Baroness Uddin's misappropriation of public funds; are you prosecuting?

The request was successful.

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I make this request under the FoI Act 2000 and wish to know
if you are going to prosecute Baroness Uddin for not paying back public money she accumulated wrongly via her "expenses".
Given HMG reported that: "An investigation found Baroness Uddin alone wrongly claimed £125,349.10 But the matter was not a disciplinary one, so the committee recommended the Clerk of the Parliaments consider how the money could be recovered. Baroness Uddin, together with Lord Bhatia and Lord Paul, were told they had wrongly claimed expenses, and all face lengthy suspensions. The committee recommended Baroness Uddin be suspended until the end of the current session of Parliament, which is up to Easter 2012."
-----------------------------------------------------

As I write the amount £125,349.10 has not been paid back.

If a member of the general public had dishonestly procured such monies off an employer, and not had paid it back, it would mean a prison sentence.
Does the MET condone or just turn a blind eye to those belonging to the House of Lords?

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr B Wayt,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:2011020000903

I respond in connection with your request for information, which was
received by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/02/2011.

If you are going to prosecute Baroness Uddin for not paying back public
money she accumulated wrongly via her "expenses".

Does the MET condone or just turn a blind eye to those belonging to the
House of Lords?

DECISION

I have decided to refuse your request under the provisions of Section 8 of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASON FOR DECISION

Section 8 of the Act provides:

(1) In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a
reference to such a request which-

(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence,
and
(c) describes the information requested.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as
made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable
of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I
have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am
unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by
Section 8 (2)(c).

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), this
e-mail represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request under
Section 8(2)(c) of the Act.

This is not a request for recorded information which may be held by the
MPS, but a question around a topic.
To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your
application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason
you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek
assistance from any other available source.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets
the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested
within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 7230 2331 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Joanne Hunter
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The MPS has a
strict staff conduct policy. Any email that causes you concern should be
reported via the Contacts section on the official MPS Website at
[1]www.met.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.met.police.uk/

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

FAO of Joanne Hunter: Information Manager.

I see Miss Hunter you are unable to ascertain what information I have requested citing Sec 8(2)(c):
Quote
After careful consideration, I have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by Section 8 (2)(c).
Unquote

I see that under Sect 8(2)(c) dictates that:
Quote
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.
Unquote

I am having difficulty following your reasoning, as you have all you, or anybody else, needs to use this FoI Act request as capable of being used as a subsequent reference.

Can I make it as plain as a pike-staff that,
1. I want to know if the MET Police have assisted HMG in seeing that Baroness UDDIN has returned the money she misappropriated from the taxpayers of this country?

2. I also want to know if she has NOT returned ALL the aforementioned monies, are you going to prosecute her for falsely claiming those monies under the Fraud Act 2006?

I trust this amplification meets with the test under Section 8 (2) (c).

If I have failed to make my request understood perhaps you would be kind enough to spell it out for me, in very simple terms, where exactly the failure has occurred this time.

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

FAO of Joanne Hunter: Information Manager.

I see Miss Hunter you are unable to ascertain what information I have requested:
Quote
After careful consideration, I have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by Section 8(2)(c).
Unquote

I see that Sect8(2)(c) asks that:
Quote
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.
Unquote

I am having difficulty following your reasoning as you have all you, or anybody else, needs to use this FoI Act request as a subsequent reference.

Can I make it as plain as a pike-staff, that
1. I want to know if the MET Police have assisted HMG in seeing that Baroness UDDIN has returned the money she misappropriated from the taxpayers of this country?

2. I also want to know if she has NOT returned all the aforementioned monies, are you going to prosecute her under the Fraud Act 2006?
I ask this, as you know a crime would have been committed if somebody has basically stolen money off the taxpayer and not had the law deal with the matter.

Should my amplification still stumble at fence number 8(2)(c) then please be so kind as to explain in very simple terms how to rephrase the questions?

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wayt

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:2011020001347

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 07/02/2011
which was received by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 07/02/2011.

1. I want to know if the MET Police have assisted HMG in seeing
that Baroness UDDIN has returned the money she misappropriated from
the taxpayers of this country?

2. I also want to know if she has NOT returned all the
aforementioned monies, are you going to prosecute her under the
Fraud Act 2006?

DECISION

I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested
under the provisions of Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).

REASON FOR DECISION

Section 8 of the Act provides:

(1) In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a
reference to such a request which-
(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence,
and
(c) describes the information requested.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as
made in writing where the text of the request-
(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable
of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I
have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am
unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by
Section 8 (2)(c).

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your
application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason
you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek
assistance from any other available source.

I attach an excerpt from the Information Commissioner's website which may
assist you in composing any future Freedom of Information requests.

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?
You have the right to request any information held by public authorities.
The Act allows access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting
minutes, research or reports, held by public authorities in England,
Northern Ireland and Wales and some authorities located in Scotland.

You have not made a request for recorded information which may be held by
the MPS but questions around a topic.
You will need to be specific as to the recorded information you require.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets
the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested
within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 7230 4019 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

FoI Request Reference No:2011020001347

I see that you cannot answer my questions, even when I ask for clarification of why this request and the previous one failed under Sect8(2)(c).

Quote: I am unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by Section 8 (2)(c).
Unquote

I contend the "information" requested is VERY clear.

I will NOT let this FoI request fail further, and thus I want an "Internal Review" to take place.
I hope I make myself clear on that score?

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Martin left an annotation ()

Stonewalling people such as Captain Wayt (who served for his country), who righty wish to make perfectly legitimate and valid requests for information and in a very polite and patient way serves only to undermine confidence in those ruling and regulating our country.

