Category Archives: Tips and tricks

Using FOI guidelines to get past refusals

Leave a reply

Following up on our post about new FOI guidelines, Cleland Thom has compiled a list of excuses sometimes used by officials to refuse an FOI request, and how to use the guidelines to get past those. Some of the highlights:

  1. “Your request was sent to the wrong department.
    WRONG: it just has to be sent to the authority concerned, not to any individual or department.
  2. “You haven’t told us which documents you want.
    WRONG: the Act says you can ask for information. You don’t have to name specific documents. It’s up to the authority to find all the information you want. In fact, if you ask for specific documents, you may just get those, and miss other things.
  3. Sorry, but it’s not my job to help you.
    WRONG: authorities have a legal duty to explain your rights and help you submit an FOIA request.
  4. My job’s just to provide information – not to answer questions or explain it.
    WRONG: the guidelines tell staff: … ‘This doesn’t prevent you providing answers or explanations as well, as a matter of normal customer service’.
  5. “Sorry, we ignored your request because we couldn’t understand it.
    WRONG: Staff can contact you and ask for clarification.
  6. “I’m not answering that – I don’t like your tone.
    WRONG: Staff must ignore the tone of your request.
  7. “Sorry, but your request wasn’t clear enough. We didn’t deal with it.
    WRONG: the authority should contact you ASAP to get clarification, and maybe offer help.
  8. “We don’t have this information – and I don’t know who does.
    POSSIBLY: the authority will usually tell you if it does not hold the information you asked for. But it does not have to tell you who holds it, though they might point you to someone else if they know.
  9. “I can’t tell you whether or not we hold this information.
    POSSIBLY: in some circumstances, an authority can issue a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) response.
  10. “We can’t give you the information, and I’m not going to tell you if we hold it or not.
    WRONG: staff should tell you if they hold information that they have refused to give you, but they don’t have to explain it. See 20 above, though.
  11. “We can’t give you this information – it’s full of errors.
    WRONG: staff still have to give you the information, even if it contains inaccuracies or is out of date. But they should tell you, and may offer additional information to put it in context.
  12. “We can’t give you this, it’s marked for deletion.
    WRONG: staff have been told it’s not good practice to continue with a scheduled deletion if someone has requested the information. It’s a criminal offence for them to delete information because it could create embarrassment or bad publicity.
  13. “Sorry, you can’t have this information in printed format.
    WRONG: you can state format you want at the time you make your request.
  14. “I’m not going to help you – you’re a pain in the neck.
    WRONG: Authorities can reject requests that are ‘vexatious’. But this applies to the request, not the person asking it. A request can be vexatious if:
  • it creates too much work
  • your tone or manner is discourteous
  • the request is obsessive
  • there’s no value in the request.”

 

VIDEO: Investigating local government – Paul Dale

Leave a reply

For 35 years Paul Dale reported on Birmingham City Council for the local press. As this first interview for Help Me Investigate, he gives his tips on starting to investigate local government, and the importance of human contacts.

In this clip Paul talks about understanding the structure of local government:

Finally, Paul speaks about how investigating local government makes you particularly employable.

Do you have any tips on investigating local government?

The importance of persistence

Leave a reply
Anthony Barnett writes compellingly about the importance not only of investigating issues, but of continuing to report the same thing “until the penny drops”. Here’s a key passage:

“[Ian Hislop] made a striking point, for me at least, when asked to define investigative journalism. In part, he answered, it is saying the same true thing again and again and again and again until the penny drops. It is not just that Private Eye runs a story, its influence comes from repeating it over and over again.
“There is an important lesson here. What matters is not revealing something that is wrong. The ice soon closes over. What matters – and what of course costs time and money – is continuous, informed, accurate repetition so that exposé of the wrongdoing will not go away. Hackgate can be seen as a classic vindication of this analysis. It did not just explode with the Milly Dowler revelation. Had the Guardian, or any other paper, run that story out of the blue, there would have been shock but no other consequences, certainly not the closure of the News of the World and the Levenson Inquiry.  Without Nick Davies’s (who gave evidence alongside Sambrook) utterly dedicated (for years ignored) persistence and the Guardian’s commitment to him, there would have been no explosion. 
“This led me to reflect on the impact of Clare Sambrook’s coverage of child detention. It was backed by a campaign: just over two years ago Clare and five friends working unpaid and unfunded launched End Child Detention Now. OurKingdom was able to open its doors and let the campaign publish repeatedly and at will. We didn’t say, “Oh, we have already ‘covered’ that”. And boy did Clare and her ECDN colleagues invest their time.  In the process OurKingdom learnt how to combine ‘investigative comment’ with openness. I had not fully understood the importance of repetition as part of effective exposure.”

Video: using the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts – Heather Brooke

Leave a reply

Following the previous video of Heather Brooke on the Help Me Investigate blog, Heather provides further tips on using the Data Protection Act on Help Me Investigate: Health and Help Me Investigate: Welfare.

Her advice on investigating health, welfare and crime:

And on using the Data Protection Act:

Finding out information about a house

Leave a reply
Lorna Parsons helped answer this question, posted via the Help Me Investigate site…

"If the houses are old, he might be able to obtain details from his local twentieth century society but there is no guarantee that they will hold information about who actually built the houses. If the houses are of particular historical interest then they might hold the information he is looking for.

"The title documents of the property might shed some light on it as they contain historical data about past owners, but again, it won't lead him to details of the build specification. These can be obtained for a small charge at?http://www.landregistry.gov.uk

"If it's more recent, he could try historical planning applications, through his local library I would guess, but again this will show the agent for the application and the owner of the land rather than the builder. However, might be useful if its a major developer (assuming that they still exist).?

"I guess that the building regulations department at the local authority might know specifics about a builder as they are the ones who have to sign off a building to say that it meets the statutory requirements. But that really is a guess – i've never tried that myself, nor do I know anyone who has."

Using FOI across borders

Leave a reply

Wobbing Europe reports on how one journalist used Freedom of Information (FOI) laws in another country to obtain information that led to a government minister's resignation:

"During a critical phase in their reporting Dahlin and Geist asked for access from the Swedish authorities in order to find out if, and when, the Nordic ministers had informed each other on how to interpret the convention.
"?We took a chance, and got a positive cultural chock. The Swedish ministry excused for not being able to answer immediately and then returned the day after. They never asked us who we were or our purpose,? Anton Gleist, says and adds:
"?Later we found out that the Swedes were given the factual information from the Danish ministry and then passed it on to us. But the Danes only came up with an answer weeks later. It was groteque.?
"A bit later also the Norwegians and the Finns provided the Danish reporters with information they were not given at home."
"The reporters could thus demonstrate that the Danish minister had known how differently the other Nordic countries interpreted the very same convention, more than a year before she confessed to a committee at the Danish parliament."