Data watchdog sides with council in ruling
The data watchdog has sided with Shropshire Council in a dispute over the release of road maintenance figures, but says confusion over whether the authority even held the information may indicate “records management problems”.
A report by the Information Commissioner’s Office said month-by-month data was requested about “reactive works” carried out between April 2018 – when Kier Group began work as Shropshire’s highways maintenance contractor – and November that year.
The council initially said it had that information, but later said it did not, and only an annual report was available. An investigation by Commissioner Elizabeth Denham CBE found this was true “on the balance of probabilities”.
But the ICO report referred the council to the section of the 2000 Freedom of Information Act on “the creation, keeping, management and destruction of records” and “expects it will have due regard to its recommendations in future”.
The document said the requester initially told Shropshire Council officers: “I would be interested in seeing the reports relating to reactive works, service area RW1, from contract start in April 2018 up to date.”
The council said a 12-month summary would be made available in 2019, but the requester replied that he would like a monthly breakdown and complained to the ICO.
A council staff member wrote: “I have discussed this further with the department and they have confirmed to me that the individual monthly reports are held and will be provided to you.”
The ICO report added: “However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council subsequently wrote to the complainant advising him that it did not hold the requested information.
“It said ‘I regret to inform you that, although I was previously under the impression that we may be able to provide copies of monthly reports, I can confirm we do not hold this information and, therefore, cannot share anything other than the annual report which we have already provided.'”
Shropshire Council apologised for the confusion and, the report says, Ms Denham accepts the council did not hold the information, but found the council had committed a procedural breach by initially falsely claiming to.
“Where public authorities experience difficulty establishing whether information relevant to a request is held, this request might also indicate records-management problems,” the report added.
