Decision
Mr G and the Department of Social Protection (the Department)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 120281
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 120281
Published on
Whether amendment of a computer record concerning a 1983 application for Invalidity Pension is required under section 17 of the FOI Act
13 March 2014
On 03 August 2012, the applicant made an FOI request to the Department for an amendment to a computer record concerning a 1983 application for Invalidity Pension (INVP). The applicant said a Department official had stated that this computer record shows that the claim was refused. The applicant said that this claim was not refused and accordingly, he requested that "the incorrect information be removed from your computer". The Department's decision of 27 August 2012 refused this application saying that the computer record in relation to the 1983 INVP application does not show that the application was refused. On 03 September 2012 the applicant sought an internal review of the Department's decision and the Department's internal review decision of 30 October 2012 affirmed its original decision. On 29 October 2012, the applicant sought a review by this Office of the Department's decision.
In an email dated 03 February 2014, Ms Mary Byrne, Investigator, informed the applicant that, as he has not identified a record which may contain incorrect information, she proposed making a recommendation to the Information Commissioner to affirm the decision of the Department on the grounds that he has not identified such a record. In reply, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the decision made by the Department and accordingly, I have decided to conclude the review by way of a formal binding decision.
In carrying out my review, I have had regard to correspondence between the Department and the applicant as set out above; to contact between this Office and the Department; and to details of various contacts between this Office and the applicant, particularly the email sent to him by Ms Mary Byrne, Investigator, dated 03 February 2014. I note that the applicant submitted a number of responses (dated 04 February and 18 February 2014) to that email, and I have also had regard to the contents of those responses. In addition, I have had regard to the relevant provisions of the FOI Act.
The scope of this review is confined to the question of whether the Department is justified in refusing to amend, under section 17 of the FOI Act, the computer record concerning a 1983 application for INVP. Although the applicant makes comments in his submissions regarding the manner in which the Department has dealt with him and also to other records subsequently identified which may be incorrect, I note that such matters are not within the remit of this Office or this review.
Section 17(1) of the FOI Act provides that, where personal information in a record held by a public body is incomplete, incorrect or misleading, the record shall be amended (i) by altering it so as to make the information complete or correct or not misleading, as may be appropriate; (ii) by adding to the record a statement specifying the respects in which the body is satisfied that the information is incomplete, incorrect or misleading, as may be appropriate, or (iii) by deleting the information from it. Section 17(2) states that an application to amend a record shall, in so far as is practicable, include appropriate information in support of the application.
The approach in cases of this nature is that the applicant seeking to exercise the right of amendment under section 17 of the FOI Act bears the onus of proving that the information which is the subject of the application is, on the balance of probabilities, incomplete, incorrect, or misleading.
The record which the applicant sought to amend is a computer record concerning a 1983 application for INVP. In his original request to the Department, the applicant requested that the Department remove incorrect information about his 1983 application for INVP from its computer. He clarified that the Department, in an e-mail to him dated 03 February 2011, stated " A computer record exists confirming that your claim was refused.....I cannot confirm the reason why your Invalidity Pension application in 1983 was refused." The applicant said that his claim was not refused and accordingly, this information was incorrect and should be removed from the Department's computer. However, the Department refused this request on the basis that the electronic record of the applicant's 1983 claim does not show that the claim was refused, rather it shows that an INVP application was opened and subsequently closed. As the terminology 'refused' was not used on the computer record, the Department said that there was no requirement to correct that record.
In his submission to this Office dated 04 February 2014, the applicant said that information has been sent "through the entire Social Welfare system and beyond that the computer shows my 1983 application for Invalidity Pension was refused. I require all wrong information corrected". I note that the Department said in its submission to this Office dated 19 December 2012 that it does hold paper records of correspondence between the applicant and the Department in relation to his 1983 application for INVP, which incorrectly refers to his application as having been refused. While the Department said that it does not consider these paper records as relevant to the request, it did acknowledge the incorrect use of terminology 'refused' and it also acknowledged that the applicant was incorrectly advised that his 1983 application was refused when there is no evidence to suggest that it had, in fact, been refused. The Department went on to say that, in order to rectify the situation, it has placed a reference on his INVP file to say that incorrect terminology was used in correspondence in relation to the 1983 application for INVP.
Notwithstanding the above, the only issue before this Office in this review is the refusal by the Department to amend a computer record concerning a 1983 application for INVP. Accordingly, any other records which may contain incorrect information are not relevant to this review. This was pointed out to the applicant by Ms Byrne in her emails to him and she informed him that the onus is on him, as the requester, to identify a record and the amendment required. She also informed him that, if he wished to have other records that may contain the use of the incorrect terminology 'refused' amended under section 17 of the FOI Act, he would have to make a fresh FOI request to the Department for such amendment.
In this case the applicant identified a computer record which he says contains incorrect information about his 1983 INVP application but the Department said that the record identified does not contain this information. As the record identified by the applicant does not contain incomplete, incorrect or misleading information I find that amendment of it is not required under section 17 of the FOI Act on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that such amendment is required.
Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of the Department on the grounds that the applicant has not identified a record which is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
A party to a review, or any other person affected by a decision of the Information Commissioner following a review, may appeal to the High Court on a point of law arising from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than eight weeks from the date on which notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Sean Garvey
Senior Investigator