KCL and the PACE data

[JohnTheJack]

KCL also claimed that it doesn't hold the data in terms of the FOIA. The ICO upheld the KCL decision, so I appealed to the FTT.

In the course of the appeal, the ICO switched sides.

The FTT has affirmed that KCL does hold the data. It now has until the end of the month to provide them or argue an exemption.

I expect it will attempt an exemption.

FTT decision here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/buoanloljuriiu7/EA.2018.0242.pdf?dl=0

 

[Esther12]

In the course of the appeal, the ICO switched sides.

You converted the ICO mid-appeal?! Amazing work. Thanks John - you're providing too much material for me to keep up with.

 

[JohnTheJack]

You converted the ICO mid-appeal?! Amazing work. Thanks John - you're providing too much material for me to keep up with.

Thanks, though, it is all a bit back to square one. Still, at least it is now firmly established KCL holds the data.

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

The relevant section seems to be:

13. Mr Peters then submitted an appeal to the Information Rights Tribunal asserting, in brief, that KCL did hold the requested information. Mr Peters set out detailed reasons for this assertion but I do not need to repeat them here as there is no longer any dispute between the IC and Mr Peters on this issue.

14. In the IC’s Response to Mr Peter’s appeal dated 9 January 2019 (and presumably because of the detailed arguments set out by Mr Peters) the IC indicated that it now agreed that KCL did in fact hold the requested information.

Well done Mr Peters!

Those Judges all seem to fancy you:

I have a considerable amount of sympathy for Mr Peters’ objections.

 

[Barry]

Thanks, though, it is all a bit back to square one. Still, at least it is now firmly established KCL holds the data.

So it's actually well progressed from square one, pulling the plug as it does on their primary excuse.

Well done Mr Peters!

Those Judges all seem to fancy you:

I rather think they respect @JohnTheJack's extremely cogent submissions .

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

it is all a bit back to square one.

Does this mean that you have to wait for KCL's response and if they deny your request and use an exemption, that you have to go the ICO and perhaps the FTT all over again?

And if KCL looses those appeals, does this mean they can try out a new exemption and start the process all over again?

 

[JohnTheJack]

Does this mean that you have to wait for KCL's response and if they deny your request and use an exemption, that you have to go the ICO and perhaps the FTT all over again?

And if KCL looses those appeals, does this mean they can try out a new exemption and start the process all over again?

Yes, to the first question.

No, this was a slightly special decision as the ICO agreed KCL didn't hold the data. As the information wasn't held, then no other exemptions were considered. This time it would be whether any exemption applies and would be final.

 

[JohnTheJack]

The relevant section seems to be:

Well done Mr Peters!

Those Judges all seem to fancy you:

Thanks.

Hehe. I do seem to be getting on OK with them at the moment.

 

[Daisymay]

Well done JtJ, thanks so much for ALL your sterling work x