my mind, the IC is not legitimate in deciding for themselves what they will and will not decide.

I don’t know the Tribunal and Appeal Court decisions in this area – but to me the law is clear, and the IC are wasting their ever-dwindling resources fighting my request for no good reason…

…Or am I barking up the wrong tree?!

Bus driver still not asking pushchair users to shift…

Posted on by Doug Paulley

The basis of the Firstbus case was that the bus company must do more than get their drivers to just ask pushchair users to vacate the wheelchair space. All sides agreed from the very start that the bus driver must at least ask the non-disabled person(s) occupying the wheelchair space to make way for a wheelchair user. Now they have to “request and pressurise“.

Yet there are still examples of bus drivers refusing to ask people to move. I’ve already discussed a bus driver who refused to let a wheelchair user on even though the wheelchair space was free. Here’s a video showing a bus driver refusing to even ASK the people occupying the space to move so that his mother could get on in her wheelchair at the hospital bus-stop, where they had been visiting his father.

Utterly disgusting and unacceptable. But not the first time – it had already happened to the same person the same week:

And on multiple occasions over the last 6 years:

The impact is significant.

Over the past 5 years of the court case, and especially since the judgment, I’ve had large numbers of wheelchair users contact me telling them they are still experiencing such problems.

There was the incident on the way home from the Supreme Court case.

More:

I’ve also received a large number of emails from people experiencing this. E.g.:

i’m in a wheelchair and the bus driver said i could not get on due to 2 pushchairs being on the bus there was space for the 2 pushchairs to go together and for me to go into the  wheelchair space the bus driver still refused
It is shocking that even despite this ruling, Firstbus and other companies are not enforcing disabled people’s right to travel on the bus.
If this happens to you:

sue the company.

Unity Law. Nuff said.

Prosecute Bus Drivers for Refusing Wheelchair Users – it’s a Criminal Offence

Posted on by Doug Paulley

Bus drivers refusing to allow wheelchair users onto buses where the wheelchair space is either unoccupied or occupied by people who can readily and reasonably move are committing a crime. They should be prosecuted, given a £500 fine and 3 penalty points. Then they should have the consequences for their employment consequent to being convicted of a crime they have perpetrated whilst working.

Here’s the ins and outs.

S24 of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981 states that everybody must comply with regulations under that Act under pain of being tried “on summary conviction” i.e. in magistrates’ court (thus a criminal record), “a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale” (£500) and, for bus drivers subject to the Act, “the conviction to be endorsed upon the licence“. On the Government’s list of endorsements,  the only appropriate code seems to be M60 “Offences not covered by other codes (including offences relating to breach of requirements as to control of vehicle)” – 3 points lasting 4 years.

The “Conduct Regulations” are one set of those regulations. These are properly and snappily titled “The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers)(Amendment) Regulations 2002“. Read the Conduct Regulations (PDF). Amongst other things, they say:

12.—(1) This regulation applies (subject to regulation 15(1) (duties requiring the proper functioning of equipment)) in relation to a driver and a conductor of a Schedule 1 vehicle.
(2) If there is an unoccupied wheelchair space on the vehicle, a driver and a conductor shall allow a wheelchair user to board if—
(a) the wheelchair is of a type or size that can be correctly and safely located in that wheelchair space, and
(b) in so doing, neither the maximum seating nor standing capacity of the vehicle would be exceeded.
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (2), a wheelchair space is occupied if—
(a) there is a wheelchair user in that space; or
(b) passengers or their effects are in that space and they or their effects cannot readily and reasonably vacate it by moving to another part of the vehicle.

(“A Schedule 1 vehicle” simply means a wheelchair accessible bus.)

So if you’re not allowed on a bus in your wheelchair, and the wheelchair space is either empty or there’s somebody in the space who can “readily and reasonbly” move to another bit of the bus, call the police and report the driver.

So: take a recent situation.

  • Kirsty Shepherd, a wheelchair user from Wakefield, was refused access to a bus because there was a baby buggy in the buggy space.
  • This bus had a separate buggy and wheelchair space: so the wheelchair space was free.
  • The wheelchair space was empty.
  • Kirsty quite rightly protested at not being allowed on, and insisted on speaking to the driver’s boss, so the driver phoned his boss on his mobile.
  • The boss told Kirsty that Kirsty could catch the bus.
  • The boss told the driver that Kirsty could catch the bus.
  • The driver still refused.
  • The boss told Kirsty, again, that she could catch the bus.
  • The boss told the driver again to let Kirsty on.
  • The driver still refused – then terminated the bus, telling everybody to get off.
  • The driver told the other customers that Kirsty had terminated the bus.
  • Everybody got off and most of the passengers shouted at Kirsty for being “selfish”.
  • The driver shouted at Kirsty, accusing her of terminating the bus.
  • Kirsty told the driver to put the bus back into service
  • The bus drove off with all the passengers back on board. Even the mum with the pushchair in the pushchair space. But the wheelchair space was still empty – because Kirsty was still not allowed on.
  • Kirsty, understandably very distraught, successfully caught the next bus, 40 minutes later. So did somebody else with a pushchair. They simply occupied the pushchair space and the wheelchair space respectively, without an issue, as Kirsty has done many times before.

