Metropolitan Police 1


Published on

Published in: Business, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Metropolitan Police 1

  1. 1. Education, Police & Justice Enforcement Action Log Severity ratings: Investigation underway 10 Total: Monitoring to continue, however meeting (Nov Metropolitan Police 08) was constructive. s17, s45 (advice & assistance (bianket exemptions) I 04/06/2008 Warning letter sent. Meeting to discuss issues held Open Service JS and IR) Six month follow ENF0201053 meeting to be held in May 2009
  2. 2. Pre enforcement action letter 04/06/08. Case offcer drafted text OM of for ON Pre PA sought to neither confirm nor deny whethe enforcement acti6nletter info sought was held 04/06/08 Reasons for refusal Pre 07/02/20061 s 17 - application of 27/05/2008 ENF08150 provided in IR verbatim enforcement additional action letter exemptions during to those provided in RN 04/06/08. for the most par. RM course of Text drafted difficulties identified at investigation forOM later stage of (almost 2 years section of ON later). Use of 30 & investigation 21+ 1+
  3. 3. Pre enforcement action letter 04/06/08 ENF08153 127/05/20081 Audit 1188116 20/11/20071 s45 (IR) - RN 1 Post Guidance Jenny JS Pre advises that IR can Sanders enforcement &1~~mtH~1t:::1 Metropolitan Police take 3 months action letter 04/06/08
  4. 4. Result of Comments/issues Comments Request Complainant I Reference I Date of IR regarding encountered forlR request I refusal Date of during processing notice investi ation of re uest Refused to provide FS50088977 I 18/03/05 I 01/04/05 I 19/04/05 I 12/07/05 I None- proced u rally to iea a copy of the withheld info. fine. Only did so following IN. FS50129227 I 07/02/06 102/07/06 126/04/06 I 01/08/06 1 Late response to info request 24/05/06 I 24/08/06 I Lengthy delay 125/05/06 124/05/06 to IR 02/06/05 10/10/05 09/08/05 21/08/06 1 to both Late response 119/03/06 19/07/05 requests, failed to deal with first request under FOI. Lengthy delay to IR. FS50169737 I 08/01/07 113/02/07 109/02/07 I 29/06/07 I Late response to request. Lengthy delay to IR. Struggled to get FS50106800 I 25/07/05 I 30/01/06 I 20/10/06 i Never copy of info- rec'd I to request. No Late response classed as 'secret'. IR seen Eventuallv oosted thouah claim
  5. 5. a few examples. to have done Lack of co-op with one. caseworker - Changing use having to chase of exemptions responses. Have & very poor given access PIT outside of FOI. arauments. Lack of response Late response 15/12/05 07/06/05 27/05/05 11/04/05 FS50099861 resulted in IN. This to request to is turn resulted in request and 'r~'p.;r .. angry phone call IR- from PA. No reply complainant was apparent from chased several times. IN, however when .- Very poor chasêdit .seems to , have been lost in PIT ~f( the post. The arguments. eventual reply answered an earlier letter rather than the IN itself so further questions had to be raised! Long delay in Late 20/12/05 21/08/05 11/08/05 FS50101864 20/05/05 responding to responses to initial request for request and 11 IR request. explanation and info. Had to Request not threaten IN. considered in
  6. 6. fulL. Five Brought in two more exemptions exemptions cited, not (making total enough claimed - seven!). explanation or Do not wish to provide info to PIT given. ICO, citing MOU as reason- sections 23 and 24 now relied upon. Seems however, that info is only marked 'secret' or not marked at alL. This matter is stil very much ongoing so there may be more to add... Not clear Not clear Not clear Have FS50090852 several (Case included more for attempted to r- demonstration than do bare direct action. Was minimum being handled by rather than Joe Ivatts, I've assist taken it fairly complainant in any recently.) Different info has manner. been sent to comp Requests regarding same have gone request and MPS unanswered
  7. 7. do not seem to be or not been able to explain this. considered under FOI. Slow in responding to any issues raised, do not seem to know what they have responded to and what they have not. Have been sent correspondence by Joe in an effort to get responses to all requests and none received. I have tried chasing by telephone and do not receive calls back. Update (05/02/08) Nigel Shankster at MPS took over this matter and actually brought it to a conclusion. He seems helpful and willng. Case now closed. 2 reqs: Needs to ask for I R Na Not 21/5/07 & None FS50168043 -~
