Cabinet Office: correspondence chaos update

Back in September I blogged about how difficult it’s been to get a response from the Cabinet Office to a small complaint I had about possible misuse of letterheads by Gordon Brown:

Tally so far: two emails [via the Cabinet Office website] and one letter from me plus four letters from my MP spread out over nine months and what to show for it all? Just one holding reply saying the issue had been passed on.

(Conspiracy theorists may at this point wish to mutter how implausible it is that seven times correspondence has been messed out and it just goes to show I’ve really stumbled on some secret plot to subvert our democracy with letterhead abuse.)

So I thought this time I’d try submitting a request under the Data Protection Act. After all, surely someone, somewhere will have some record of even one of these pieces of correspondence?

But no. Despite the Data Protection Act placing a legal obligation to properly answer my request for copies of any correspondence involving me, I’ve been told no trace has been found of anything by the Cabinet Office.

Since then, I’ve asked them to look again and lo and behold, finally this time the Cabinet Office admits to having copies of at least some of this correspondence. Except, that is, when they deny it again.

Because in addition to asking for my Data Protection Act request to be looked at again, I’ve also put in two Freedom of Information requests about the Cabinet Office’s records of complaints about emails sent via their website going astray. The first produced some general statistics, which prompted my second request asking for further details about those statistics (e.g. whether multiple complaints about the same issue counted as one or more than one towards the totals).

And now for the bureaucratic genius part. In response to that second FOI request, the Cabinet Office claims it has no records again. How it therefore put together figures about total number of complaints when it doesn’t have any records is puzzling. Chicken entrails anyone?

It gets better. Because you see of course my own correspondence counts as records related to complaints about such missing records. So the Cabinet Office is both claiming those records don’t exist (for FOI purposes) but also saying they do exist (for DPA purposes).

You may think that is incompetence, inconsistency or idiocy. I’m sticking with it being an act of legal genius to argue that a document both does and doesn’t exist at the same time.

I wonder if there is a Mr. Schrodinger on the Cabinet Office’s legal staff?

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

2 Comments

  • Andrew Suffield 21st Oct '09 - 1:11pm

    What a mess. This reminds me, my MP wrote to BIS on my behalf over a month ago, and I have not yet received a reply. Time to poke them again.

  • A complex arrangement of letter eating cats and poison in sealed boxes?

    Quick! Call the RSPCA! 🙂

2 Trackbacks

  • By Cabinet Office breaks the law, again on Tue 16th March 2010 at 9:22 am.

    […] sample of this was contained in my previous post: I’ve also put in two Freedom of Information requests about the Cabinet Office’s records of […]

  • By Cabinet Office breaks the law, again | Mark Pack on Thu 18th March 2010 at 10:10 am.

    […] sample of this was contained in my previous post: I’ve also put in two Freedom of Information requests about the Cabinet Office’s records of […]

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Brad Barrows
    Ed will have to make a positive case for Scotland staying part of the UK rather than just trying to use scare tactics such as equating independence with Brexit ...
  • matt
    Oop should have been @Marco not @Glenn...
  • Colin Brown
    I wonder if we'd be better served by using the concept of fairness rather than equality? We cannot be equal. We can aspire to being fair....
  • Andrew
    Thanks for this interesting collection of views. There is one other voice that it would be interesting to hear, that of the haudenosaunee confederacy. Maybe tha...
  • matt
    @Glenn Look at the dates for those figures, these were done back in April 2020 at the start of the pandemic for these countries. A German town used in part o...
Thu 11th Mar 2021