FREEDOM OF INFORMATION requests WILL WORK on the MOD / JCCC

[Matlock1418]

NON-COMMEMORATION CASE(S) - Been refused?

Want to know more about the decision(s)?

FOI request(s) will work on the MOD/JCCC- provided you don't let the MOD/DBS Secretariat mistakenly fob you off with a Data Protection Act S.40 'Neither Confirm, Nor Deny' refusal - as they tried with me!!  [They later accepted that they shouldn't have erroneously tried]

• Ask for the relevant JCCC case file, including commemoration, reference documents, correspondences, discussion notes, photographs, findings and decision etc.

The level of disclosure you will receive [well what I recently got] is your evidence/documents back [possibly more] plus e-mail/form correspondence between JCCC/CWGC [likely showing the CWGC position at one or more stages] and the JCCC final position.

Should hopefully helpfully enable you to see who is blocking your case and why.

May aid you in deciding what to do / where to go next.

Wishing you the best of luck with your case(s).

M

Edited 26 February by Matlock1418

[jay dubaya]

Very interesting M. The CWGC are repeatedly refusing my request for information on a case submitted. The latest response (Tuesday) is that they believe they are not governed by the FOI act as they are a commonwealth entity, although I do believe the JCCC and MoD are governed by the FOI act. It’s an appeal to a New Zealand case so we may have better luck with the NZDF.

J 

[Simon Birch]

If you want information from the JCCC this will work, but it will not work if you request anything directly from the CWGC. The reason is that the JCCC is a British only outfit, whereas the CWGC gets some of their funding from overseas - the other Commonwealth counties. This makes them an international outfit - and therefore they are not covered by the FoI Act.

I know this because I tried asking the CWGC, under the FoI Act, They said no - and gave the reason above. I then asked the Information Commissioner in London, and took some independent legal advice. All of that said that the CWGC were under no legal obligation to provide anything they don't want too, frustrating as that is. There is no legal remedy.

Simon

Edited 9 April by Simon Birch

[Matlock1418]

On 04/04/2024 at 13:54, jay dubaya said:

The CWGC are repeatedly refusing my request for information on a case submitted. The latest response (Tuesday) is that they believe they are not governed by the FOI act as they are a commonwealth entity, although I do believe the JCCC and MoD are governed by the FOI act. It’s an appeal to a New Zealand case so we may have better luck with the NZDF.

6 hours ago, Simon Birch said:

f you want information from the JCCC this will work, but it will not work if you request anything directly from the CWGC. The reason is that the JCCC is a British only outfit, whereas the CWGC gets some of their funding from overseas - the other Commonwealth counties. This makes them an international outfit - and therefore they are not covered by the FoI Act.

 

I know this because I tried asking the CWGC, under the FoI Act, They said no - and gave the reason above. I then asked the Information Commissioner in London, and took some independent legal advice. All of that said that the CWGC were under no legal obligation to provide anything they don't want too, frustrating as that is. There is no legal remidy.

MoD/JCCC and FOI will work ... but sadly not for CWGC as they are outwith FOI [and who seem an obstinate law unto themselves - it's a wonder we try to help them ... it's for the lads 100 years ago of course]

My FOI on MOD/JCCC revealed quite a lot on the relationship between the two organisations - I wasn't impressed that CWGC were leading JCCC [as CWGC are not the relevant service authority it really annoyed me that they should position themselves as such, and that JCCC then let them get away with it - CWGC should just be the subsequent facilitators!] 

I would hope NZDF will reach the appropriate ajudication and be more open about their decision-making than the situation in the UK.

Please keep on trying for the lads.  Wishing you well.

M

[jay dubaya]

Thanks for the replies fellas.

Happy to accept the CWGC are not bound by FOI and I'm not holding out for the NZDF. Both organisations want to close the case as they say no further information will become available. CWGC want to see evidence of what further information we have before they will very reluctantly and only possibly accept an appeal. Its a frustrating position to be in without the knowledge of the extent of their evidence and research. The most recent replies from CWGC somewhat contradict their guidlines and policies both in accepting a case and any subsequent appeal.

I'm not letting go of this one though...

J

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, jay dubaya said:

CWGC want to see evidence of what further information we have before they will very reluctantly and only possibly accept an appeal. Its a frustrating position to be in without the knowledge of the extent of their evidence and research. The most recent replies from CWGC somewhat contradict their guidlines and policies both in accepting a case and any subsequent appeal.

So typical of what I have recently experienced.

Lack of transparency, random decision making and obstruction which in my opinion which are all contradictory to their Charter, guide and general remit.

And I'm not going to let go either.

= Please advise what route you are going to use for an Appeal.  [CWGC don't seem to offer such - and not at all clear if/how such an appeal would be done independantly of the previous consideration].

All in all seems a complete stitch-up at the moment by CWGC.

Wishing you well.

M

[jay dubaya]

Quick update. After contacting a Comonwealth defence force regarding FoI they have replied in the positive but regret thay cannot provide the information in the given timeframe.  To quote: 

'This extension is necessary because consultations with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission necessary to make a decision on your request are such that a proper response cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit'.

Bearing in mind the case was not successful and we are awaiting an appeal I find the response quite alarming.

[Matlock1418]

7 hours ago, jay dubaya said:

After contacting a Comonwealth defence force regarding FoI they have replied in the positive but regret thay cannot provide the information in the given timeframe. 

 What timeframe is that?  I think according to their own likely SOP/SLA they should probably respond/try to respond in 20 working days?? [if they are UK I would think -MoD/JCCC responded to me within that time]

So is that xx days on top of CWGC's 20 days on top of ... ??

7 hours ago, jay dubaya said:

To quote: 

'This extension is necessary because consultations with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission necessary to make a decision on your request are such that a proper response cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit'.

 Err? {That's for their reply] Not exactly sure what you were asking for but that response is not very helpful ... What timescale are they now suggesting?

And who is making the decision? - it should be the relevant service authority, not CWGC.

7 hours ago, jay dubaya said:

Bearing in mind the case was not successful and we are awaiting an appeal I find the response quite alarming.

 Not sure of the/your situation, though "alarming" does seem a bit OTT ... but probably realistic when dealing with CWGC and their associates 100+ years after the initial event [or are CWGC hoping you will die off?] ... certainly very, very, very disappointing. 

Glaciers seem to move more swiftly and transparently than CWGC and the relevant service authorities by association.

Have you an actual Appeal in the CWGC system?  How did you get it in?  PM me, in full confidence, if you wish.

M

Edited 8 hours ago by Matlock1418