Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of
Information (FoI) Act 2000 by C Gillstrap (reference 12439)
Responding Unit: UK Border Agency (UKBA)
Chronology
Original FoI request:
14 July 2009
Acknowledgement:
20
July
2009
UKBA response:
11 August 2009
Resubmitted Application:
11 August 2009
Further UKBA response
23 September 2009
Request for Internal Review
24 September 2009
Complaint to the ICO
26 November 2009
Subject of request
1. The request was in the form of ten questions, which are set out in the
attached
Annex A.
2. Mr Gil strap requested information in relation to EEA2 applications. In
particular he asked for statistics as to the number of applications which
have been decided within the terms of the service level agreement,
minutes from various meetings and other related documents.
3. The requester asked for a copy of the UKBA ‘complaints manual’.
The response by UKBA, North West region
4. The response from the UKBA is attached as
Annex B. The response
can be broken down into three distinct sections:
• In response to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 the UKBA refused to
provide the information to Mr Gil strap and cited an exemption under
section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act.
• In answer to questions 7 and 9 the UKBA stated that they did not hold
the information.
• In reply to question 8 the requester was provided with the web address
of the UKBA website and directed towards the Customer Charter.
5. Within the response UKBA offered to reconsider the request if Mr
Gil strap refined his request.
Mr Gillstrap’s second request for information
6. Mr Gil strap clarified his request in an e-mail, attached at
Annex C, on
11 August which stated that:
• He withdrew points 3, 4 and 6 of his original request.
• In regard to questions 1, 2, 5 and 10 he reiterated his request for
statistical information and disputed that it would exceed the cost limit of
£600 to provide this information.
• He again requested a copy of the UKBA ‘complaints manual’.
• He acknowledged that the UKBA did not have the information that he
requested in question 9.
7. No mention is made in Mr Gil strap’s e-mail of UKBA’s response to his
seventh question.
Further UKBA letter to Mr Gillstrap
8. In response to Mr Gil strap’s e-mail of 11 August UKBA wrote a further
letter to him on 23 September. Following the clarifications and
refinements made by the requester the UKBA was able to provide him
with the statistics he asked for in relation to questions 1, 2 and 10 of his
request.
9. In response to Mr Gil strap’s fifth question UKBA stated that they did
not hold the information and even if they did they would have exempted
disclosure by virtue of an exemption under section 40 of the FoI Act.
10. Mr Gil strap was not provided with a copy of the ‘complaint’s manual’
as it had been withdrawn and was in the process of being redrafted.
Mr Gillstrap’s Request for an Internal Review
11. Mr Gil strap asked for an internal review of the UKBA response in an e-
mail of 24 September. The request for an internal review confines itself
to the issue of the ‘complaint’s manual’ and asks for the non-release of
this document to be reviewed.
Procedural issues
12. Mr Gil strap’s original request of 14 July, sent by e-mail to the Freedom
of Information Team, was acknowledged by e-mail on 20 July. UKBA’s
reply of 11 of August complied with the time limit imposed by section
10(1) of the FoI Act.
13. The second request of 11 August 2009 was sent by e-mail, again, to
the Freedom of Information Team. On 10 September Mr Gil strap was
sent a further copy of the letter of 11 August. The UKBA sent a reply to
Mr Gil strap’s second request on 23 September; this was 30 days after
receipt of the request. This was in excess of the 20 day working limit
imposed by section 10(1) of the FoI Act.
Consideration of the responses
14. I have considered the original UKBA response to Mr Gil strap’s request
and the additional information provided in the UKBA letter of 23
September 2009.
Question 1
15. Mr Gil strap requested statistics on the number of EEA2 applications
decided within the stipulated service level. UKBA confirmed that they
held the requested information but refused to disclose the information
relying on an exemption under section 12 of the FoI Act. I am satisfied
UKBA correctly invoked section 12 of the FoI Act when considering Mr
Gil strap’s whole request. Mr Gil strap refined his request on 11 August
and the information was provided by UKBA in their response of 23
September.
Question 2
16. Mr Gil strap requested statistics on the number of EEA2 applications
decided outside of the stipulated service level. UKBA confirmed that
they held the requested information but refused to disclose the
information relying on an exemption under section 12 of the FoI Act. I
am satisfied UKBA correctly invoked section 12 of the FoI Act when
considering Mr Gil strap’s whole request. Mr Gil strap refined his
request on 11 August and the information was provided by UKBA in
their response of 23 September.
Question 3
17. Mr Gil strap requested notes, minutes, e-mails and other such
information in relation to changing policy for publishing processing
times for EEA2 applications. UKBA confirmed that they held the
requested information but refused to disclose the information relying on
an exemption under section 12 of the FoI Act. I am satisfied UKBA
correctly invoked section 12 of the FoI Act when considering Mr
Gil strap’s whole request. The question was withdrawn by the requester
in his e-mail of 11 August.
Question 4
18. Mr Gil strap requested notes, minutes, e-mails and other such
information in relation to UKBA’s plan to achieve acceptable service
levels for EEA2 applications. UKBA confirmed that they held the
requested information but refused to disclose the information relying on
an exemption under section 12 of the FoI Act. I am satisfied UKBA
correctly invoked section 12 of the FoI Act when considering Mr
Gil strap’s whole request. This question was withdrawn by the
requester in his e-mail of 11 August.
