Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know

Out-Law News 4 min. read

Public bodies do not need to search for Twitter users' real names when assessing validity of FOI requests, says tribunal


UPDATED: Twitter-based freedom of information (FOI) requests can be disregarded by public bodies if the requester's real name is not detailed in their Twitter username or within their request for information, according to an information rights tribunal.

A tribunal ruled (9-page / 402KB PDF) that a man's information request made to the UK government's Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) from his Twitter account was not valid, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as the man's real name was not detailed in "the request itself".

It came to its ruling despite acknowledging that details of the man's real name were contained on the man's Twitter user profile page which was "readily available to the public authority" to view.

The tribunal further held that the man's request for information was also invalid on the grounds that it failed to include "an address for correspondence" that DWP could use for responding to the request. It determined that "a Twitter username is not ‘an address for correspondence’" for the purposes of FOIA.

The conclusions reached by the tribunal on the real names and address for correspondence requirements of FOIA contradict guidance issued by the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) last year.

Out-Law.com asked the watchdog if it intends to update its guidance in light of the tribunal's ruling. A spokesman for the ICO said: “We’re considering the ruling, and the impact it has on our guidance.”

FOIA requires public bodies to disclose information they hold to people that request it, subject to some exceptions. According to section 8 of the Act, for an FOI request to be valid it must be made in writing, state the name of the requester and "an address for correspondence" and describe the information that is requested.

According to the Act, a request is to be treated as having been made in writing "where the text of the request: is transmitted by electronic means, is received in legible form, and is capable of being used for subsequent reference".

In its 2014 guidance on handling FOI requests submitted via social media, the ICO confirmed that FOI requests via social media to accounts operated by public bodies on sites such as Twitter or Facebook can trigger duties to disclose information under FOIA, or its equivalent in Scotland.

The guidelines said that public bodies do not need to respond to requests for information unless the requesters' real name is clear. However, it suggested that public bodies needed to look to requesters' Twitter profile pages to determine those people's real names if their Twitter username is "an obvious pseudonym" or only detailed "a part of their real name".

The guidance stated: "Where the requester’s username is an obvious pseudonym, or only includes a part of their real name (for example @john3453 or @smith6474) then the request will only be valid if their real name is visible elsewhere on their user profile," the ICO's guide said. "However we would urge authorities to remain mindful of the applicant and motive blind principles behind the Act in any case where they are not satisfied as to the requester’s identity but would still be content to disclose the information."

However, in assessing the validity of an FOI request made by Bilal Ghafoor to DWP, the information rights tribunal said that FOIA does not require public bodies to look beyond an initial Twitter communication for evidence of a requester's real name.

Andrew Bartlett QC, tribunal judge, said: "We acknowledge that on the facts of this case Mr Ghafoor’s name was readily available to the public authority; in this case it was a simple matter for the authority to look at his profile. But there is a question of principle here. Section 8 does not entitle a requester to impose on a public authority the task of looking elsewhere than the request itself to discover the requester’s real name. On the contrary, s8 explicitly requires the request to state the name of the applicant. Mr Ghafoor’s request did not do so."

"The fact that, in the particular circumstances of this case, ascertaining the applicant’s real name could not have been easier, did not convert a request not meeting the requirements of s8 into a compliant request," he said.

The tribunal's conclusion that Twitter usernames do not constitute 'an address for correspondence' under FOIA runs contrary to the ICO's 2014 guidance too.

That ICO guidance said: "If the request has been posted on a social media website such as Twitter, then as long as that site offers a means for the authority to respond, such as a hyperlink to the requester’s email address or a ‘reply’ button, that request will fulfil the requirement to provide a valid address. However, we recognise that in some cases it may be technically difficult for an authority to provide an FOIA response via a social media site, especially if a large volume of material is involved."

The tribunal had also determined that it would have been "unsuitable" for the DWP to respond to Ghafoor's request through "a means of communication which is limited to 140 characters". The tribunal said that the mediums public bodies use to "disseminate information" have no bearing on "the statutory requirements for making a valid information request".

Ghafoor had highlighted DWP's practice of publishing messages and links via Twitter and had made his FOI request in a tweet in response to a post on Twitter from the DWP press office account. He had asked DWP to justify a claim that had been made in its tweet and said it was "very reasonable to expect" the department to respond to his information request on Twitter so as "to give equal publicity for the evidence as it did for its claim". 

Editor's note 02/12/2015: This story has been updated to include the statement from the ICO.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.