Our Ref: FOI/VN/iw09/9/39028

30 September 2009

Dear Mr Figg

Freedom of Information Request ref. iw09/9/39028

I write with reference to your request for information submitted by email dated 9 September 2009. Details of your request are as follows:

I require details of any representations, complaints etc. which have been made to the council regarding the conduct of their enforcing officer, in the issuing of a FPN. Including details of any allegations that have been made, including, but not limited to:

1. The enforcing officers honesty in their version of events being brought into question.

2. The enforcing officer being rude.

3. The enforcing officer making threats.

4. The enforcing officer targeting individuals.

5. The enforcing officer issuing FPNs out of spite.

6. The enforcing officer assaulting individuals.

7. The enforcing officer stating they were not intending to issue a FPN but changing their mind on being informed that a complaint was to be made regarding their conduct.

8. The enforcing officer not giving their name when requested to do so.

9. The enforcing officer failing to mention in their notes, which are legal evidence, that witnesses were present, even if a witness was presented to the officer at the time and it was clearly stated that they were a witness.

10. The enforcing officer fabricating evidence.

The Council has dealt with a number of requests for information from you relating to dog wardens; dog control orders; fixed penalty notice's relating to dog fouling etc, in addition to dealing with general enquiries and complaints from you on the same subjects. Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for requests that are considered vexatious or repeated. I have considered the guidance issued by the Information Commissioners Office and have determined that this request is vexatious in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act. The Council does not therefore have to respond to this request.

The reasons for my decision are as follows:

The request appears to be related to your general grievance with the Council relating to a Fixed Penalty Notice that was issued to you by a dog warden. The series of subsequent correspondence in relation to this issue, in my view, amount to a related campaign. The Council has sought to provide as much information as it can and has separately dealt with your complaint. I believe, due to the level of requests, and the potential value of the information requested, this campaign has become obsessive.

Freedom of Information Request ref. iw09/9/47483

I refer to your recent request submitted by email dated 25 September 2009 for the following information:

Details: The number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) issued by the Isle of Wight council during the last 12 months, for offences specified in the Dog Control Orders other than for dog fouling.

Together with a breakdown of the following:

1. The specific location where each FPN was issued.

2. Whether the issuing of individual FPNs were contested, either as an appeal to the council, a complaint to the council or to the LGO or in court. And an indication of the outcome, successful or otherwise or ongoing.

3. The amount of prosecutions brought by the Isle of Wight council for offences specified in the Dog Control Orders other than for dog fouling. With details of whether these were for repeat offences or for first time offences.

4. The number of FPNs issued, for offences specified in the Dog Control Orders other than for dog fouling, that went unpaid, along with details of subsequent action taken. And an indication of the outcome, successful or otherwise, from that subsequent action.

In addition I require to be informed of details of what systems the council have in place for checking the suitability of the dog wardens they employ. Including working with the public in general, and more specifically with coming into contact with children through the nature of their employment (hanging around parks, beaches, children's play areas etc) Together with details of checks undertaken into their honesty, integrity and any checks on their medical history with regard to their psychological make-up, ie delusion, persecution history of bullying etc.

And details of checks carried out into any evidence, or history, of alcohol or substance abuse/dependency.

Unfortunately, I have estimated that the time it will take to determine if the Council holds the information, including locating, retrieving and extracting the information, to enable us to respond to your request, will exceed the fee limit as set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulation 2004. Therefore, the Council is not obliged to provide a response.

For information purposes, the fee limit set down by the Lord Chancellor is £450 and in our case this equates to a maximum of 18 hours of search and retrieval time. The Fees Regulations state that two or more requests can be aggregated for the purposes of calculating costs if they are:

• by one person, or by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign;

• for the same or similar information; and

• the subsequent request is received by the public authority within 60 working days of the previous request.

Accordingly, the Council has considered this latest request in conjunction with your previous requests relating to the Dog Warden service, submitted over the last 3 weeks. The Council has already spent several hours in dealing with these requests, and I must advise that to deal with this latest request would exceed the limit.

Freedom of Information Request ref. iw09/9/50372

With regards to your most recent request submitted by email dated 28 September 2009, for the following information, I must advise that the limit above applies and we shall be unable to respond to this request.

Details: The number of Fixed Penalty Notices issued by the Isle of Wight council, for dog fouling, during the 12 months periods:

* 1st. October 2006 until 30th September 2007 * 1st. October 2007 until 30th September 2008

Together with a breakdown, for each year, of the following:

1. The specific location where each FPN was issued.

2. Whether the issuing of individual FPNs were contested, either as an appeal to the council, to the LGO or in court. And an indication of the outcome, successful or otherwise.

3. The amount of prosecutions brought by the Isle of Wight council for dog fouling. With details of whether these were for repeat offences or for first time offences.

4. The number of FPNs issued for dog fouling that went unpaid, along with details of subsequent action taken. And an indication of the outcome, successful or otherwise, from that subsequent action.

Also the number of dog wardens (including the senior dog warden) employed by the council during these two periods.

If you have any complaints in respect of your information request, please write to the Corporate Information Unit at the above address, or complete the on-line appeals form that can be found at www.iwight.com/information. If your complaint is not resolved to your complete satisfaction, you have the ultimate right, once you have exhausted the internal appeals process, to appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely

Vanda Niemiec (Miss)

For Director of Corporate Services

2

Cont …