  8. 8. Metropolitan requested 17/3/07 & I 15/6/07 7/6/07 Police 11/4/06 I 18/5/06 FS50127256 I 24/1/06 I 10/2/06 No issue re 20 days & IR time FS50153447 I 29/11/2006 I 29/1/2007 129/1/2007 17/3/07 20 days not complied with, IR time OK FS50153447 11/9/06 27/9/06 4/10/06 5/12/06 FS50170141 24/02/07 14/03/07 22/03/07 04/04/07 Not made Not made Late response PA appeared to FS50123037 14/02/2006 20/03/07 - said part on that realise it did hold on that to request of info relevant info only point point when we pointed it requested not held out from a related case in Sept 07
  9. 9. ENF0201053 - The Metropolitan Police Service: Position (t 7 May 2008 Enforcement Log Entries: ENF06029 Jul-Dec 06 106985 Chris JPL s45 Failed Metropolitan Police 12/10/2005 Complaint audit to be Williams to offer or undertaken r. conduct a proper internal review ENF07106 Lisa 21/08/2007 86089 Metropolitan Police s1 - JS 09/02/2005 Complaint Adshead Information audit to be .. held, s.46 undertaken (Record keepinq) . ON's served: Case Ref: FS50087563 Date: 20/09/2006 Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service Summary: The complainant requested details of policies and the individuals responsible for those policies within the public authority. The Commissioner's decision in this matter is two fold in that the Public Authority has not dealt with the Complainant's request in accordance with Part I of the Act in that it has failed to comply with its obligations under section 1 (1), section 10 and section 17. Further, the Public Authority has applied section 21 and their application of this is in part, upheld by the Commissioner as he is satisfied that the policies are available but not the individuals' names. The Public Authority is required by this Decision Notice to provide some of the information requested (as detailed below) within 35 days.
  10. 10. Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld View PDF of Decision Notice FS50087563 Case Ref: FS50087366 Date: 22/01/2007 Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service Summary: The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to an investigation undertaken in the early 1990s into allegations of corruption by employees of a local counciL. The public authority advised the complainant that although its records confirmed that a file relating to this investigation had once been held, due to the time that had elapsed since the investigation took place this file had since been weeded or destroyed. Having considered the information available the Commissioner is satisfied that the information requested by the complainant is no longer held by the public authority. Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOl1 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld View PDF of Decision Notice FS50087366 Case Ref: FS50088977 Date: 08/01/2008 Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service Summary: The complainant requested the agreement leading to the reinstatement following suspensio.Q.~of a senior officer at the public authority. The public authority withheld this, citing sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the public authority dropped its claim that section 38 applied. The Commissioner finds that the exemption provided by section 40(2) is not engaged as, whilst the information in question does constitute personal information, its disclosure would not breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner also finds that the exemption provided by section 41 is not engaged as the information in question was not provided to the public authority from a third party. The public authority is required to disclose the information initially withheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information TribunaL. Section of ActlEIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld View PDF of Decision Notice FS50088977 Publication scheme - No recorded entry on CMEH, however likely to have adopted the ACPO modeL. Receipt of declaration - W3007984 on interim system
  11. 11. CM EH Cases: Position cæ 08_05_08. Search criteria: s50 cases I 01 Jan 07 - 08 May 08 FS50146176 I 26 April Unknown Unknown I Unknown . 1 st request unclear x- 2006 Insufficient - info on file. · 2nd request clearly requests information 22 May 2006 Delays pre- · MPS response appears to be dated the 13 July guidance 2006 · Extensions for the time to respond are sent on the 27 June, 18 September and the 2 November 2006 (pre guidance) FS50146678 21 10 April Unknown Unknown x~ · MPS claim that request was not received until the September 2007 ieo forwarded it Insufficient 2006 info on file.
