Dear all,
Regarding this email received from the ICO, stating: "You have asked that I provide you with a copy of ‘a letter from a doctor (which does not appear to directly relate to the request)’. I have attached a copy of this document." - of course you haven't attatched any document with the email as you claim. What are you going to say - that my email system isn't working as it should? It doesn't surprise me one bit theres no attatchment as you claim as my entire case I presented to you has always been treated completely unsatisfactorily.
As far as I am concerned the rest of the email sent is to be treated with that which it deserves - contempt. I did not give you permission to discuss my case with anybody - simple as that, but you have, and now you bandy words and quote small print to justify your actions.
Put simply, if you receive a complaint about an FOI request being ignored by whoever and the complaint is not to your liking the person making the complaint is treated like an idiot. For example my having to deal with the bizarre interractions with a "Mr. Anderson" there at the ICO who seems to send the same letters over and over again asking for the same information hes been sent over and over again with spaces of weeks in between each request from him so as to browbeat the subject who needs his case looked at, and also to drag the whole thing out - perhaps to wear down the complainee, hoping he'll simply "go away" and give up.
Well I didn't and I find also you deliberately misinterpret what is written to you, and in general make a mockery of the entire proceedings of dealing with anyones complaint if it doesn't suit you, or somebody connected to you or you are ordered to.
My dealings with you I feel have been most unsavoury and completely biased against me - yet you quote your "rulebook" and other get-out clauses and find reason for this and that in order to show you are whiter than white when the whole world and his brother knows us small fish are in no way going to get any justice from these bigger fish such as the "ICO". The way my matters have been dealt with, from my unanswered call to this "Anderson" employee earlier that was ignored that i wrote to you about, to the fact that its claimed I made no such FOI request to the surgery in the first place when I can take you to the very person at the surgery i gave the form to after being given it by her and filling it in there and then, and recording the conversation with her after filling it in [which i sent to you months ago along with photocopies of photographs of the filled in parts of my FOI request made on that day Nov. 14 2012] is unacceptable. Your very email im answering here claims to have attatchment but doesn't - all this and more I find completely unacceptable and you are not fit for purpose, and it sickens me the way you deal with things, especially dragging things out and treating people as if they don't exist - all done in order to protect the people who have done the wrong in the first place - my surgery and its lieing employee who claimed I made no FOI request. It is truly disgraceful how you act and get away with things.
We know the reason for my being denied my medical records is because it contains the evidence that I was prescribed a drug for too long - years - and I was wrongly unmonitored whilst being given it too - not having any conversation or anything with the prescribing doctor about this medication during the approx. 2 years of his prescribing, this drug being prescribed for so long it caused my heart to malfunction to the extent that a pacemaker was needed - thus shortening my lifespan as a result.[kindly do not get me wrong - when one has to go one has to go, no problem - but to be forced into a situation because of a dr's failure to keep to a specified code? No way!]. This is why the receptionist at the surgery has said, as you claim, that I never made any FOI request for my medical records on the 14 Nov. 2012 - to cover things up. Really? I restate I have photographs of the filled-in parts of the form taken on 14 Nov. 2012 when filling the form in, along with a recording of the receptionist speaking to me made directly after giving her back the filled in form at the surgery on the 14 Nov. 12. Yet you take this receptionists words over mine.
And you keep asking for a receipt im supposed to have been given from the surgery for my handing in of the form. I repeat - no such receipt was given to me then or after, [and I do not even believe this is standard practice for any receipt to be given to a claimant and I was being misled by the ICO by being asked for it - if a receipt was supposed to have been given then the surgery, and this woman, is in the wrong yet again as no receipt was ever given to me!] and on 3 occasions I was told I would be hearing from the surgery regarding my request when I enquired about it - the 1st occasion being on the 14 Nov. 2012, and the further 2 occasions this year when I enquired at the surgery about what was happening to my request to them] Never has anybody from this surgery contacted me ever as they said they would. Yet you protect these neer'do'wells by dismissing my bona fide complaint.
I told the receptionist at the time on the 14 Nov 2012 I would pay the £50 fee she quoted there and then, if I may. I was told I couldn't pay then and I would be hearing from the surgery within days, but nobody from the surgery has ever contacted me about my request.
It is strange I was told on the 14 Nov 2012 by this receptionist there would be a £50 fee for my records, but when I enquired at the surgery last week about fees when obtaining a new FOI request form the figure of £10 was mentioned by a different female employee by the name of "Jo".
Could it be my interraction with you and your interraction with the surgery has caused them to quote the proper fee, that of £10,
and has your interraction caused the surgery to stop telling members of the public who wish to see their records the off-putting figure and grossly exagerrated fee of £50?
Could it be that I was being "put off" from getting my records in the first place on the 14 Nov. 2012 by being told there would be a £50 fee, but to their horror I offered to pay this ridiculous sum there and then? All would be fiercely denied by the surgery and one wonders about it all but I know which id put my money on.
And I already have stated I want no compensation of any kind other than these characters who are causing my early death never be able to act as they have again - from this "doctor" who gave me the offending medication without any monitoring of any kind and the receptionist who lies who is part of this denial for me to have my medical records, to you - the ICO - who dismisses bona-fide cases such as mine because a] they are either ordered to or b] because you don't like my face and wish to protect irresponsible characters, or c] because its all too much for you. All mentioned are in the public pay, of course shown.
My very first letter to you regarding my case you claim you didn't receive, or at least somebody there told me after I enquired by phone about it approx. 2 weeks later after sending the letter, this female telling me to send letters by recorded delivery only from then on. I knew then it would be an uphill struggle to be heard at all, and that every letter to you would have to be sent via recorded delivery, which they have been. Another "off-putting scenario here? - having to lay out £2 a time to answer letters id already replied to and sent the required information for? No wonder "Mr. Anderson" was making me reply to his constant letters asking for the information id supplied on so many occasions - each by recorded delivery, but no, I did not "go away".
Each time I called "Mr. Anderson" by phone it was impossible to talk with him - he was either "on holiday" or not available, or "at lunch", and the message i left on his ansaphone wasn't answered at all - yet you claim it was, by letter, 6 days later. The phone system you have whereby you give the phone no. and extension no. for the person - in my case "Mr. Anderson" looks good - but of course is completely meaningless and doesn't actually work as my recordings show.
J. Graham