"I'm sorry sir, he's in a meeting."

That should be the official motto of the Worcestershire County Council. In my recent experience, the folks I wanted to speak to were either in a meeting, work a four-day week, were on holiday, or had actually left the Council.

The Council's website helpfully shows the date when each page was modified, and the name of the person who handled the modification. As I tried to find out who actually was in charge of Data Protection issues, I used the website and several times I called numbers for people who were long gone.

I received a e-mail message from Lucy Dean at about 9:00 PM on Thursday night --- now there's someone who's devoted to her job.

Lucy wrote:

From: "Dean, Lucy (ES)"
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:47:21 -0400
To: Craig Walsh Subject:
RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIES FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES

Hi Craig

Sorry for not getting back to you yesterday. I was out of the office yesterday afternoon, and on leave today and Simon Wilkes was at the court yesterday on a case, so unfortunately I didn't get to speak to him until after I had left the office. We did catch up when he returned to the office, over a phone call, and he was going to looking into moving your data to a secure holding within County Hall. As I have been on leave today I haven't had chance to catch up with him, but I will try to get an update tomorrow and will then you.

Kind Regards

Lucy

I replied to Lucy at 9:17 PM. Now some of you reading this may think my message to Lucy was unfair, and perhaps it was. I just ask, however, that you put yourselves in our shoes, and remember that we have had eight months of this --- and we are squabbing over my data, not the Council's.

My message to Lucy:

Hi, Lucy ---

Gosh, Lucy, you’re working late!

There was an exchange of e-mail messages today, and I thought Simon copied you on these. I posted them in my blog at www.doggie-blog.com if you haven’t received them.

I understand, and accept, that the Council needs to retain its data on Marjorie, on me and on Lucies Farm Ltd. The Council’s data belongs to the Council, and I accept that I generally have no right to come in and say, “Lucy, I want you to please erase this.” I have no real problem with that --- except I don’t trust your colleagues in Trading Standards based upon their contradictory, and false, statements to me. I wish it were otherwise, Lucy, but it isn’t --- and the Council can’t go back and change what’s already been done.

But I feel that my data --- the data on Hutton’s hard drives and on the CD-ROM --- is totally different. I can’t understand why the Council won’t accept that the ownership of this data vests with me, and not with the Council. It’s my data, not the Council’s data. And as the owner --- clearly the owner --- of the data, I should be able to specify what happens to that data. And I specify that it be returned to me without delay, and with confirmation that no copies have been retained by anyone (Hutton, WCC, MHDC --- anyone).

I accept that the Council can retain (for example) a copy of Hutton’s report should it wish to do so. But the data that Hutton took from my computer is not part of his report --- it’s my data.

Another way around this, I suppose, would be for Marjorie and me to formally withdraw our disclosure requests under the DPA 1998, and Lucies Farm Ltd. to formally withdraw its disclosure request under the Freedom of Information Act. I understand from Simon’s earlier message that once the disclosure requests are satisfied, the Council would return my data. And our withdrawal of the requests would presumably satisfy them. So Marjorie and I could stop by your office tomorrow afternoon, formally withdraw the two DPA 1998 and one Freedom of Information Act requests, and you could hand over my data. We would then, of course, simply file fresh DPA 1998 and Freedom of Information Act disclosure requests. We’re entitled to do this. We’d do these the next business, and are happy to pay a fresh Stg 20.00 fee to the Council. Seems convoluted, but it is absolutely consistent with Simon’s earlier assurance.

I hope that common sense can prevail and that the Council, instead of continuing to display total arrogance, will simply apologise for all of the contradictory statements made by Trading Standards officers, hand over all copies of my data, and give us a simple letter confirming that no copies of my data have been retained by anyone.

If I complain to the ICO, do you honestly think they will see it any other way? Or when this is (almost inevitably) reviewed by the Local Government Ombudsman, do you think they will be pleased with the Council’s actions in this matter?

It should also be apparent from the cc’s on my earlier messages that the Worcester Evening News is about to do a story on this whole unpleasant affair. We are also working on getting the Telegraph interested in covering this. Do you think the ratepayers of Worcestershire will think that the Council had a right to continue to hold my data: my medical records, personal financial records, etc.?