  12. 12. FS50148975 02 June 19 July 19 March ./ - however, 21 August . s10 delay 2005 2005 2006 2006 - further case progression 09 August 10 October needed 2005 - also 2005- . IR delay (pre-guidance) request for response to IR? IR? . s17 - RN of 19 July inadequate · Despite initial acknowledgements to comp explaining that the matter would be dealt with under FOIA, the response explains that the matter has been handled outside of the Act and that the MPS are unwillng to release the info. This amounts to an insufficient RN · Some confusion surrounding number of requests! RN's !IR's;. we appear to have contributed to this 19 January 121 January I Unknown · s17 - insufficient RN - application of exemptions ./ - in respect Unknown - - -- FS50150414 I 2007 2007 of refusal only not explained! no IR details supplied ~ -- quot;-
  13. 13. FS50153447 29 29 January 29 January I 7 March ./ - in respect . s10 November 2007 2007 2007 of delay and 2006 · Delay in responding as documents requested IR .. contained in an off-site archive (14 Dec 06) · Complaint procedure (RN of 29 Jan 07) advises that 'In all possible circumstances the MPS wil aim to respond to your complaint within three months.' · Some information released on review ( 7. Mar 07) )~ · Inadequate IR - did not address application of exemptions (7 Mar 07) 11 FS50154349 27 4 October 5 · Application of blanket exemptions? x - further September September 2006 December investigation 2006 2006 2006 · IR very limited however - as MPS have opted to on . applicabilty of neither confirm or deny it could be argued that it would be difficult to provide more detail exemptions ,quot;iquot;quot; needed, .fj particularly in · RN limited - possibly for similar reasons .~ :~g: respect of whether the
  14. 14. have been applied as a 'blanket' and on the suitability of s40 as the subject of the request is deceased · MPS claim that they have no record of request - x- FS50157859 I 18 Unknown 18 I Unknown following the ie's intervention, it seems that the Insufficient November December request was processed under DPA info on file. 2006 2006 ./ - in respect . s10 FS50167718 I 10 May Unknown Unknown Unknown of delay 2007 · Staff leave cited as a reason for delay · Request appears to have been made by a staff member and this may have influenced the way in which it was handled
  15. 15. FS50168043 I 17 March 21 May 7 June · Chain of correspondence - (chronology of IR's & Unknown x- 2007 2007 2007 RN's in particular) is muddled Insufficient .. info on file. · See related case FS50170141 FS50169014 I 30 March 23 May 31 May 12 June · Appear to have carried out PIT in relation to third 2007 2007 2007 2007 x - no party personal data (RN of 23 May 2007) substantive issues · Have provided advice and assistance (RN of 23 M~y 2007) 8 January 9 February .. I FS50169737 13 29 June ./ - in respect · Delay in conducting IR (part of which is post 2007 2007 February 2007 guidance) of IR delay. 2007 Investigation may shed · RN limited - however the decision to neither more light on confirm or deny may be a factor in this the applicability of · IR upholds original decision despite complainants exemptions I assertions that some of the information is already info already in the public domain available in the public domain
  16. 16. . IR upholds decision to neither confirm or deny I FS50169899 119 June 1 Unknown I Unknown I 2007 I Undated I Insufficient X- - info on file. 24 February 14 March 22 March FS50170141 Unknown Not clear whether IR has been conducted . X- I 2007 2007 2007 Insufficient -- I info on file. I 22 May 19 July FS50170294 Unknown Unknown . Several exemptions appear to have been applied, ./ - in respect 2007 2007 'with no explanation as to why - very muddled RN - ,'. of s10 delay which does not reflect fully the requirements of and RN s17 s10 delay . 18 May 1 May 2007 23 April 24 July FS50170381 . Part of request processed separately under DPA- X- and others 2007 2007 and a 2007 the RN appears to imply that all of the requested corresponden . number of thereafter? ce on file info will be dealt with as a SAR - however some of times unclear the info, such as the cost of the inquiry etc thereafter appears to be FOIA Email of 5 June 2007 advises 'The MPS . endeavour to respond to FOIA appeals within 3 months'.
