MOD ALREADY TRANSFERRING WW2 SERVICE FILES TO UK NATIONAL ARCHIVES 2021

Back on page 12 of this thread I clarified what they would accept as proof of death.

All records are automatically set at 116 years - they will not be proactive and open unless someone requests and pays up. CWGC link acceptable.

Ross

I asked the TNA that question in March - the answer for digital proof of death was:

"Thank you for your email.


We would accept a link to The Commonwealth War Graves Commission as valid proof of death.


We require documentary proof of death. Other formats we would accept include, a death certificate, an entry into an official history, or a published obituary.


I hope this helps to answer your query."

 

Hi,

Albeit a service file will contain a clear endorsement somewhere within the often extensive papers that the subject has died in service it may be that the “low level” person responsible for entering the file in the National Archive Discovery system is acting on management instructions to simply register the file rather than search it for evidence of its accessibility level or even perform a simple CWGC search.

I’m sure appropriate access would be granted on submission of a FOI request with proof of death from CWGC.

Steve

 

FINALLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Received the Service Record (34 pages) after 1 year, 2 months, only redactions are children details, which I already know.

Lots & lots of medical stuff, even got his temperature charts from when he was in hospital (+ pee & poo frequency charts ).

Not so much detail on postings and places etc.

 

A year and two months - In that case I might have mine before the end of the year!

 

Glorious consistency from our new information overlords.

 

To be fair, you can just never get enough of these .

 

Well, I've applied to the National Archives for my grandfather's service records to see whether they can surprise me by releasing more than the MoD did on paper.

For all the good it will likely do me, I have explicitly requested all records available and then provided a list of every Army Form reference number I could think of that might exist.

I fully expect that last item to be ignored, but on balance it's probably worth a try.

 

Way to go CF!

Good luck with your request; May TNA fortune smile upon you.

Kind regards, fingers crossed, always,

Jim.

 

See the latest Kew Annual Report for the "accessioning" procedure.

"These records do not undergo formal accessioning in the same way or to the same timescales as other transfers."

Since the Kew website lost the A-Z of the website link (in September ( which had been there for over 20 years ) it is quicker to use Google to find items on the Kew website than use the search function found at the top right of the "calling page.". To read the Annual Reports the large print version is far better than the standard "printed" edition because it has reasonable column widths and lacks the "quotations from adjacent text" extra printing.

https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk...s-national-archives-large-print-2023-2024.pdf

page 242

"8. Further information on heritage assets
8a) Accessioning
There is a short time immediately following receipt of newly transferred records before they are formally accessionedinto The National Archives’ collection and added to our catalogue. For physical records, transfer deliveries are scrutinised for completeness and there is an element of physical and system processing needed before they can be accessioned. This includes ensuring that the physical condition of the records is acceptable, that the information provided for the catalogue reflects the content of the records and that the access conditions for each record (open or closed) are correct.

For digital records, a number of technical checks are carried out to the records themselves and also to the accompanying metadata, as part of the accessioning
process. The Transfer Digital Records service automates this process and provides us with a chain of custody for the records. For non-standard digital transfers, such as records
243
sent on a hard disk, we check and may need to correct the accompanying metadata for accuracy and completeness prior to accessioning the records.

The National Archives is currently undertaking a project to transfer into its care records previously held by the Ministry of Defence. This is a highly complex and atypical transfer that will significantly increase the size of our collection. The accessioning of and provision of access to these records present a number of challenges to our usual ways of working. These records do not undergo formal accessioning in the same way or to the same timescales as other transfers. Nevertheless, these records are carefully monitored and recorded and are subject to controls over documentation, holdings, physical access and storage location are analogous to those in place for routine transfers."

 

FOI statistics :

Freedom of Information Statistics: development plan June 2024

Freedom of Information statistics: April to June 2024 bulletin.

 

An update. I requested my grandfather's records as part of an advanced order and went to TNA today.

