Original request
Summary of request
Full request
I refer to your response to Freedom of Information Request Reference 22-23/60 on your disclosure log. In your response you say: 4 cases that had gone into the investigation stage were considered by the Investigating Panel and concluded with no further action. Please could you let me know, of these four cases, for how many had the complaint (now known as “referral”) been made within five years of the most recent alleged misconduct?
You also say: No action was taken in relation to 13 cases that were at the initial consideration stage. Please could you let me know, of these 13 cases, for how many had the complaint (now known as “referral”) been made within five years of the most recent alleged misconduct?
Response
I refer to your request for information (FOI 24-25/61) dated 1 November 2024 for records related to a previous response (FOI 22-23/60) which we have handled under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA).
You asked for records in relation to a response on our Disclosure Log which references four cases that had gone into the investigation stage being concluded with no further action and 13 cases that were at the initial consideration stage where no action was taken. You have now asked:
- “of these four cases” how many had a referral “made within five years of the most recent alleged misconduct.” and
- “of these 13 cases” how many had the referral “been made within five years of the most recent alleged misconduct?”
Please note that my colleagues within our Regulatory Investigations have spent time interrogating the relevant records to provide a response to your request. Our apologies for the delay while this process was ongoing. By way of explanation, the response you have referenced on our Disclosure Log refers only to numbers of cases, it does not refer to case names and therefore we are unable to verify which cases this response referred to and enable us to provide a response to this request. As such, I have applied section 17(1)(b)of FOISA to this response as we do not have this information recorded.
By way of advice and assistance, we are only able to provide records related to current data held by GTC Scotland not based on the previous figures included in the disclosure log response which we are unable to verify given the statistical nature of that response. If you were able to reframe your request to refer to the information you wish to retrieve from GTC Scotland, that is not based on previous statistics provided, we could then review our records and provide any information that we may hold in relation to that request.
You may contact informationgovernance@gtcs.org.uk if you are dissatisfied with this response, to request GTC Scotland conduct a review of it. You should describe the original request and explain your grounds of review. You have 40 working days from receipt of this response to submit a review request. When the review process has been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may use the Scottish Information Commissioner’s guidance on making an appeal to make an appeal to the Commissioner.
Response file
Internal Review request
Summary of request
Full request
Contained within the review request.
Response
I refer to your request dated 29 November 2024 for a review of a request submitted to GTC Scotland (FOI 24-25/61), dated 01 November 2024.
You have expressed dissatisfaction with our response to your information request. To enable your review request to be considered afresh and by someone who has not responded to your original request, I have been appointed to undertake the internal review on behalf of GTC Scotland.
Your original request
In your original request you asked for the following:
In your response you say:
4 cases that had gone into the investigation stage were considered by the Investigating Panel and concluded with no further action.
Please could you let me know, of these four cases, for how many had the complaint (now known as “referral”) been made within five years of the most recent alleged misconduct?
You also say:
No action was taken in relation to 13 cases that were at the initial consideration stage.
Please could you let me know, of these 13 cases, for how many had the complaint (now known as “referral”) been made within five years of the most recent alleged misconduct?
On 11 December, we provided an explanation as to our response and applied section17(1)(b) as the information is not held. On 29 November, you sent an email requesting we review our decision in FOI 24-25/61 under section 20(1) of FOISA.
Your internal review request
In your review request of 29 November, you state:
I therefore request a review of your failure to respond by the statutory deadline.
You later asked on 11 December:
...please could you let me know if you are saying that you are no longer confident that the response to 22-23/60 was lawfully correct and accurate? If it was not lawfully correct and accurate them please could you let me know the correct response to 22-23/60?
Our response
In relation to the first part of your review request, as noted in our response, our Regulatory Investigations team spent a considerable amount of time working on this request in order to provide assistance, where possible. As noted, given the statistical nature of the Disclosure Log response you are referring to, we are unable to provide a response directly in relation to that but our team was seeking to identify what records could reasonably be provided in order to provide you with advice and assistance.
In addition, I would take this opportunity to note that as a small organisation with finite resource we do our very best to respond to requests as soon as possible. The extent and scope of requests received recently result in our resources being stretched and we are, on very limited occasions, unable to respond within the statutory timeline. Our teams are working to assist with information requests as well as ensuring the progression of their ongoing work relating to our core functions as a statutory body.
We apologise that the response was received late, however we trust that the above provides you with an explanation as to the reasons for not meeting the statutory deadline on this occasion.
In relation to the second part of your review request, I would confirm that neither of the suppositions posed are correct. Instead, and as explained in our response to this and similar requests relating to this Disclosure Log response, the response you have referenced on our Disclosure Log refers only to numbers of cases, it does not refer to case names and therefore we are unable to verify which cases this response referred to and enable us to provide a response to this request. As we are unable to verify which cases the response refers to as case references were not included nor referenced and the response based on a statistics only, we are unable to refer to an old Disclosure Log record in order to respond to a new Freedom of Information request.
As such, I consider that our original response should be upheld without modification, together with an apology for not having met the statutory deadline for a response on this occasion.
If you are dissatisfied with this response to your review request, you have aright of appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner within 6 months of this review response. The Scottish Information Commissioner’s guidance on making an appeal describes the process, including the application form. Further information, including relevant contact details is available on the website. If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, following an appeal to the Commissioner, you have a right of appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law.