  17. 17. . IR declines to confirm or deny in respect of Section 40, Section 30 and Section 31 . Very muddled chronology of correspondence . MPS reply in respect of SAR suggests that some of the info requested is not personal data, and this appear to contradict earlier responses 16 June I X- MPS' initial response of the 20 June 2007 app-ears FS50172692 quot;, corresponden 2007 'i · to supply the complainant with forms for his 2007 I Unknown 110 August i 2007? 26 June ce on file completion but does not address the requestitself unclear i Very muddled case . X- . Unknown Unknown Unknown Possible non-response 6 July 2007 FS50173912 Insufficient info on file. . X - no . Complainant directed to submit a SAR in respect 14 August 16 July FS50174492 27 September September substantive of part of the request - however it appears that the 2007 2007 .. issues MPS have also adopted to neither confirm or deny 2007 2007 whether information is held
  18. 18. · IR upholds original decision - appears to make a distinction between release to the 'world' and to the complainant in respect of the SAR route · Complainant was advised by IC to exhaust SAR 24 July ./ - in 26 July __ I FS50176308 26 July Unknown · RN advises complainant to submit a SAR 2007 2007 2007 respect of SAR · In the IC's opinion the information requested was not personal data and as such the responses confusion provided were insufficient · The complainants letter of the 26 July 2007 should have triggered an internal review 18 July 2 August ~i FS50178276 8 August 18 x - no · RN limited, however likely to be due to the MPS' 2007 2007 2007 September decision to neither confirm or deny substantive 2007 issues. Investigation · Complainants request for IR challenges the required to decision to neither confirm or deny on the basis that the existence of the information is already determine applicability of known publicly exemptions
  19. 19. · The IR replies stating the fact that the existence of the information is publicly known does not necessarily mean it is held by the MPS FS50178467 I 17 August Unknown Unknown . Alleged s10 Unknown x- 2007 Insufficient .. info on file. 22 May FS50179851 26 July 31 July Unknown x - no · Request made to a police stàtion - response sent 200,&¡ 2007 2007 from the 'Sutton Partnership' - advised that info substantive .. was not held by Police and that the response had issues. been forwarded to the Council . Possible inappropriate transferral of request in terms of keeping the complainant informed, and failure to recognise a request for review but both are minor issues in the context of this complaint FS50185687 I 27 April 30 July 28 June ./ - in respect 7 . s10 2007 2007 2007 September of s10 and IR 2007 . Delayed IR (post guidance) delay .
  20. 20. . Clarification sought on the 30 March - dates on I 15 March I FS50186040 116 August 18 October I 2007 118 May 2007 2007 2007 ./ - in respect which this was provided unclear and as such, it is - difficult to asses whether the MPS breached s 10 of IR delay Delay in providing IR (post guidance) . 26 April FS50186880 25 May Unknown Unknown . Insufficient information on file 2007 2007 X- I Insufficient - info on file. Unknown Unknown Unknown MPS contend that the request was not received . X- i FS50186901 114 November Insufficient .. 2007 info on file. 15 January FS50188116 20 Unknown Unknown . MPS seek clarification on the 23 November 2007 X- November 2008 Insufficient .. 2007 info on file. . The information was released to the complainant, but date on which clarification was submitted is unclear
  21. 21. 21 7 January vquot; - in respect . No attempt to offer advice and assistance in 2007 November 2007 respect of the application of s 12 (see refusal of the of s16/ s45 I FS50190522 I ~ePtember 114 August 2007 2007 4 September) A&A - FS50190668 18 October 12 15 17 January Delayed IR (post guidance) . 2007 November November 2008 Ivquot; - indelay of IR respect 2007 2007 07 March FS50199925 Unknown 23 Unknown . Insufficient information on file 2008 February '.' i ,-~l 2008 X- I Insufficient info on file.
