Council refuses to release consultation results after FOI request

itm2

Our local council recently conducted a public consultation which attracted an extremely large number of responses (10,000). The vast majority of responses were submitted online. The consultation mechanism allowed anonymous responses, and did not have any controls to prevent anonymous responses.
The result of the consultation was curious to me for two reasons:
(1) it did not seem to reflect the overwhelming balance of views expressed on social media
(2) the responses indicated a surprising number of responses from "out of area" (i.e. not from areas within the borough).
I requested a copy of the detailed consultation results under the FOI Act (with respondent contact details omitted), as I wanted to look for any obvious signs that the consultation process had been abused. The Council have refused, saying initially that it would take too long to redact personal information from the results. When I pointed out that any professionally-designed database would have stored respondents personal details in a separate field from their feedback, the response was that "Even without names, it may be possible for individuals with local and community knowledge to work out who made certain comments, and this could cause damage and distress to the respondents who have not consented to their information being used in this way".

I intend to pursue a complaint with them, on grounds of lack of transparency in the consultation process, but was wondering if anyone had any views/advice on whether I should be legally entitled to see this information?

Comms69

I don't believe they've provided a valid reason to withhold the data.


Doesn't mean there isn't one, but at the minute they haven't explained. Go to the ICO.


That said just because your social media had one view doesn't mean that the consultation was wrong in any way.

unforeseen

Have you actually received a refusal notice with the reasons? I.e. cost limits,vexatious , ex not under Part II etc
What does the same refusal actually state?

itm2

unforeseen wrote: »

Have you actually received a refusal notice with the reasons? I.e. cost limits,vexatious , ex not under Part II etc
What does the same refusal actually state?

Yes I received a refusal notice. It's pretty lengthy, but here it is:

We confirm that the information you have request is held.....however your request has been refused due to the confidentiality of individuals’ personal data.

Please see below for our reasoning:

As your request is regarding a consultation about speed limits, we consider this information that relates to the environment and are treating this as an environmental information request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).

We are unable to provide information linked to individual consultation responses as this could potentially be used to identify individual respondents. The information requested is therefore refused under Regulation 13 (personal information) as “personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject “. This exception allows information to be refused if disclosure would contravene any of the Data Protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act.

In reaching this decision, we have considered the Data Protection legislation principles that information should only be processed for specified, lawful and compatible purposes and we do not consider this request to be a compatible purpose. Furthermore, such information should be processed in accordance with the rights of the data subject who would have a legitimate expectation that the information would not be disclosed to members of the public.

In reaching a view, account was also taken of the individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to their personal data and whether disclosure would be incompatible with the purposes for which it was obtained and whether disclosure would cause any unnecessary or unjustified damage to the individual.

In this instance, the data subjects would not have any reasonable expectation that their individual responses would be made public.

We have therefore concluded that it is neither in accordance with the principles of the Data Protection Act nor in the public interest to release the information that could identify the respondents.

Furthermore, as the information was provided in confidence it is also exempt under Regulation 12 (5) (f) (interests of the person who provided the information).

Exception 12 (5) (f): Interests of the information provider.

This prejudice-based exception means we must prove that disclosure would lead to an adverse effect to the interests of the person who supplied it.

In engaging this exception, we have considered the following ICO guidance:

(i) The individuals who responded to the consultation were not under any legal obligation to supply that information to the Council. Their views were provided voluntarily.
(ii) When the individuals responded to the consultation they did not consent to disclosure.
(iii) The individuals would not expect their information to be made public as this would contravene our standard confidentiality clause:

All the information you provide will be treated in strict confidence and will not be used to identify you personally. The analysis will be carried out on an anonymous basis under the guidelines of the Data Protection Act. Information will not be passed on to anyone else and will only be used for the purposes of this consultation. Anonymised comments may be published on the Council website.

With the above in mind, we judge that exception 12 (5)(f) is engaged as there would be an adverse effect to their interests from disclosing this information.

Even without names, it may be possible for individuals with local and community knowledge to work out who made certain comments, and this could cause damage and distress to the respondents who have not consented to their information being used in this way.

As required, we have also carried out a public interest test in engaging the exception.

Public interest factors in favour of disclosure
Under EIR Regulation 12 (2) provides a presumption in favour of disclosure. There is a strong public interest in providing information which demonstrates how and why a decision has been made by the Council. This to give the public a fully informed picture of the policy making process, promoting transparency and accountability in relation to the activities of the public authority.

Public interest factors in favour of maintaining the exception 12 (5) (f)
If the Council disclosed information about individual responses without consent from the authors, it would undermine the relationship between the Council and its stakeholders. This in turn could prejudice participation in future consultations if the stakeholders did not trust the responses would remain confidential. There is a chance that less people would be willing to give their views or that the views given would not be full and frank.

The aim of consultations is to acquire knowledge of local opinion on proposed changes or developments. If participation in consultations decreased or was hindered the Council would be less informed about the views of the community it serves. This in turn could lead to decisions being made that do not reflect the views or best interests of the community.

There is a strong public interest in the valuable contributions that residents make to consultations. This ultimately leads to a well-informed Local Authority that respects the feedback of its residents.

Account has been taken of the fact that a summary of the responses which is subject to public scrutiny has been published. We have therefore concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exception 12 (5) (f) outweighs the public interest in favour of disclosing the information.

In accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, this acts as a Refusal Notice.

[Deleted User]

Why are you so concerned?
Do you believe a speed limit should be imposed and it isn't going to be? Or is it vice versa?

Either way, I doubt you'll be able to advance this.

itm2

The Council plans to introduce a 20mph speed limit on every street in the borough, despite a majority of residents voting against it.

k3lvc

itm2 wrote: »

The Council plans to introduce a 20mph speed limit on every street in the borough, despite a majority of residents voting against it.

Ah - is this the '20s plenty' bunch - you're probably right to be suspicious but I'd also bet that they have an element within most local councils already.

One of their key members was a prominent councillor in our city - the bill scraped through on dubious stats, local police force stated they won't enforce it (and haven't had a single prosection for it) yet council had to invest £600k in the signage (inc. numerous 50m long cul-de-sacs)

Some temporary ones (outside schools at arriving/leaving times) have their uses but the rest haven't made a jot of difference

[Deleted User]

itm2 wrote: »

The Council plans to introduce a 20mph speed limit on every street in the borough, despite a majority of residents voting against it.

You aren't going to get anywhere with this I'm afraid.

itm2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You aren't going to get anywhere with this I'm afraid.

Thanks for the words of encouragement:T

[Deleted User]

itm2 wrote: »

Thanks for the words of encouragement:T

If the Council are determined to push ahead with this, they will do so with or without the agreement of local residents.

Perhaps you can persuade an opposition Councillor to rescind the bylaw if elected in the future? If so, you can vote him or her into Office?

itm2

The consultation process was pretty rigged (and the outcome ignored) so the main objective is to make people aware of what's been going on. I've managed to get a bit of local press coverage so hopefully more people will know about this in the coming weeks. I doubt that it'll stop the bandwagon but if the Councillors concerned are called out for this then hopefully punters will be better informed at the ballot boxes next time.