I also don’t want you, and your colleagues, sifting through my data. You’re a nice lady, but the contents of my files are personal and I don’t want Council officials --- nice or nasty --- reading them.

I haven’t copied anyone else on this message, Lucy. I can imagine that life in the Council is pretty political, and that you have to deal with all sorts of egos and levels of bureaucracy.

I just want the Council to do the right thing --- hand me back my data tomorrow.

Will 3:30 PM work for you?

Kind regards,

Craig

It was not my intention to post this message here, but subsequent events led me to change my mind.

Yesterday morning (Friday) Marjorie was driving up to Birmingham to pick up a doggie guest, and I tagged along for the ride. My Blackberry rang: it was Judy Armitage, the Council's Customer Services Officer. Her request to me --- at least as I understood it --- was for me to please leave the Council alone, and let them get on with handling our formal complaint and our data disclosure requests. She explained that having to deal with my e-mail messags was causing problems.

I explained, politely, that I agreed entirely --- with one major exception: I wanted my data back.

It would take five minutes for someone with authority in the Council to simply make a decision: give this guy back his data. That is if folks in the Council actually spent some time at their desk.

Judy said she'd check further and would call me back.

And, sure enough, she did. She couldn't reach people, in meetings, etc. So I asked her to please give me the names and contact details for the people who were in charge of data protection and Trading Standards. At this point --- while Judy admitted that I hadn't sworn or shouted at her, or been rude (what would be the point of me doing that?) --- she said she was feeling "stressed" and "upset."

I apologised to Judy. She sounds like a nice lady, and it was never my intention to upset her --- or anyone. But I told Judy that my wife and I had also been upset, not just for the past few days but for the past eight months. That on may occasions Marjorie had been reduced to tears. And I just didn't want to now feel like I was walking on egg shells when dealing with someone who is, after all, the Customer Services Officer.


While I wasn't swearing or yelling, I would bet that others do. And I don't know that the Council --- or the public --- is well served by having a Customer Services Officer who is a fragile violet. (If you're reading this, Judy --- I am truly sorry. But perhaps dealing with upset customers is not the best career path for you.)

Judy told me that John Hobbs is the man in overall charge of Trading Standards, and she reluctantly gave me his telephone number, 01905-766-701. I also asked Judy for the cotact details for the Chief Executive, and Judy told me that --- are you ready? --- the Chief Executive was "in a meeting." I asked Judy for the name and number anyway, and she gave me the name of Trish Haines, and 01905-766-100.

I called Mr. Hobbs' number a dozen times, and there was no answer --- no voice mail, nothing.

I called Ms. Haines' number. Yes, she was in a meeting and her PA was also away from her desk. I left a mesage for her PA to please return my call.

I then tried to find the Council's Data Protection Officer. This search led me to out-of-date Council web pages, with contact details of people no longer there.

In the meantime I tried Hobbs again. The phone was answered, on what was probably the 10th ring, by what sounded like a little old lady. She explaind that she, too, was looking for Hobbs or for his PA, but that there was nobody in the office. The Mary Celeste!

I tried the legal department. I was told that the solicitor who would normally handle this was --- guess what? --- out for the day. The lady I spoke with, Judith, said she was the PA for the head of the legal departmet and that she would personally be sure someone called me back yesterday. Nobody did. Yet another broken promise.

The PA for Ms. Haines --- Rosemary Robinson --- did call me back, and she (too) said she'd have someone call me back. Nobody did. Keeping track of the broken promises?

I finally found out from a very helpful David Onions --- who was in a meeting, but to his infinite credit came out to take my call --- that the Council's Data Protection Officer is Sarah Lewis.

And I was able to speak with Ms. Lewis.

She did not really understand the differene between the Council's data about us, and the fact that the data seized from our house was my data. She felt that the Council had to go through my data to index it.

I said that the Council had already advised us, and our customers, that the data had been destroyed. And that I objected strongly to it being indexed, as it had nothing to do with the investigation --- an investigation that had, in any event, been closed.

Sarah assured me that she would keep all the information "confidential." I said that I had no reason to believe that she would not keep it confidential --- but that it was none of the Council's business, and wasn't the Council's property.