  22. 22. Cases predating 01 Jan 2007 taken from Team 2's issue log FS50088977 I 18 March 12 July IR delay (pre-dates guidance) . 2005 I 01 April 2005 I again on 01 and 2007 1./ -IN respect of in 19 April IN issued following refusal to provide ICO with . 2005 withheld information (1 August 2007) (following meeting) I I . RN is limited, however relatively early days in respect of the Act's implementation . IR extremely limited and as a result not conversant with the s45 Code . DN issued - finds in breach of sections 1 (1) (a) - subject to an appeal 07 February 2 July FS50129227 26 April 1 August s10 delay . .. - in respect 2006 2006 2006 2006 .. ofs10, s17 . Delays in responding to ICO I difficulties in and delays in responding to contacting MPS (see letter of 16 January 2008) ICO Exemptions introduced during investigation, . therefore a breach of s17 (1) (see email of the 24 January 2008)
  23. 23. FS50139215 24 May 24 May 25 May 24 August -/ - in respect . IR delay (pre-guidance) 2006 2006 2006 2006 of s17 Refusal of the 24 May fails to meet the . requirements of s17 (no appeal rights/poor explanation of exemptions)
  24. 24. FS50106800 25 July 30 January Various Unknown -/ - in respect . Although refusal was provided on the 30 January 2005 2006 2006, MPS did invite the complainant to view the of s10, s17, documentation provided that an undertaking not to s45 and disclose certain parts of the information was restrictive signed (letter of the 31 August 2005) approach · In connection with the above, MPS provided a form for the complainant to sign which made reference to information which is exempt under s31 and s38 of the Act · A request for review is submitted on the 22 September 2005 in relation to the undertaking - this should have been dealt with under s45 · A second request for review is sent on the 21 December 2005 · A third request for review is submitted on the 19 October 2006 · Material sought is over 100 years old and as such, some of the exemptions cited (s31) cannot apply · Refusal of 30 January 2006 contains limited PIT arguments · Co-operation of MPS during investigation poor · Numerous additional exemptions added during course of investigation
  25. 25. õ- Q) 0.1' C/ .. Q) C/ .. - c: .. 0 .- C/ LO quot;~ t quot;quot; I 0 C/ c: Q) ;: C/ Q) 0. ro ro ~ r5 .. ~ Q) E .. .. .. Q) .0 Q) Q) C/ .. c: o +- ã; t £ LO .E 0) .. ro c: c: C/ Q) .9 C/ .. quot;0 C/ 0 Q) õ c: o .. quot;0 ro Q) 0) ïñ .. +- Q) c: 0. .. C/ 0 :: tó .!: c: .- :: o ro:; .- C/ o quot;0 o E -g C/ quot;0 2 Q) ro I' 0. C/ ~ - c: 0 z ro Q) .- ~ 0)0 Õ quot;0 c: Ü o .. ~ ro .. C/ ïñ N c: C/ C/ Q) .Q ¡t 0 1i ro Q) Q) :. ~ quot;0 § ro 0 ro X Õ. +- quot;0 I- 8 quot;0 Q) E o -0 0. c: .$ -: Q) o Õ Q) a. .. +- .Q ';'0 Q) ên C/ Q) Q) o C/ X :: ro c: N Q) quot;0 Õ .. a. quot;0 :: Q) ~ c: Q) quot;0 Q) o0 .~ +- ê Q) E'- Q) c: C/ o o .. ~ .. o 0. t - t g- c: i5 0 o 0.. 'Ë ü 0. .. :. c: .. ~ .. .!:.E 0 ;: C/ C/ C/ o +- o .. ro 0) Q) Q) .. 15£ .. ~ ro ~ c: .. E co .! o Q) .. Q) .E ~ ro .. c: .. ID i :; (' quot;0 Q) C/ o o c: C/ C/ .. ro .. C/ quot;0 quot;0 C/ Q) Q) 0 0. 1: 0 quot;0 quot;0 ~0 t c: Q) O'm '- ~ 0: quot;0 Q) Q) Q) ~ .. c: ~ ~ .- :¡ :: :i .. ro - .. ~ E O c: Q) :: 0: ~ Q) 0. quot;E 00 .. ~ o '-LO 0) quot;- quot;Ë ~ .. Q) 000 ;: EE0 E0 c: .. 0 c; e a. Q) Q) o o .. t c: o C/ z~ .. 0: .: (f ü ~ C/ N (f ~ I- ~ . . . . . . . . . . .. Q) .0 E ÜO Q) LO LO Q) 0 .. 0 N Q) c: LO :: 0 -: N I' 0 '. , ;: ro ~ LO 0 I' 0 NN 'C o.LO .: 0 0 .. N .. .. co co 0) 0) o o LO (f LL . ~.
  26. 26. 20 May FS50101864 ./ - in respect 11 August 21 August 20 . s10 2005 2005 2005 December of s10, s17, - 2005 s45 IR delay (pre-guidance) . IN threatened . s17 - poor refusal, lack of explanation for PIT . given the number of exemptions cited. Doesn't appear to consider the request in its entirety MPS reply of the 11 October 2005 appears to . have overlooked the IR element of the complainants refusal , ,_.~ ~ ..- IR does little to suggest that a truly fresh . consideration of matters was undertaken Additional exemptions applied during course of . investigation - reluctance to provide ICO with all of the withheld information
