Jump to the following:

By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies by us and third parties, which we use to improve your visit.

Processed or retracted FOI requests

Request for information – FOI16662


Thank you for your email of 18 March 2016 requesting information from Ordnance Survey in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as follows:

The request is as follows:

Please can you state the actual FOI requests you claim “seem to be connected to you” as a simple list for clarity, as this doesn’t correspond to the answers I or XXXXXX XXXXXXXX have received. Also for each of these FOI requests how many of these were actually processed rather than retracted? Finally of those Processed how many were actually answered in full?” “While we are on the point of FOI requests please could you have a look at how long Ordnance Survey has taken to answer each of the “fully answered” request made by XXXXXX XXXXXXXX or myself and let me know the duration in days of each?

Our response

First, the statement to which you refer in your request related to a period of six months between mid-September 2015 and mid-March 2016, and I can confirm that Ordnance Survey does hold this information for such period; the relevant information is included in the Table below.

In relation to your question as to how many of the requests were answered in full, Ordnance Survey’s view is that all of the requests were answered in full, i.e. all were answered in accordance with our obligations under the FOIA.

If you wish to know how many of the requests were answered by the provision of information without any redactions or information being withheld, we have asterisked such requests in the table below. In any case, we assume that you and XX XXXXXXXX will already be able to calculate this figure by referring back to the responses you have received to your requests.

OS referenceDate request receivedFrom

Processed or retractedi.e. withdrawn by the applicant

Days taken to reply
FOI14594 8/10/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 13
FOI1460227/10/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed20
FOI14606* 11/11/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 14
FOI14608 17/11/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 20
FOI14610 30/11/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed16
FOI1461824/12/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed20
FOI14619 28/12/15 28/12/15XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 20
FOI14620 29/12/15XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 20
FOI1462130/12/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 20
FOI14622*30/12/15 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 18
FOI1463127/1/16 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed 20
FOI1463227/1/16 XXXXXX XXXXXXX Retracted NA
FOI14633 27/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX Retracted NA
FOI1463427/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX Retracted NA
FOI1463527/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX Retracted NA
FOI1463627/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX Retracted NA
FOI14633 27/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX RetractedNA
FOI1463427/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX RetractedNA
FOI1463527/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX RetractedNA
FOI1463627/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX RetractedNA
FOI1463727/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX RetractedNA
FOI14638*27/1/16XXXXXX XXXXXXX Processed9
FOI1664624/2/16XXXXXX XXXXXXXProcessed17
FOI1664725/2/16XXXXXX XXXXXXXProcessed16
FOI166527/3/16XXXXXX XXXXXXXProcessed3 (calculated from receipt of clarification)
FOI1665817/3/16XXXXXX XXXXXXXProcessed20

General points from your email

We note that your email, in addition to requesting an internal review of FOI16646, and requesting information under this new request, also made a number of general points.

I have already responded, in my email of 7 April 2016, in relation to the appropriate limit for the purpose of The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 and the fact that we are updating our website; I trust that this clarifies the position.

In relation to the other points you make, we note that 77M Ltd has been involved in legal correspondence with Ordnance Survey, via 77M Ltd’s lawyers XXXXXX XXXXX, and we do not wish to reopen subjects which have been addressed in that correspondence. Nor do we wish to open up detailed correspondence on the other matters you raise.

As FOI officer, my remit is to respond to FOI requests. To the extent that you have questions on other aspects of your relationship with Ordnance Survey, I would reiterate the suggestion made in my response to your FOI requests 16646 and 16647, that it would be more constructive if you would engage with Ordnance Survey via 77M Ltd’s account manager, XXXXX XXXXX, who should be your point of contact for arranging any meetings you wish to take place with him or other OS staff such as David Henderson.

By way of a brief response to some of the points you have made, we would note the following.