Her next point was that the Council retained information from investigatons for six years. I said that might be the case, and I didn't mind the Coucil keeping its own information for six years, but that I wanted my information --- all of it --- back now. And the only reason to index it was to comply with our disclosure requests, which we would happly withdraw. (And later re-submit.)

Sarah confirmed that the data had been recovered from Hatton, and that it had been given to her in a sealed bag with an evidence tag. She said it would be held under her control and the seal would not be broken.

She sent me the following e-mail:

From: Lewis, Sarah (ACS, Cultural Services) [mailto:SLewis2@worcestershire.gov.uk]
Sent: 19 September 2008 16:36
To: Craig Walsh
Subject: Information held

Dear Mr Walsh

Further to our conversation this afternoon, I can confirm that the data returned by Mr Hatton is in a box in a sealed bag that is held securely in the Corporate Information Management Unit at County Hall.

You stated on the phone that you do not wish anyone to open the sealed bag and to have access to this information, and that you do not wish the information held within the bag to be considered as part of your Subject Access Request. Please can you confirm by return email that this is the case.

Yours sincerely

Sarah

Sarah Lewis
Information Access Officer
Worcestershire County Council
County Hall
Spetchley Road
Worcester WR5 2NP
Tel: 01905 728544
Fax: 01905 766698
http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/records

I replied promptly:

From: Craig Walsh
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:50:14 -0400
To: "Lewis, Sarah (ACS, Cultural Services)"
Cc: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" , Marjorie Walsh Richard Slade, [...] "Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)" , "Dean, Lucy (ES)"

Subject: RE: Information held

Dear Sarah:

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon, and for your follow-up e-mail.

Yes, it is my wish --- and that of my wife, Marjorie (I am her attorney-in-fact), and that of Lucies Farm Ltd. (I am a director of the Company) --- that this bag remain sealed, that it absolutely not be considered as part of our pending subject access requests, and that the sealed bag be returned to us as soon as possible.

We can see no reason why the sealed bag cannot be returned to us as early as Monday.

You have given me your undertaking that this sealed bag is not under the control of Trading Standards, and that nobody will open the bag without our prior consent. For the record, and for the avoidance of any doubt, can you please e-mail me with the serial number on the seal?

I have had a nice chat with Ms. Smith, and she has promised to call me back today. My other calls --- to Rosemary Robinson in Ms. Haines’ office and to Judith in your legal department --- have not resulted in the promised call-backs.

More broken promises, I’m afraid, from the Worcestershire County Council.

Kind regards,

Craig

I asked Sarah for the name of her boss. Apparently Sarah's boss is out on medical leave. And her boss? Amanda Smith, the Heritage Manager.

I had a very nice chat with Amanda. I said, "I understand you're the boss' boss of the Data Protection Officer." She said she wasn't, but then realised she was. Amanda explained that she was new to the Council.

Amanda listened to my tale of woe, said she'd see what she could find out, and she did call me back. She apologised for the fact that no one person had been my point of contact at the Council, and that had left me to wander through the Council's website and try to track people down. (Although it wasn't discussed, I think this one-point-of-contact role should have been played by Judy Armitage, but she never stepped up to the plate to do this.)

Amanda explained that someone should make the "strategic" decision to hand us back our data, and that a meeting --- there we go again ---- on Tuesday to discuss this. Apparently Sarah Lewis and Simon Wilkes, at least, would be at this meeting.

Amada said that my telephone calls that day, including to the Chief Executive's office, had achieved the desired result of getting people's attention. Amanda also offered to send me the details of the elected councillor with responsibility for these issues.

I advised Amanda that I'd already sent e-mail messages to Cllr Alwyn Davies (who I believe is the Chairman of the Council) and Cllr Jeremy Webb.

Surprise. Neither of them have replied.

I'm now off to prepare my formal complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. In getting ready to do so, I read this on the ICO website:

The Act [...] states that anyone who processes personal information must comply with eight principles, which make sure that personal informaton is:

1. Fairly and lawfully processed
   
2. Processed for limitied purposes
3. Adequate, relevant and not excessive
4. Accurate and kept up-to-date
5. Not kept for longer than is necessary
6. Processed in line with your rights
7. Secure
8. Not transferred to other countires without adequate protection.