Further Information Response Redaction with anonym.plus

Clear PII from a Part 18 response while the substance stays.

In simple terms, PII redaction is the on-device process of finding and masking personally identifiable information in a document before it is shared.

Further-information-response redaction is the removal of personal data from written answers served under CPR Part 18. A related practice direction sets the form the request itself must take, and rule 22.1(1)(b) requires the response to carry a statement of truth. anonym.plus runs on your device and keeps the substance of each answer that the request requires.

When this applies

Answers to a Part 18 request often list people, addresses, and account data by name, and the response must still be verified by that statement of truth. You serve the substance while clearing third-party PII that the request does not actually put in issue.

How anonym.plus handles it

  1. Load the responses into anonym.plus on your device.
  2. It scans each answer and the statement of truth.
  3. The tool flags names, addresses, and account data.
  4. Confirm the flags; keep the responsive content.
  5. Replace or mask each confirmed value.
  6. Save the clean responses on your device.

What you need to provide

PII entity types detected

Categoryanonym.plus entity typeExample
NamesPERSONthird party → [NAME]
LocationLOCATIONhome address → [ADDRESS]
AccountUK_SORT_CODEsort code → [SORT_CODE]
ContactPHONE_NUMBERphone → [PHONE]
DatesDATE_TIMEDOB → [DOB]
IdentifiersUK_NINONINO → [NINO]

Compliance achieved

Anonymise further-information responses offline — see plans & start free →

Limitations & cautions

Answers must stay responsive. Clear PII that is not at issue, but do not strip facts the request asks for. The statement of truth names the signer and may stay, so review which names you remove versus keep.

Frequently asked questions

What is a request for further information?

It is a written request under CPR Part 18, in the form the linked practice direction sets out, asking for clarification or extra detail. The answer is served in writing and verified by the rule 22.1(1)(b) statement of truth.

Should I keep the statement-of-truth name?

Usually yes. Rule 22.1(1)(b) requires a named individual to verify the answers, so an allow-list keeps that required name while clearing unrelated third-party PII elsewhere in the response.

Will redaction hurt the responsiveness?

No, if you target PII not at issue. The substance of each answer stays so it remains responsive to what Part 18 actually asked for.