On 1 January 2005 the Freedom of Information Act comes fully into force.  Under the Act any information held by a public authority is eligible for release.

Any opinion out there, especially from lawyers,  as to whether disclosure by public bodies of the geographic number underlying their 0845 or 0870 numbers would come under the Act?

Surely it would be covered by "commercial confidentiality" - the current excuse, sorry, reason  :-X

I am not so sure.  The Freedom of Information Act only applies to public authorities who do not engage in commercial activities, therefore I doubt if the  commercial confidentiality argument could be advanced by them.        ::)

They are sure to say it's a matter of National Security. After all, if Al Queda are going to phone, we may as well make them pay 8p/min...  ;)

Ofcom are covered by the Freedom of Information Act, so from 1st Jan 05 you can send them a request for information.

Try it out, make a request under FOI to, for example, the DVLA.  Let us know what their response is.

Of the exemptions to providing information in the FOI Act, the only ones which might apply would be s.43 (Commercial Interests) or, possibly, s.41 (Information provided in confidence).  S.43 is a qualified exemption, i.e. subject to the public interest test, whereas s.41 is an absolute exemption.

Quite possibly it could be argued, successfully, that the public interest is better served by releasing geographic numbers rather than keeping them secret (although this may vary depending on the degree of intelligent routing being used).

If the geographic number is set up via the 08 number provider and is provided in confidence, this could be a problem, but if it pre-dated the introduction of the 08 number or was provided by someone else under normal non-confidential terms then there should be no such problem.

Two days to go before we can make a request.

I note from the postings about DVLA that requests for disclosure of their geographical number(s) under the FOIA  has been made to them by others.

Await the outcome with interest.

[Also posted on the DVLA thread]

On the twentieth working day since the DVLA acknowledged receipt of my FOI request for a geographic number, it has now replied with the required information. This is the first time in its protracted correspondence with me that the DVLA has acknowledged a geographic number for customer use. The full response is shown below. I am still debating whether to request meeting minutes, financial statements and other information that relates to the DVLA's decision to introduce rip-off numbers in the first instance. I believe this sets an important precedent, with government agencies and departments being obliged to reveal geographic terminated numbers when requested.

>>>

Ref: Freedom of Information Act 2000 - request for information

I am writing to confirm that the Agency has now completed its search for the information which you requested on 1 January 2005.

As an overseas caller, you requested an alternative geographic number for making driver/vehicle enquiries.  I can confirm that our switchboard number is 01792 782341 and can be used for this purpose.

If you are unhappy with the way the Agency has handled your request, you may ask for an internal review.  You should contact me if you wish to complain.  

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.  The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

If you have any queries about this e-mail, please contact me, quoting the above reference in any future communications.

Wow, idb what can I say but well done!

That is a prime example of the FOI Act working to get such a simple piece of information that was REPEATEDLY DENIED to you for various reasons. Indeed they were reasons which changed as they became aware that you knew more than you let on.

I would be interested to see what kind of information you are able to get about why they chose to use them. You *should* be able to ask the question straight out, perhaps ask for any reports which were created for executives, minutes of meetings regarding provisioning of telecoms services. Any commercially sensitive information would be removed, but it would almost certainly include income to the DVLA.

Gareth

This 'switchboard' number, 01792 782341, is mentioned in other places. Do a Google search.

78 reasons to argue when they tell you not to ring that number

wrote on Feb 1^st, 2005 at 10:26pm:

This 'switchboard' number, 01792 782341, is mentioned in other places. Do a Google search.

Indeed it is, and I have been aware of the geographic number for some time, however I wanted this agency, which had a long history of lying to me, to provide me with the number. It now has, but only because of the FOI Act. It wouldn't have done so otherwise.

Although not related to 0870, an interesting article nevertheless in today's Independent regarding the FOI Act. Full article at http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=606858

I'm surprised that the number of requests to date is so low.

>>>

Government attacked for 'hypocritical' attitude to Freedom of Information Act
By Robert Verkaik and Marie Woolf
02 February 2005


Ministers' promises to usher in a new age of freedom of information have failed to materialise, with scores of requests to open the Government to public scrutiny being rejected.

About 4,000 requests have been received across central government since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act on 1 January. But MPs and journalists expressed frustration at the lack of positive responses to their requests ­ amid claims that the Government has breached its own legislation by failing to meet the Freedom of Information Act's statutory deadline.

Scores of requests have been refused and some departments have been using stock replies to deny access to information, issuing refusal letters to different people using identical wording.

Of the 70 inquiries made by The Independent only 10 have been successful. Almost half were turned down flat; the remainder are still awaiting reply.

In two of the replies the Government conceded that it had breached its own legislation by failing to meet the deadline of 20 working days that expired yesterday. Ministers also admitted they had no idea how many of the 362 requests made on the first day the legislation came into force had been answered. Yet, in 2000, Labour postponed the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act by four years to give government departments and 100,000 public bodies more time to prepare for the new right of access.

[...]

Of 4,000 requests received across central government, about half have been made by people identifying themselves as reporters. But campaigning organisations and members of the public have also made wide use of the new powers.

The National Archives has received the most requests, more than 600, followed by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[...]

Can you tell me if the FoI also applies to private cos?

Dispsticks!  If you tie up public Bodies time by asking for anything and everything, the public Bodies Costs are going to go up, therefore they will ask for more, budget (and guess where the budget comes from.............TAXES!!!)  You are wasting your own money, our money, my money.

Can we please be informed of the shorthand used in the the last post, bearing in mind that we are not all in our first flush of youth.

In particular "Dipsticks" and "T*****s"?

Thankyou.

Chockster.

Why not vent your spleen on Political Parties that are at present attempting to use the FOI Act to search for past indiscretions of their opponents, for purely political dirty tricks campaigns.  This will be costing you far more than our members attempting to get some justice for the public with our campaign.

Are dispsticks just dipsticks with lisps?