bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) Never said it was. I said a webform is not a method of correspondence because it is a one-way process. Being one way does not prevent correspondence. The DfE use a webform which requires your email address for a reply, but the reply they send requires you to go back to their webform to correspond. As I said the response come from an unmonitored email account. This is the DfE, the government department responsible for schools. Yes, as I said earlier - you can MAKE a request however you want (as long as it is in writing) but we might not be able to respond via that method. That said, if you gave us a Twitter or Facebook contact details, we would at least have a means of corresponding so your request might be valid! Twitter and Facebook are websites. When you use them you are posting in a webform. There's no material difference. Can I ask the relevance of questions 7-13 by the way? Are you trying to prove/find out if there is a correlation between the gender of the support staff and the school's policy regarding separated parents? Some of your questions are slightly flawed too, I think. I think I said this earlier in the thread, but you ask if there are students where we only have the mother on file and yes, we do have some students in that situation. This is not, however, because we are failing to fulfil our legal obligation towards a separated father but because the father is dead. Our answer to that would therefore distort your statistics. I'm not putting an agenda on the questions, if there's no correlation that's of interest. It may even turn out there's an inverse correlation between the gender of the staff and how good the school is at getting parent details. It is far more useful to inform best practice than to simply criticise, let's say constructive criticism. Part of the responsibility lies with the parents to make sure they are all registered and contactable in an emergency. If the school refuses, this is another matter. I have had the question about deceased parents before. My response is that you can't have contact details for a deceased parent, you should not count that parent. Edited March 5, 2018 by bmaloney
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Your questions seem to be orientated around natural parents. However, adopted children and look after children will almost certainly not come with this information. Nor should they. Natural parents do not automatically have rights. Actually natural parents do automatically have rights, see Children Act 1989
elsiegee40 Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Actually natural parents do automatically have rights, see Children Act 1989Birth parents of adopted children no longer have parental responsibility. Their rights to know anything about the child post adoption are decided by the court. It is NOT automatic that they do so https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/birth-parents-your-rights 1
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Birth parents of adopted children no longer have parental responsibility. Their rights to know anything about the child post adoption are decided by the court. It is NOT automatic that they do so https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/birth-parents-your-rights Yes, but that's because the "automatic" right was taken away by the court in a non-automatic way.
enjay Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Being one way does not prevent correspondence. The DfE use a webform which requires your email address for a reply, but the reply they send requires you to go back to their webform to correspond. As I said the response come from an unmonitored email account. This is the DfE, the government department responsible for schools. You're STILL missing the point it may be possible to make an FOI request by a method which is not acceptable for us to use in response. You do understand that some of the people on this forum have asked the ICO about the web form and been told no - see post 40 and 70 in this thread. Twitter and Facebook are websites. When you use them you are posting in a webform. There's no material difference. The difference being if you had contacted me via Facebook or Twitter, I could have asked for clarification about deceased parents. I couldn't do that via your web form. That is the material difference.
TechMonkey Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 You need to take this up with Parliament, they made the law. They have recently reviewed the FOIA because organisations have been complaining about the cost, but they decided to keep it as is. I think you need to realise that this applies to requesters of information as well as the public bodies, considering we have 2 people on this forum that have asked ICO, the overseer of FOI requests, if this is a valid request and have been told no. You don't get to argue that schools should follow your wishes because the law says they have to when you haven't submitted the request in compliance with the law. You make it sound as if I'm actually making the job of public authorities difficult. If schools had to respond by post it would take more time and cost more money. If they made a mistake which resulted in letters back and forth it would cost more and take more time. How am I making things difficult for schools? You are. Using your example, if you have made a mistake or someone needs to clarify anything they have no way to contact you as your address bounce backs. You have made yourself uncommunicable. It also is a non-transparent method, I have no way to know once I click your submit button where you are taking me or what you are attempting to do. Maybe you should have considered using https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ which would have solved your issues, allowed the information to be shared and be using a known, respectable platform.
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 You're STILL missing the point it may be possible to make an FOI request by a method which is not acceptable for us to use in response. You do understand that some of the people on this forum have asked the ICO about the web form and been told no - see post 40 and 70 in this thread. The question is whether or not a URL is an address for correspondence for the purposes of the FOIA. The ICO may say it isn't, but the DfE, the DfT and the DHSC all say it is, so the ICO is arguing against the government there. They've also accepted that Facebook, which is a webform, is valid for correspondence under the FOI, as is Twitter. You are putting far too narrow an interpretation on what an address is, an address can also be a fax number or a mobile phone number. Solicitors use a system called Document eXchange (DX) which is effectively a number and an town. It does not specify the postal address of the firm. The difference being if you had contacted me via Facebook or Twitter, I could have asked for clarification about deceased parents. I couldn't do that via your web form. That is the material difference. You can use my site to request clarification, that is made clear in the request. I provide a form for requesting clarification and many schools have used it to ask for an email address because they can't use the web form to correspond with me. Think about that for a second, they've sent me a message via my webform asking for an email address because they say they can't send me a message via my webform.