I got the physical file, and it was complete as far as I can tell. It had his medical records (no surprises, fortunately) that were not included when I got them from the MoD in 2017. My letter and application from then were also in the file. It was pretty good to see and copy them in glorious technicolour.

I had to go into the invigilation room, but I did not have to prove identity or relationship, confirming that the service records are orderable (i.e. 115 years and catalogued) and viewable by anyone.

And yes, I can copy them to order.

 

I applied for service record WO 422/28250: J MCINTOSH (Service Number: 2755342) under FOI on 27/04/2024. He was my Dad's first cousin and was born in 1919, he died in 2013.

Yesterday I received an email from an Access Service Case Officer (MOD) at TNA confirming that they were "unable to open it until 2034 because information within this record is exempt under Section 41 of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000"

The TNA went onto say: "In cases where proof of death was provided by the requester, we usually take into account the year of death (2013), using a 25 (+1) year rule to determine the record opening year. However, in the interests of opening the record as early as possible, in this case the opening date will remain at 115 (+1) years after the subject’s year of birth (1918)".

The email then dispelled the prospect of any non-medical being extracted from this record. So I've got to wait until 2034.

"A significant proportion of this record consists of medical information. TNA has therefore decided against the partial release of this record, which in this case would mean release of the non-medical information contained within it. This is because it has been determined that to do so would require a redaction process that is neither in the best interest of the record’s preservation, nor the public interest."

The last para does seem to raise some questions as to how these records are being preserved.

 

Thanks for posting. The personal representatives of the deceased have the strongest case against publication, on which see the often quoted "Coco" test in Information Commissioner cases. Otherwise the "public interest" is the phrase that requires clarification from TNA.
"It has been determined " - does this mean by the Advisory Council ?

Later Edit: add extracts from Advisory Council minutes over the years.: note how publication in the "public interest" has changed from a defence to an action for breach of confidence:


"4th December 2003

Access to the census
The council reviewed the advice which the Advisory Council on Public Records gave to the Lord Chancellor in 1998 on the question of access to census returns less than 100 years old. It concluded that it had no reason to alter the advice that release of the returns before they are 100 years old would be a breach of confidence, though for future censuses a period of 80 rather than 100 years might be appropriate. The council noted that no statutory power was needed to give an undertaking of confidentiality, and that such an undertaking could be given at any time before the confidential information was made public.

---

5th February 2004

Freedom of Information

The council, in preparation for the introduction in January 2005 of the new freedom of information access regime, reviewed its own procedures. Besides continuing to advise on applications for the retention of records by departments, it will be responsible for advising the Lord Chancellor on a range of issues relating to historical records (those over 30 years old). These are:

The exemption from the public access provisions of historical records and records selected to become historical records
Applications for the release of retained records and exempt records in public record repositories in England and Wales, in cases where the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against the public interest in non-disclosure
The members of the council look forward with enthusiasm to the greater openness which will come in January 2005. Its role in considering the public interest test is one for which it is particularly well suited, having long in effect applied a very similar test to applications for extended closure. This was borne out by the news that several extracts from files, which the council had not considered to merit extended closure, were to be released.

The Freedom of Information exemptions were also considered when the council was reviewing applications by departments for extended closure. The criteria for extended closure are significantly different from the exemptions, and the comparison of the two in relation to particular applications was illuminating.

In the future, the right of access under Freedom of Information will need to be balanced against the right to privacy of living individuals under the Data Protection Act. With this in mind, the council considered an admirable paper from The National Archives on the current standard closure period for personally sensitive papers, which assumed a life expectancy of 100 years when no date of death was known. The council concluded that the correct balance was achieved by this standard, and recommended no change to it.