  27. 27. Unknown Unknown Various FS50090852 Unknown .. - in respect Initial response from MPS (09 September 2005) - . of muddled advises that 'The issues you raise are not covered (including 7 -. September by FOIA' responses 2005) MPS appears to have muddled responses and is . unclear on what information has already been provided. In mitigation, it seems that the requests themselves were fairly confusing (47 requests in total, submitted at various times) 11 April 2 February 18 May Numerous FS50127256 .. - in respect MPS response advises that info not held 'as may'quot; . 2006 2006 2006 have been destroyed' ofs46 (including - 24 January 2006) MPS appear to have sought clarification via the . iea from the complainant. This occurred during the investigation and arguably should have been carried out from the outset Suggestion of record management difficulties . (letters of the 2 & 7 April 2008) - no centralised records for historical records? (letter of 18 April 2008) . Reluctance to provide iea with relevant info, as suggested in previous cases i I i
  28. 28. 14 February FS50123037 Unknown Unknown Irrelevant - case concerns the Metropolitan Police Unknown N/A 2006 Authority, although there may be issues in respect of the - correct transferral of requests Clarification required: Length of complaint procedure (Rosenbaum complaint and others)
  29. 29. ENF0201053 - The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) - Recommendation for progression of case Cases considered: 2005 í 2 Enforcement Log entries (1069851'86089) - both relate to requests from 30 cases received from 01 January 2007 to 08 May 2008 (including those falling within this date range from the Team 2 issue log) 9 cases from Team 2 issues log which predate the above Total: 41* (one of which relates to MPA but is included on account of the possible transferral of request issues) * this does not represent the total number of complaints received about the MPS (approx 61 s50 cases) Patterns arising i notable points: s 10 breaches 4 o 3 3 .- 129227 __ 167718-- 148975 - - .. 146176 --. 170294- 106800 - - 153447 - 185687 - 99861-'- . 101864 - 087563-quot; (ON issued)
  30. 30. 517 · Poor explanation of application of exemptions in the context of the information withheld (148975 _2005 /150414__ 2007) . Poor PIT's (099861__ 2005) . Extension of time to respond to request without explaining which exemption is applicable (17 (1)) (146176'-2006) . Application of blanket exemptions - particularly s24 (national security), s30 (investigations), s31 (law enforcement), s38 (health and safety). In one case (10680~2005) s31 was applied to information which was over 100 years old, in another s38 was applied to the cost of postponing the Royal Wedding (099861_2005) ~006) . Introduction of additional exemptions during investigation ( 129227 545 . IR's do not appear to take a truly fresh look at matters, although in mitigation there are examples of information which has been released on review (153447 2006) . Examples of requests dealt with outside the Act's parameters (148975 72005 / 170381_(OPA) 2007/ 174492_(OPA) 2007/176308 (OPA) 2007/106800 2005) . Post guidance IR delays: 4 13Feb07 169737 Partly post 29 June 07 90 days + guidance .. ¡ 2007). . 185687 29 days 30 July 07 7 Sept 07 Need to determine : whether 2007) extension justified
  31. 31. 186040(_ 16 Aug 07 38 days Need to 8 act 07 2007) determine whether extension justified - 190668 40 days 15 Nov 07 17 Jan 08 Need to determine (allowing for 2007) whether bank extension holidays) justified s46 · Delays in responding due to inform~tion held in off-site archives (153447 2006) . Some difficulties in determining the fate of historical information (127256 m ; 2006) 2005) . Record keeping raised as an issue within CEAF (86089 Relationship with ICO 2005/ . IN's issued or threatened in various cases (88977 101864. 