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 I think you need to realise that this applies to requesters of information as well as the public bodies, considering we have 2 people on this forum that have asked ICO, the overseer of FOI requests, if this is a valid request and have been told no. You don't get to argue that schools should follow your wishes because the law says they have to when you haven't submitted the request in compliance with the law. You are. Using your example, if you have made a mistake or someone needs to clarify anything they have no way to contact you as your address bounce backs. You have made yourself uncommunicable. It also is a non-transparent method, I have no way to know once I click your submit button where you are taking me or what you are attempting to do. Maybe you should have considered using https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ which would have solved your issues, allowed the information to be shared and be using a known, respectable platform. The ICO are not the ultimate arbiter, there is a right of appeal to tribunal. From what I understand of their position they claim a URL can't be an address for correspondence as you can't send an email to a URL. True, if you put a URL into the "to:" field of an email (and this has been done by their expert) you will get an error message. But you'll also get an error message if you put a postal address in the "to:" field. Similarly if you put an email address on a letter a pop it in the post you can't expect it to be delivered. It not a very strong argument really. They also claim that Public Authorities must be free to decide if they click on a link in an email. Clearly they are telling people in private not to click on the link.
Steve21 Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 The ICO are not the ultimate arbiter, there is a right of appeal to tribunal. I think you're missing the point "still". We follow the ICO rules, and as people have told you all so many ways your requests don't meet them. If you want to take it up to ICO and appeal that's your rights, or like hundreds of other companies do daily you could just follow the guidance given and get the answers you requested. Steve
enjay Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 You can use my site to request clarification, that is made clear in the request. I provide a form for requesting clarification and many schools have used it to ask for an email address because they can't use the web form to correspond with me. Think about that for a second, they've sent me a message via my webform asking for an email address because they say they can't send me a message via my webform. That's still about how I would seek clarification, not how I would send the requested information. Let's say I had responded via your form asking for an email address; would you have provided one for me to send the information or would you have told me to complete the webform? The question is whether or not a URL is an address for correspondence for the purposes of the FOIA. The ICO may say it isn't, but the DfE, the DfT and the DHSC all say it is, so the ICO is arguing against the government there. It doesn't really matter whether the Department for Transport accept communication via a webform. The ICO is the body which oversees FOIA and they say a webform is not a valid method for sending requested information, so I don't see there's any further discussion to be had.
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 I think you're missing the point "still". We follow the ICO rules, and as people have told you all so many ways your requests don't meet them. If you want to take it up to ICO and appeal that's your rights, or like hundreds of other companies do daily you could just follow the guidance given and get the answers you requested. Steve The ICO don't make the law, Parliament made the law and courts and tribunals interpret the law. The meaning of an address for correspondence is not limited to postal or email addresses, the ICO accept that, they accept that Facebook and Twitter can be used, but they were not in existence when the FOI Act was made, they have emerged since. The meaning of an address is changing all the time and it already includes websites. The ICO can be wrong, they have been wrong many times before, just look at the case law on FOI and Subject Access Requests. 15 responses received today so far.
Steve21 Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 The ICO can be wrong, they have been wrong many times before, just look at the case law on FOI and Subject Access Requests. Just because some people may reply doesn't mean it's valid and that everyone has to follow. I refer you to post 109 again. Steve
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 That's still about how I would seek clarification, not how I would send the requested information. Let's say I had responded via your form asking for an email address; would you have provided one for me to send the information or would you have told me to complete the webform? If you respond via my form and you manage to send me a written communication requesting an email you have proved you can correspond with me for the purposes of requesting clarification without needing an email address. You would have completely undermined your own objection to using the form, as many schools have done. It doesn't really matter whether the Department for Transport accept communication via a webform. The ICO is the body which oversees FOIA and they say a webform is not a valid method for sending requested information, so I don't see there's any further discussion to be had. But Google Forms is a valid means of sending the requested information? And Facebook, which is a webpage with a form on it is a not a valid means of submitting information?
elsiegee40 Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 But Google Forms is a valid means of sending the requested information? And Facebook, which is a webpage with a form on it is a not a valid means of submitting information? I suggested Google Forms and I also said it could be done with a gmail account that would provide an email address for communication. I did not suggest doing it without
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Google forms is a good way of collecting responses straight into a spreadsheet https://www.google.co.uk/forms/about/ It doesn't really matter whether the Department for Transport accept communication via a webform. The ICO is the body which oversees FOIA and they say a webform is not a valid method for sending requested information, so I don't see there's any further discussion to be had. Are you proposing Google forms for collecting the information directly or not?
