Information Access Team
Financial and Commercial Group
Ground Floor (NW), Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail [email address] www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Ganesh Sittampalam
Our Ref: 13434
Your ref:
Request-21471-
[email address]
Date:
22 January 2010
Dear Mr Sittampalam
I am writing further to my e-mail of 3 December about your request for an internal review of the
Home Office response to your Freedom of Information request about grants made to the
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
I have now completed the review. I have examined all the relevant papers and have consulted
the policy unit which provided the original response. I am very sorry the reply to your request
was sent to you late and that your request was not considered to be valid.
My findings are set out in the attached report. You wil see in the report that the Police Reform
Unit (PRU) wil consider your request again starting at the top of the list of grants and if there
is sufficient time available with the 24 hours al owed per request, wil then proceed down that
list. A reply should be sent direct from PRU no later than 11 February.
This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain dissatisfied with
the response to your FoI request, you have the right of complaint to the Information
Commissioner at the following address:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Steve Kirk
G:\My Documents\Word\Home Office
Letter Template.doc
Internal review report
Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by Mr
Ganesh Sittampalam (reference 13434)
Responding Unit: Police Reform Unit (PRU)
Chronology
Original FoI request received:
21 October 2009
Target date to reply:
18 November 2009
Response sent:
30 November 2009
Subject of request
1.
In April last year, Mr Sittampalam was provided with a list of grants made by the Home
Office to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) during the period 2006-09 in reply to
request number 11435. This latest request fol owed-on from the earlier one and asks for a
copy of each contract listed in the reply to the previous request detailing the purpose of each
grant, but if this would exceed the cost limit, the Home Office should supply as many contracts
as possible, starting from the first one on the list working downwards.
The response by PRU
2.
The reply sent to Mr Sittampalam apologised for the delay in writing to him explaining
that due to an oversight, incoming correspondence was not properly monitored and actioned.
3.
The request itself was refused as PRU were unclear about the exact scope of the
request and sought clarification from Mr Sittampalam. PRU said that the request was not valid
as they had no means of distinguishing which contracts from the list were requested and
asked Mr Sittampalam which specific information from the list he wanted. No response was
received from Mr Sittampalam.
Mr Sittampalam’s request for an internal review
4.
Mr Sittampalam gave no reasons for asking for an internal review of this case.
Procedural issues
5.
The reply was sent to Mr Sittampalam late due to the absence of a correspondence
manager in PRU resulting in the request being overlooked. Whilst this was an unfortunate
error, it does not alter the fact that the Home Office breached section 10 of the Act by not
replying within the required 20 working days.
6.
On balance, I am satisfied that the request made by Mr Sittampalam was valid and met
section 8 (1) (c) of the FoI Act. He clearly asked for copies of any contracts or agreements
detailing precisely what each grant was for. Mr Sittampalam continued by saying that if the
cost limit would be breached by providing all documents listed, the Home Office should supply
as much information as possible starting from the first entry on the list and working down that
list.
G:\My Documents\Word\Home Office Letter Template.doc
7.
PRU did offer Mr Sittampalam advice and assistance to refine his request as required
under section 16 of the FoI Act by suggesting that he named a number of specific grants he
was interested in. However, in this case it was not necessary as the request for information
was clear.
Consideration
8.
I have discussed this case with the relevant official in PRU and have agreed how best
to take it forward. PRU wil start at the top of the list of grants made to ACPO and, if time
permits, provide the requested information for that first entry. When calculating the cost limit,
PRU should be mindful that they can include the time taken to locate and retrieve the
information and also the time taken to extract any information to be released, but not the time
taken to decide if any information is exempt. If further time is available, PRU wil then proceed
to the second entry and so on. The request wil be completed within 20 working days starting
on 15 January and he should therefore receive a reply by 11 February.
Conclusion
9.
It is unfortunate that Mr Sittampalam’s request was not treated as a valid request and
we should apologise for this. However, I am pleased that we have been able to agree a way
forward with PRU which I hope meets Mr Sittampalam’s requirements.
Steve Kirk
Information Access Team
January 2010
G:\My Documents\Word\Home Office Letter Template.doc
