London, 28 March 2011,

(by Katleen Janssen)

In March 2011, Phillip Webb, an Expert Member of the UK’s Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information, carried out a review of the Office of Public Sector Information’s (now part of The National Archives) complaint process under the PSI Regulations. Under these Regulations, an applicant who is not happy with the response to his request for re-use of PSI, can file an internal complaint with the public sector body he requested the data from. If this does lead to a satisfactory resolution, the applicant can take his complaint to OPSI (n case the complaint is against OPSI itself, APPSI is competent to handle the complaint). APPSI also acts as the review board for decisions made by OPSI on complaints.

The objective of the review was to investigate the complaints process and the practices employed, and to assess the level of performance, the fitness for purpose and the realized benefits. The review was based on the 28 complaints treated by OPSI since the introduction of the PSI Regulations. The review of the complaints process is generally positive, but has some recommendations for improvement.

The review finds that the complaints process works well, but as the output is usually a report with recommendations that it cannot enforce, OPSI only has limited control over the final solution. Therefore it is recommended that a stronger formal reporting process is established, requiring an action plan and timetable for implementation of the OPSI recommendations from the public sector bodies. In addition, feedback from the complainants should be collected to assess the customer satisfaction.

Next, the position and role of OPSI within The National Archives should be shown more clearly on the TNA website and the information on the website about the complaints procedure should be updated, so potential complainants are more aware about the complaint process. In addition, more information should be given on the website about past complaints procedures and their outcome, and an FAQ should be created.

While the review applauds OPSI’s active role in the promotion of the re-use of PSI, it warns that OPSI should be careful to maintain its impartiality and independence in the complaints process and establish a strict separation between its review task and its other activities.