On Monday (3 days ago) Arriva said they were “investigating this as a matter of urgency“. So I emailed Arriva pointing out that the driver had committed a criminal offence, and that

I expect you to act precisely as you would if a driver had conducted another criminal offence whilst on duty, for example drink driving or assaulting somebody. You are under a duty to report this matter for prosecution, or to place an information before the magistrates. You will also of course have to deal with any other matters, but refusal to allow a wheelchair user on board when the wheelchair space is free is a specific criminal offence in and of itself. I look forward to hearing that you have treated this criminal offence with the seriousness it deserves.

I got a read receipt for my email. So I know they got it.

Arriva have today issued an apology. Apparently, Arriva:

said there had been “a genuine misinterpretation” of company policy and that the company’s policy was complicated by the many different configurations of buses in the fleet.

A genuine misinterpretation?! The law couldn’t be clearer: if the wheelchair space is free the driver MUST allow a wheelchair user on. What’s more the driver’s boss told him, repeatedly, that he must allow Kirsty on in her wheelchair. If the driver believed this is company policy,  that doesn’t say much for the driver! If the driver similarly believed company policy required him to break speed limits and to drive while drunk, would he do so? As to the supposed confusion over “different configurations“: what?!

Bollocks.

So what are Arriva doing following their driver’s criminal behaviour whilst driving their bus?

  • The company is to distribute new signs to “clarify the position regarding wheelchair access” to its bus fleet
  • The company is also to issue a driver briefing as part of its disability awareness training
  • The driver is going on his usually yearly update, that might cover disability awareness and wheelchairs
  • The driver’s manager will have a word with him, just like he did during the incident
  • The company said sorry to Kirsty.
  • And…
  • …That’s it.

NB: To her eternal credit, despite being absolutely humiliated by the driver’s treatment of her and him blaming her to other passengers, Kirsty went to the media and achieved widespread coverage. (She’s marvelous.) So this isn’t just how Arriva deal with drivers’ criminal behaviour, it’s how they do so under a publicity spotlight.

Arriva evidently don’t report, suspend or sack drivers who commit crimes whilst driving

So next time you’re on an Arriva bus, don’t complain if the driver verbally assaults someone, foments hatred among passengers leading to a likely breach of the peace, if he refuses somebody based purely on prejudice against their race then blames them for terminating the bus, shouts at them for no good reason, or whatever, because quite clearly Arriva expect and tolerate such illegal discrimination and hate crimes.

Other criminal offences

Drivers’ failures to do any of the following are also criminal offences under the Conduct Regulations, also meriting a £500 fine, 3 points and a criminal record:

Part Obligation
14.1 Deploy the ramp when a wheelchair user wants to get on or off
13.2 Operate the kneeling mechanism when needed and on request
14.2&3 Assist disabled people to get on or off the bus, if needed
12.4c Carry a means of manually operating automatic ramps if they break
12.4d Ensure wheelchair users can access and exit of the wheelchair space
12.4e Ensure wheelchair users are in the space before continuing driving

I therefore urge wheelchair users to call the police if a driver fails to deploy the ramp on request (e.g. in response to the blue bell)

An interesting corollary: drivers are obliged to allow wheelchair users onto the bus if passengers or their effects are in the wheelchair space and they cannot readily and
reasonably vacate it by moving to another part of the bus, irrespective of whether or no those passengers actually move. Drivers are then obliged to make sure that any wheelchair user is correctly and safely positioned in a wheelchair space. Should the wheelchair user be unable to get access to said wheelchair space because said passengers refuse to move, an interesting stalemate should develop where the bus driver refuses to drive the bus until the non-disabled person vacates the space. As identified by Lord Toulson:

There is therefore an apparent tension in the regulation, because regulation 12(2) requires the driver to permit a wheelchair user to board if there is an unoccupied wheelchair space, which includes a space physically occupied by a person who could readily and reasonably move elsewhere, but for as long as that person remains in the wheelchair space the vehicle must not be driven.