---
14th October 2004
Freedom of information
The council discussed the difficulties which could arise over the interpretation of the exemption for confidential information, which requires that release would be an actionable breach of confidence. If it was decided to recommend release, it would be necessary to have concluded that the public interest in release was sufficiently strong to provide a defence to an action. It was felt that members would need clear advice on both sides of the question when called to advise the Lord Chancellor.
---

10 February 2005
Freedom of Information

The Council reviewed how panels of members would consider cases on which consultation with it was required, following the experience of the members of the first such Panel. It was agreed that the area on which the Council was best qualified to advise was that of the public interest; advice on the application of individual exemptions should only be sought as a last resort. The consideration of the competing public interests in release and non-disclosure of material subject to an exemption was very similar to the consideration of applications for extended closure, with which the Council had long experience.

A new aspect of the public interest question could arise in cases where the exemption for confidential information might apply. The most likely defence against a breach of confidence action would be that release was in the public interest. It seemed reasonable to expect an applicant to make a case for this, without any need for him or her to give reasons for the application. It was agreed that panel members needed clear information about the case under review and a clear statement of the questions on which advice was sought. Panel members should select a spokesperson, who could report back the agreed conclusions.
---
19 July 2007
Access to public records
The Council also asked for more information on the general use of the following FoI exemptions: 27 (International relations), 40 (Personal information) and 41 (Information provided in confidence).
---
10th February 2020
ACTION: The Head of FOI Centre agreed to send Council members guidance on Section 41 – information provided in confidence.
---

19th November 2021

8.7. Members queried if breach of confidence exemptions continued to be applied after death.
ACTION: VD to investigate and report back on the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance on the applicability of breach of confidence after death.

---

25th February 2022

7. S41 Breach of Confidence

7.1. Ms Davies introduced a paper on S41 and breach of confidence. This paper provided information on the effect of death on breach of confidence. "

 

The whole thing stinks to me.

 

MOD would’ve released the file without medical info and redactions if required.

Simple process - photocopy pages intended for release then redact any items in the photocopy - copy again and release that copy to the applicant and retain redacted photocopy and “untouched” original. What’s difficult about that?

I might be wrong but it looks like TNA can’t cope with current level of applications and are making decisions to withhold material as they feel it’s easier to do that than release the material to the applicant with redactions and editing.

They may be complying with the strict rules of the legislation but not with the spirit of the FOI rules.

Steve

 

Not sure MoD would have.

I think they would have rejected as under the 25 from death rule with no further explanation.

In this case the TNA did not immediately reject under 115 years or 25 years - so not a knee jerk to close the request.

They did look to see if early opening before 2034 was possible but decided not.

In that way they reacted to the FoI and went a stage further than MoD would have done.

Let's not all grab pitchforks and flaming torches because some one reported the "TNA said no" without looking at what actions they took.

Ross

 

The email states: "Please be aware that the Access Service Team at TNA is not resourced to carry out additional research or answer queries, and so will be unable to offer further explanation into the contents of these records, or answer additional questions related to the record"

 

Considering the MoD have removed the 25 yr from death rule, I'm struggling to see why TNA simply can't redact the record.

A recent request to the RAF Disclosures, for an airman who passed in Dec 2001, resulted in a slightly redacted record of Service.

My most recent submission to TNA, for someone who passed in 2006, also resulted in a redacted record of Service....a total of 6 pages redacted out of a total of 31 pages. On each redacted page it reads...Redacted under FOI exemption 41(1) until 2032. Honestly, I can do without his dental records and other medical bits and pieces, so I'm more than happy with that.

 

I've just read through the record released here and I was amazed at the level of redaction:

Captain Charles DELWORTH, RASC: help pls interpreting Service Records

It is no surprise whatsover that TNA has a backlog of a year or more if they have decided to remove almost every name and (likely illegible) signature authorising action to be taken. And while this one may be unusually lengthy, the close-reading required to check and remove such microdetails from every record requested will be extremely time-consuming.

 

I totally agree. I particularly like the redaction of a telephone ext number on page 20, what a complete waste of time. I can't get a direct number for the local branch of my bank, so what use a 3 digit telephone extension number from 1952, could have, is beyond me.