TechMonkey Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 The ICO are not the ultimate arbiter, there is a right of appeal to tribunal. You are correct, so take them to the tribunal. Meanwhile the people on the ground that are putting law into practice have been told that what you are asking is not a valid request so we are following the current guidelines and best practices. As you said, if you don't like it get it changed. You don't get to have it both ways From what I understand of their position they claim a URL can't be an address for correspondence as you can't send an email to a URL. True, if you put a URL into the "to:" field of an email (and this has been done by their expert) you will get an error message. But you'll also get an error message if you put a postal address in the "to:" field. Similarly if you put an email address on a letter a pop it in the post you can't expect it to be delivered. It not a very strong argument really. No idea where you have got that interpretation from. Their response was "we need a valid address to correspond with". As you have set your noreply email to bounce, no one can properly correspond with you. If they phone you, desperate to try and fulfill your request, it sounds as you are giving them short shrift but then complain that schools aren't replying. You are tying people's hands and then upset people are not getting back to you. So thinking it through, as much as I dislike it, a web form could be a valid submission method if your email worked for correspondence. But as you are bouncing the email then there is no valid correspondence. They also claim that Public Authorities must be free to decide if they click on a link in an email. Clearly they are telling people in private not to click on the link. I'm not sure you can make that judgement, as it is not clear at all. They may well be telling people to make their own decision, that they can not make that judgement for organisations and then the orgs are making a decision. As I said before, maybe rather than trying to reinvent the wheel you should use the tools available. People have offered advice to you about using Google forms. I have suggested What Do They Know. People have pointed out that a lot of this info is already available. Your only argument so far seems to be that you don't want to waste your time but are happy to waste the schools you are sending these to and then comment that you are paying everyone's wages. So you are wasting your own money and everyone else's in the country. 1
elsiegee40 Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) Are you proposing Google forms for collecting the information directly or not? My post says Google forms is a good way of collecting responses straight into a spreadsheet https://www.google.co.uk/forms/about/ Set up a gmail account which people can also use for correspondence and you have a data collection method that doesn’t involve using a website that people don’t trust. I am suggesting it WITH a gmail account for correspondence You have chosen to quote only the first line You seem very good at only using information in a way that suits you. Birth parents of adopted children no longer have parental responsibility. Their rights to know anything about the child post adoption are decided by the court. It is NOT automatic that they do so https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/birth-parents-your-rights Yes, but that's because the "automatic" right was taken away by the court in a non-automatic way. Edited March 5, 2018 by elsiegee40 1
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 You are correct, so take them to the tribunal. Meanwhile the people on the ground that are putting law into practice have been told that what you are asking is not a valid request so we are following the current guidelines and best practices. As you said, if you don't like it get it changed. You don't get to have it both ways I am taking them to tribunal. If you are saying that public authorities cannot reply via my webform because the request is not valid, you are saying that all the schools that have successfully responded via the webform were wrong to do so and have wasted public money on a request that was not valid. This is shortsighted as all I have to do is make the request and allow a response by email. They will still have to do the work to respond, but they will have wasted time trying to frustrate my request by claiming it was invalid. What's the point of that? No idea where you have got that interpretation from. Their response was "we need a valid address to correspond with". As you have set your noreply email to bounce, no one can properly correspond with you. If they phone you, desperate to try and fulfill your request, it sounds as you are giving them short shrift but then complain that schools aren't replying. You are tying people's hands and then upset people are not getting back to you. So thinking it through, as much as I dislike it, a web form could be a valid submission method if your email worked for correspondence. But as you are bouncing the email then there is no valid correspondence. This is the position of the ICO. Literallly their expert put my URL in an email "to:" field and pressed send and when he got an error message he took a screenshot and submitted it as evidence. A contact form is a valid means of correspondence, many schools, the DfE, DfT and DHSC only publish this and a postal address and do not publish an email address. I'm not sure you can make that judgement, as it is not clear at all. They may well be telling people to make their own decision, that they can not make that judgement for organisations and then the orgs are making a decision. No, they have told me in writing they were advised not to use my webform by the ICO. As I said before, maybe rather than trying to reinvent the wheel you should use the tools available. People have offered advice to you about using Google forms. I have suggested What Do They Know. People have pointed out that a lot of this info is already available. Your only argument so far seems to be that you don't want to waste your time but are happy to waste the schools you are sending these to and then comment that you are paying everyone's wages. So you are wasting your own money and everyone else's in the country. I'm not wasting schools' time, I'm requesting information I'm legally entitled to. If they published this information I wouldn't have to request it. If they involved their parents the children would do better and it would cost less to educate them. There's a potentially huge benefit here that involving your parents, letting them all know they are valuable and influential in their children's education might reap huge rewards and benefit the children.
enjay Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 You would have completely undermined your own objection to using the form It isn't my objection, it is the ICO's objection. How have you not taken this point on-board yet?