2005) · Numerous instances of questioning why ICO required to see withheld information Conclusions: The most notable characteristic of MPS' responses is the application of stringent exemptions, some of which appear to have been applied in a blanket manner. Whilst there is certainly room for improvement in this respect, this is something that could be approached informally at the present time. Such an approach is supported by the need to ensure that we fully understand the sensitivities of the information the MPS holds before drawing further conclusions from the use of exemptions. In respect of the procedural failings, there is room for improvement in respect of refusal notices, but I am not particularly concerned about the MPS' adherence to section 10 at present. There is also scope to for the MPS to develop their approach to internal
  32. 32. reviews. At present they are failing to demonstrate that they are taking a truly fresh consideration of matters. Additionally, their current complaint procedure does not appear to have adopted the timescales recommended by the Commissioner. In respect of MPS' relationship with the ICO, there is scope for a more positive relationship between the two parties - however given our experience with other PA's I'm not overly concerned that it departs significantly from the norm. is a problem with the handling of Finally, the MPS have suggested that there requests on account of the un-centralised process. The MPS appear receptive to the ICO's advice on this issue - see email of 06 February 2008 from DW to JPL. Recommendation: That the Enforcement Team approaches MPS on an informal basis to highlight the following concerns: o Refusal Notices ( o Timescales for IR's I Reconsideration of issues at IR o Use of blanket exemptions Should the informal approach fail to elicit an appropriate response, formal action may be considered. Date I Officer: 13 May 2008 - Jo Stones, FOI Enforcement Officer
  33. 33. Page 1 of 1 From: Joanne Stones Sent: 13 May 2008 16:58 To: Jo Pedder Subject: The Met Hi Jo, case: ENF0201053. Just to let you know the reference for the MPS Enforcement letter to them is drafted and send you a copy. I've agreed with J-P that the I'll be in touch once the informal main topics it will cover are as follows: Refusal Notices Timescales for IRs / Reconsideration of issues at IR Apparent use of blanket exemptions Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss further Jo 5344 fie://C:temp(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01/0412009
  34. 34. Page 1 of2 From: Joanne Stones sent: 27 May 2008 13:39 To: Jo Pedder Subject: The Met - Enforcement Letter HiJo, Attached is a draft of the letter I'm planning to send out to the Met later this week. As it references a number of cases which are still under investigation, I thought it may be helpful for you to see it. requests: The letter covers the following issues arising from the MPS' handling of Explanation of the application of exemptions is limited or generic (including reference to the duty to confirm or deny) Application of additional exemptions during the course of investigation Timescale for internal reviews Reconsideration of issues at review Although the number of issues covered is relatively small, they are novel and the need to include examples has resulted in a rather lengthy letter. The cases used as examples within the letter are listed in the table below, If you (or anyone else on your team) would like an explanation as to why a particular case has been included or more general detials about our approach feel free to give me a shout. helpfuL. Hope this if Jo 5344 Offcer Case / Complainant ,Status quot;' quot; Carolyn quot;owes Open FS50106800 - Closed FS50170294 - Helen Jarman 0 Closed FS50150414 - Aaminah Khan , . FOI Team 2 Open FS50154349 - FOI Team 2 . ,Open FS50169737 - quot;,quot; Elizabeth Hogan Open FS50129227 - fie:! IC:temp(Ref. ENF020 1053 J .html 01104/2009
  35. 35. Page 2 of2 lo Pedder Open FS50101864 - a i: ¡ FOI Team 2 FS50153447 - Open FS50188116- Jennifer Sanders Closed fie:IIC:temp(Ref. ENF0201053) .html 01/04/2009