19. UKBA provided a short response to this question in their letter of 23
September.
Question 5
20. Mr Gil strap requested the number of cases and details where UKBA
has been exposed to damages where they have been negligent in
applying the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
In their response of 11 August UKBA stated that they held the
requested information but refused to disclose the information relying on
an exemption under section 12 of the FoI Act.
21. Mr Gil strap reiterated this part of his request in his e-mail of 11 August
2009. The UKBA letter of 23 September stated that UKBA does not
hold the information requested. The responder’s letter of 23 September
stated that if the information was held the information would have been
exempt from disclosure under section 40(3) of the FoI Act.
22. The responder incorrectly stated in their reply of 11 August that they
held the information requested. UKBA should have stated in their
original response that this information was not held. As it had been
established that the information is not held a hypothetical exemption
under section 40 was not required under the FoI Act.
Question 6
23. Mr Gil strap requested notes, minutes, e-mails and other such
information in relation to the permitting of applicants to have their
identity documents returned to them. UKBA confirmed that they held
the requested information but refused to disclose the information
relying on an exemption under section 12 of the FoI Act. I am satisfied
UKBA correctly invoked section 12 of the FoI Act when considering Mr
Gil strap’s whole request. This question was withdrawn by the
requester in his e-mail of 11 August.
Question 7
24. In response to this question the UKBA stated in their letter of 11 August
that they did not hold this information. Mr Gil strap did not ask for a
review of this response in his e-mail of 11 August.
Question 8
25. Mr Gil strap requested a copy of the complaints manual. UKBA’s letter
of 11 August pointed Mr Gil strap in the direction of the Customer
Charter, on the UKBA website. This was not the information that he
had requested. Moreover, the response failed to say whether or not the
information was held and failed to give a reason why, if it is was held,
the information was not provided. In this respect the response of 11
August was in breach of section 1(1) of the FoI Act.
26. In the second response of 23 September UKBA stated that they were
unable to supply a copy of the ‘complaints manual’ as it had been
withdrawn for redrafting.
27. The document titled Complaint’s Management Guidance was re-issued
on 05 November 2009. This document is the UKBA guide when
processing the handling, management and resolution of complaints.
The document wil be released with this review with four redactions.
28. The redactions on page one and in Annex A section 2 are made under
section 40(3)(a)(i) of the FoI Act. The information redacted is personal
information, the names of members of staff. I am satisfied that to
release this information would not be fair or lawful and would constitute
a breach of the Data Protection Principles which are set out in Part I of
Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act.
29. The segment redacted on page 9 of the Complaints Management
Guidance is exempted from disclosure under section 31(1)(e) of the
FoI Act as disclosure would be prejudicial to immigration controls. The
redacted information is Command and Control Unit’s telephone
number. The number is a dedicated line for the police and other
stakeholders who may require emergency checks. To disclose this
number would negatively impact on the service provided by the
Command and Control Unit and, consequently, prejudice the operation
of immigration control.
Question 9
30. In response to this question the UKBA stated, in their letter of 11
August, that they did not hold this information. The requester accepted
this reply in his e-mail of 11 August and has not requested an internal
review of this response from the UKBA.
Question 10
31. Mr Gil strap requested statistics on the number applications that have
been escalated to an UK or European Member of Parliament. UKBA
confirmed that they held the requested information but refused to
disclose the information relying on an exemption under section 12 of
the FoI Act. I am satisfied UKBA correctly invoked section 12 of the FoI
Act when considering Mr Gil strap’s whole request. Mr Gil strap refined
his request on 11 August. The responder was unable to answer the
question directly but was able to give a total number of MP’s
correspondence received in the previous year.
Advice and assistance
32. In their original response of 11 August the UKBA offered to reconsider
Mr Gil strap’s request information if he refined his request. Specifically,
if he was to limit his request to statistical information for a particular
year.
Conclusion
33. The first UKBA response of 11 August to Mr Gil strap was provided
within the 20-working day limit and complied with section 10(1) of the
FoI Act.
34. The second UKBA response of 23 September was provided to Mr
Gil strap outside the 20-working day limit, albeit not excessively so, and
so was in breach of section 10(1) of the FoI act.
35. The UKBA response of 11 August correctly exempted the release of
information in relation to question 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 under section 12
of the FoI Act.
36. The UKBA response of 11 August incorrectly exempted the release of
information in relation to question 5. The response ought to have stated
that the information was not held.
37. The response of 11 August rightly stated that the UKBA did not hold
the information requested in questions 7 and 9.
38. The response of 11 August failed to say, in respect of the information
requested by Mr Gil strap in question 8, whether the information was
held or not. In this respect the response of 11 August was in breach of
section 1(1)(a) of the FoI Act and in so far as this information was in
fact held, section 1(1)(b). The requested information has been provided
in a redacted form with this review.
39. The UKBA response of 23 September provided proper responses to all
of Mr Gil strap’s refined questions, apart from question 8.
Information Access Team
Home Office
15-Feb-10