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 It isn't my objection, it is the ICO's objection. How have you not taken this point on-board yet? For your information the ICO's objection is that a public authority cannot be required to click on a link in an email because of security considerations. However once the public authority has clicked on the link to send me a request for an email address, they have proved they can, and have clicked on the link, therefore they can no longer refuse on the basis they won't click the link. That public authority has undermined their own argument, and believe me plenty of schools have done precisely this, sent me a request for an email address via my website claiming they won't click on the link for security reasons.
Popular Post LukeRowberry Posted March 5, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 5, 2018 This is like trying to explain copyright law to teachers 7
3s-gtech Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Good $deity; get a job, or a hobby, or something. This arguing of the finer points of the law and the ICO's guidelines is so mind-bendingly unconstructive! You could have tweaked your submission process, fixed the issues, and possibly built a small but detailed recreation of a Spanish Galleon in the time that this has taken. Much constructive feedback has been given. Why not use it? (Please, don't actually answer that) Alternatively, accept that some people will deny the request and make do with a lower pool of submissions. Meanwhile, I shall complete this baked bean jigsaw puzzle.
TechMonkey Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 I am taking them to tribunal. If you are saying that public authorities cannot reply via my webform because the request is not valid, you are saying that all the schools that have successfully responded via the webform were wrong to do so and have wasted public money on a request that was not valid. This is shortsighted as all I have to do is make the request and allow a response by email. They will still have to do the work to respond, but they will have wasted time trying to frustrate my request by claiming it was invalid. What's the point of that? So if I manage to get a response to you via carrier pigeon, that is a valid response? Just because people can, does not make it valid. I can write my passwords on a post-it note, doesn't make it correct and the proper thing to do. It is shortsighted using a method that is not valid, when you could have used a valid email and saved everyone's time and effort, if you could have done, why didn't you? You are admitting you are making schools jump through hoops for your own amusement. Yes they will still have wasted their time fulfilling your request but it would have been a valid request so they will have had to. This is the position of the ICO. Literallly their expert put my URL in an email "to:" field and pressed send and when he got an error message he took a screenshot and submitted it as evidence. A contact form is a valid means of correspondence, many schools, the DfE, DfT and DHSC only publish this and a postal address and do not publish an email address. I find it hard to believe but if you have received that then that is hilarious and you should publish it for all to see and have a good laugh at. But that still does not make it a valid address for correspondence. No, they have told me in writing they were advised not to use my webform by the ICO. Well that is different from telling people not to click the link. If the webform is not valid then they are correct that schools should not use it. I'm not wasting schools' time, I'm requesting information I'm legally entitled to. If they published this information I wouldn't have to request it. If they involved their parents the children would do better and it would cost less to educate them. There's a potentially huge benefit here that involving your parents, letting them all know they are valuable and influential in their children's education might reap huge rewards and benefit the children. Well you kinda are. Just because you are legally entitled to something doesn't mean it isn't a waste of time. So how will this information help schools, so it isn't a waste of time? How is this information going to force parents to become engaged rather than expect the schools to do everything on their own? Do you mean you are going to create a product to schools to help them engage parents? Do you think this is news to teachers and school management? Do you think they aren't pulling out their hair out wishing more parents would engage? Actually, more relevant is how any of those questions relate to engagement of parents? Why did you not ask for take up of parent evenings, take up of extra school meetings or estimated parent engagement levels? What does gender of head, teachers or ancillary staff have to do with engagement? I am genuinely interested now, you have piqued my curiosity. Off the top of my head 2 & 7 are publically available. As the others are part of the school data census I bet you can get a hold of them.
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 This is like trying to explain copyright law to teachers The arguments I've heard are that it has to be an email address or you can't correspond and that it has to be the same means of correspondence in both directions. The DfE proves this is not true, it's a webform to send the request to them and a webform to send any further correspondence. An address for correspondence is not limited to a postal address or an email address: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/receiving-a-request/ it includes both of these, but they are not the only valid means of correspondence. Any address at which you can write to me is an address for correspondence. A Fax number is a valid address as is a mobile phone number (SMS and WhatsApp). A request must be made in writing (there are exceptions for people who find this difficult) and this written request can be made via the web. If you can write to the authority via the web the authority can write to you via the web, therefore this is an address for correspondence. This forum is an exchange of written messages via the web, you don't know my email address, but you are able to correspond with me.
bmaloney Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 I find it hard to believe but if you have received that then that is hilarious and you should publish it for all to see and have a good laugh at. But that still does not make it a valid address for correspondence. Here it is:
Recommended Posts