  36. 36. · Reasonable opportunity for you to inspect a record containing the information; and/or ' · A digest or summary of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to you We will comply with your preferred form of presentation as far as it is reasonably practicable. In determining whether it is reasonably practicable, we will review all the circumstances, including the cost. Where we are unable to comply with your preferred format, we will notify as to the reasons why. Where you have not specified your preferred method of communication, we will provide the information by any means reasonable in the circumstances. Where a request for information has been made successfully, we will advise you in writing of the following: . The decision; . The date on which it was made; . The name and designation of the pèrson who dealt with the request; . Form and manner of access; and ' · Your right to complain, including details of the internal complaints procedure and the Information Commissioner's details. Where a Request is Refused Where we receive a request for information and its release is refused, we will advise you, the applicant, within 20 days, of the following: . The decision; . The day on which it was made; . The name and designation of the person who dealt with the request; . The grounds for refusing the request, e.g. the application of an exemption, in the public interest, cost of compliance; . When exemption/s are used, the specific exemption used and the reasons for using the exemption; · When the public interest test has been considered, the reasons why it was applied; . Any other issues relevant to the deèision or matters that were taken into consideration; and · Details for the internal procedures for dealing with complaints and your right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision notice. Note: The Police Service is not obliged to state why an exemption applies if by doing so, exempt information would be revealed. 12
  37. 37. Dealing with Vexatious or Repeat Requests The Police Service can refuse to process an FOI request if we consider it to be either vexatious or repeated, or both. If this is the case, we will inform you within 20 days of receiving the request. At the same time, we will provide details about our internal procedures for dealing with complaints and your right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision notice. If a notice has already been issued that a request is repeated or vexatious, we will not send out a further notice. Where a second request is received for information that has already been provided and the second request is identical or substantially similar, we wil not comply with the request unless a reasonable time has elapsed between the two requests. The Complaints Procedure Our decisions and actions on any request will be logged and recorded. These will be retained, together with any other pertinent information in the event of a complaint. Structure of Review We have rigorous procedures in place to ensure that the original decision- maker wil provide an independent reviewer with all the information relevant to processing the complaint. We will review the following aspects of the request: . Timescales. . Was the applicant kept informed? · Was the applicant helped to locate information if not held by Police Service? · Was the response communicated in the format preference of the applicant? If not, why not? · Was a transfer or partial transfer of request made? If so, was this handled correctly? · Was a fees notice served and the principles of the charging regime applied? . Was a refusal notice served? · If the request appeared to be vexatious, was the correct procedure followed and the correct decision reached? · Was the information requested sourced correctly? · Was there a need to obtain additional information? · Were all systems and information directories searched in response to the information requested? · Were any problems encountered in obtåining the information from the information owners? 13