  • Having checked internally, we do not accept that a request for a meeting with Nigel Clifford was ignored. In fact, arrangements did not progress as OS had asked for a “show and tell” / details of your products and services, which you were not prepared to provide, and subsequent discussions were not progressed by 77M or OS, other than via legal correspondence commenced by 77M. Again, I would refer you to XXXXX XXXXX if you wish to arrange such a meeting.
  • In respect of your reference to David Henderson and UPRNs, I understand that these points have been covered in Ordnance Survey’s letter to XXXXX XXXXX of 23 February 2016. The following wording is taken from that letter, by way of a reminder:

“I understand that a telephone discussion has already been scheduled between David Henderson and your client this Thursday, 25 February. However, I now understand that your client has been in touch with OS directly to say that whether or not that discussion proceeds is dependent on a positive response from me [Jon O’Meara] to your letter of 12 February.

At the same time your letter of 12 February states that your client does not wish to consider a meeting until you have written further regarding your client’s claims against OS, which you anticipate doing in the next two to three weeks.

I would comment that from an OS perspective this appears to be an unusual position to take, and OS remains confused as to why your client would not wish to go ahead with trying to find a positive outcome through discussions this Thursday, especially given that David Henderson has already agreed to your client’s pre-conditions for a meeting. I would urge your client to re consider and to go ahead with the discussion with David Henderson, and any subsequent meeting that can be arranged as a result of that call, regardless of the contents of this letter.

Regarding your letter of 12 February, I comment and respond as follows.

  • I confirm that David Henderson’s email of 8 February 2016 is correct that usage of the UPRNs is subject to OS’s UPRN policy; OS has not released the UPRNs on the terms of the Open Government Licence.
  • We note that you say you have spent much time requesting information from 77M Ltd’s account manager and others, “only to be ignored or fobbed off”. I have passed this feedback on to XXXXX XXXXX, 77M Ltd’s account manager; XXXXX has said he will try to call you in the next day or two to discuss any issues that have arisen, and to reiterate our willingness to work constructively with 77M Ltd.
  • In relation to your reference to the OPSI and APPSI complaints, please note that we consider that all recommendations of the OSPI Report into 77M Ltd’s complaint are now complete. Any recommendations that were of an ongoing nature are now being monitored as part of OPSI’s business as usual IFTS accreditation of Ordnance Survey. For your information, the latest IFTS Report on Ordnance Survey, dated July 2015, is available on The National Archives’ website. We continue to work with OPSI in relation to recommendations and actions arising from the July 2015 Report.
  • We strongly refute your statement that the FOI process has uncovered “some serious abuses”; we are confident that there have been no “abuses” on the part of Ordnance Survey.

Internal review

Your enquiry has been processed according to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000. If you are unhappy with our response, you may request an internal review with our FOI Internal Review Officer, by contacting them as follows:

FOI Internal Review Officer
Customer Service Centre
Ordnance Survey
Adanac Drive
SO16 0AS

Email: foi@os.uk

Please include the reference number above. You may request an internal review where you believe Ordnance Survey has:

  • Failed to respond to your request within the time limits (normally 20 working days)
  • Failed to tell you whether or not we hold the information
  • Failed to provide the information you have requested
  • Failed to explain the reasons for refusing a request
  • Failed to correctly apply an exemption or exception

The FOI Internal Review Officer will not have been involved in the original decision. They will conduct an independent internal review and will inform you of the outcome of the review normally within 20 working days, but exceptionally within 40 working days, in line with the Information Commissioner’s guidance.

The FOI Internal Review Officer will either: uphold the original decision, provide an additional explanation of the exemption/s applied or release further information, if it is considered appropriate to do so.

Appeal to Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
If, following the outcome of the internal review you remain unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal with the Information Commissioner’s Office at:

The Case Reception Unit
Customer Service Team
The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane

Email: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Telephone helpline: 0303 123 1113 or 01625 545745 for advice, Monday to Friday.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Search Freedom of Information requests

Back to top
© Ordnance Survey 2019