Questions and Clarifications
If you would like clarification about a response, we may be able to help by explaining:
If you would like clarification, please reply directly to your response requesting this.
If you are dissatisfied with how your request has been handled, or with the response you have received, you may ask for an internal review. This includes dissatisfaction with a fees notice, a decision to charge, a decision that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit, or the advice and assistance provided to help you refine your request.
The purpose of the internal review is to consider whether the University complied with its obligations under the FoIA in responding to your request as originally framed.
We ask that requests for internal review are raised as soon as possible and normally within 40 working days of our response.
To help us review the matter quickly and fairly, please make your request in writing and include your request reference number, what part of our response you disagree with, why you disagree, and the outcome you are seeking. Internal review requests can be sent to Information Governance (Legal Services) at foi@shu.ac.uk.
The review will be considered by the Data Protection Officer, or their nominee, and the person carrying out the review will not have been involved in the original response. The review will be a fresh consideration of the request and response.
We will acknowledge receipt of your internal review request within three working days. We will normally provide the outcome within 20 working days. If more time is needed, we will let you know and explain the reasons for the delay.
We will write to you with the outcome of the internal review. This may:
Information Commissioner’s Office
If you remain dissatisfied after the University has completed its internal review, you also have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Address: Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Whilst we recognise that tools such as generative AI can be helpful in structuring written submissions, you are strongly encouraged not to rely on these tools as the sole basis for your correspondence. Submissions drafted primarily by AI can sometimes include generic, inaccurate or non-specific information, which may obscure the key facts and issues relevant to your internal review. This may make it more difficult for us to understand the basis of your request for review and could delay our ability to consider the matter fully. In some instances, it may also lead to misunderstandings about the points being raised.
We therefore recommend that submissions are based on your own words and experience, and clearly set out the specific aspects of the response you are dissatisfied with, along with the outcome you are seeking.
