Dear Natasha,

Freedom of Information request - Internal Review

I write further to our acknowledgement of your request of 20 February 2009 for an internal review regarding the handling of your Freedom of Information (FOI) request. I have now completed my review and am in a position to offer you a substantive reply.

I apologise for the delay in responding to you, I further apologise for not providing you with an update in relation to your request for an internal review.

In your email of 25January 2009, you wrote:

'Please could you provide the following details as they were at end of January 2009.

1) How many caseworkers are there in CR Team Liverpool 15 at the moment?

2) How many legacy cases has been allocated to this team by the Case Resolution Directorate?

3) How many cases has this team resolved so far?

4) Of the resolved cases, how many were grants of leave to remain?

5) Is this team above or below their target?

6) What measures does this team have to ensure that complex cases (such as those that have lots of information on file) are not unfairly left at the bottom of the queue and ignored by caseworkers in favour of easier cases and smaller files?'

The Freedom of Information Team contacted you to request clarification regarding your request for an internal review and you raised the following reasons:

`I do not believe that if UKBA were to disclose the information requested by me, the operation of the UK immigration controls could substantially be prejudiced. Even if the UKBA assesses that some of the information is risky to disclose and the “disclosure may enable potential immigration offenders to obtain detailed information on our risk assessment methodology and access UK Border Agency processes that are pertinent to the maintenance of immigrations controls” this surely may pertain to only part of the information requested.

I believe that there is a public interest in disclosing the requested information as the disclosure would make the work of the legacy directorate more accountable, fair and open to judicial scrutiny.'

I note that the issues you raised above do not have any bearing on the response that was sent to you regarding your FOI request. However, I have looked into the handling of your request.

Section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000 requires a public authority to inform applicants (a) whether the information is held and if so (b) to provide them with access to that information, unless one of the exemptions contained within Part II of the Act applies. Exemptions can apply to both (a) and (b) where necessary, or just (b). However where they apply, Section 17 of the Act requires that applicants are told which exemptions apply and, in most cases, are given an explanation of why this is so.

As part of my review, I reviewed all of the information in relation to your request and I spoke to all those involved. After careful consideration I have concluded that you should be provided with information as it stood at the time that the team was disbanded. Please find the response to your queries below:

1) How many caseworkers are there in CR Team Liverpool 15 at the moment?

In response to your first question the team was disbanded on 12 December 2008 as a result of the adjustment of resource allocation. As a result of this adjustment cases fit more rationally on a regional basis. The remaining teams were expanded, leaving a total of 40 larger, case owning teams. At the point of being disbanded CRTL 15 was comprised of 5 case workers. This is not necessarily indicative of the average number of caseworkers in the team throughout its lifetime. This information is not held.

2) How many legacy cases have been allocated to this team by the Case Resolution Directorate?

With regards to your second question, as at 12 December 2008 CRTL 15 had 5464 cases allocated to them. These cases include case records relating to duplicates, errors or outstanding actions relating to cases which have become EU nationals.  This figure does not therefore equate to numbers of asylum applicants. These cases were reallocated to other teams following the disbandment of CRTL15.  

3) How many cases has this team resolved so far?

At the point of being disbanded the team had concluded 842 cases.

4) Of the resolved cases, how many were grants of leave to remain?

At the point of being disbanded, CRTL 15 had granted leave to remain to 228 cases. We are committed to working rigorously through every individual case, considering each on its individual merits.

5) Is this team above or below their target?

There are no uniform targets for all Case Resolution Teams. Targets are set according to the team composition and take into account the types of cases in each individual cohort. They are regularly reviewed. As the team was disbanded on the 12 December, we no longer have any record of the targets set for this individual team and therefore the requested information is not held.

6) What measures does this team have to ensure that complex cases (such as those that have lots of information on file) are not unfairly left at the bottom of the queue and ignored by caseworkers in favour of easier cases and smaller files?

We prioritise those who may pose a risk to the public, then focus on those receiving support, those who can more easily be removed, and those who may be granted leave. Cases are not prioritised due to the size of the file. As the team has now disbanded, no information is held about specific methods of prioritisation.

I hope this provides you with some reassurance that your information request was handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information procedures.

Once again I would like to apologise to you for the delay in providing you with a response. All the evidence had to be carefully considered as we had to gather the evidence that is now being released to you. This was then subjected to our clearance procedures.

Should you remain dissatisfied with my decision, you have a right to complain to the Information Commissioner as established by Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner's address is:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House, Water Lane

Wilmslow, Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

O. Awosanya

Information Access Policy Team

Freedom of Information