Captain Wayt has been crystal clear in expressing which information he requires of that there can be not a single shred of doubt. Neither could he have written any slower to give you the best chance of reading and understanding it.

Yours is but a reflex brush-off, but it will be people like you who have forgotten simple manners who will be the most taken aback, if not at risk when the flames of discontent that have erupted throughout the Middle East fan Northwards and engulf the ruling elite of this country.

Call it rapture by another name, but if that happens the only certainty is this; it will be all bent and corrupt administrators, all bent and corrupt coppers, all bent and corrupt politicians and all bent and corrupt bankers that will go first to burn in hell.

You will now fulfil your regulatory obligation to provide Captain Wayt with the information that he has so clearly requested. Thank you.

Yours,

Captain Martin Greathurst

Capt. Gray-Fisk left an annotation ()

Can you please respond to Capt Wait's request by providing answers to his two questions, namely:

1. Have the MET Police assisted HMG in ensuring the £125,349.10 of tax payers' money, misappropriated by by Baroness Uddin, is returned?

2. If the monies have not been returned will the Baroness, and her errant colleagues, be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006 for falsely claiming them?

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wayt

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011020001812

I write in connection with your letter dated 10 February 2011 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your
request for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number 2011020001347.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 10 March
2011.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

* Original FOI case number 2011020001347.

Thank you for reply dated the 14th Feb 2011.

It is a great shame time and taxpayers money is being spent on a "review" of this matter; as I contend my questions are quite clear, and the 'spirit' of Sect 8(2)(c) has not been broken on my part - for all my correspondence is here to be seen by anybody and in any Court in the land. I firmly believe my FoI questions are, "legible and capable of being used for subsequent reference".

I also find it completely ludicrous that the person who failed my FoI questions said, "I am unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by Section 8 (2)(c)".

I shall not detract your team further with this letter but let your procedures kick-in and wait to see if my reasonable questions can be answered without further prevarication and stonewalling. No wonder this country is so broken and disenchanted with authority.

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wayt,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011020001812

Further to our letter of 14 February 2011, I have unfortunately been
unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation
to:

* Original FOI case number: 2011020001347 and 2011020000903

I hope to complete your review no later than 7 April 2011. Should there be
any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

FAO: Mr S. STRONG

Many thanks for letting me know you will fail to meet the deadline relating to the Review I have asked for.

I note the next date will be, "no later than 7 April 2011". Thank you.

I am sorry this has dragged on at the expense of the taxpayer - however the truth has no 'Use By' date and I shall be waiting for however long it takes to get an answer, and for justice to rattle the door of Mrs UDDIN's abode (wherever that might be as takes her fancy).

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Wayt,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011020001812

Further to our letter of 14 February 2011, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 10 February 2011 concerning:

* Original FOI case number 2011020001347 (related to 2011020000903)

Original Request (dated 2/2/11)
1. I wish to know if you are going to prosecute Baroness Uddin for
not paying back public money she accumulated wrongly via her "expenses".

* Given HMG reported that: "An investigation found Baroness Uddin alone
wrongly claimed **125,349.10 But the matter was not a disciplinary
one, so the committee recommended the Clerk of the Parliaments
consider how the money could be recovered. Baroness Uddin, together
with Lord Bhatia and Lord Paul, were told they had wrongly claimed
expenses, and all face lengthy suspensions. The committee recommended
Baroness Uddin be suspended until the end of the current session of
Parliament, which is up to Easter 2012."
* As I write the amount **125,349.10 has not been paid back.

2. Does the MET condone or just turn a blind eye to those belonging
to the House of Lords?

Original Request (dated 7/2/11)

* I am having difficulty following your reasoning as you have all you,
or anybody else, needs to use this FoI Act request as a subsequent
reference. Can I make it as plain as a pike-staff, that

3. I want to know if the MET Police have assisted HMG in seeing
that Baroness UDDIN has returned the money she misappropriated from the
taxpayers of this country?
4. I also want to know if she has NOT returned all the
aforementioned monies, are you going to prosecute her under the Fraud Act
2006?

* I ask this, as you know a crime would have been committed if somebody
has basically stolen money off the taxpayer and not had the law deal
with the matter.
* Should my amplification still stumble at fence number 8(2)(c) then
please be so kind as to explain in very simple terms how to rephrase
the questions?

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

* Uphold the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

I would first like to apologise for the delay in sending you a final
response and thank you for your patience.

Your original request (received 2/2/11) was refused under Section 8 of the
Act on 7/2/11. It was explained that a valid request under the Act must be
legible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. As it was
found your request did not meet this requirement, it was explained that Ms
Hunter was unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as
defined by Section 8(2)(c).

It was explained for this first request that you had not requested
'recorded' information which may be held by the MPS, but a question around
a topic. To satisfy your request, you were asked to resubmit your request
in accordance with Section 8 of the Act.

Your second FOI request (received 7/2/11) was refused for the same reason.
You were provided with an opportunity to contact Mr Royan-Posse for
assistance in reframing your request, so that it could be valid under the
Act.

An excerpt from the ICO website was provided to you which explained that
the Act allows access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting
minutes, reports. It was explained that you have not made a request for
recorded information which may be held by the MPS, but questions around a
topic.

Your letter of complaint (dated 10/2/11) stated that the information you
have requested is very clear and that the MPS has been unable to answer
your questions, even when you ask for clarification of why the second
request and the previous one failed under Section 8(2)(c).

For ease of reference I have numbered each of your questions one to four,
even though the logged requests were originally received on two separate
dates.

I have carefully reviewed your requests for information. I am of the
opinion that the general phrasing of your requests does not meet the
requirements of Section 8. It is indeed the case that while your questions
to the MPS are clear, you generally are requesting 'opinion' rather than
'held' or 'recorded' information.

The Freedom of Information Act provides access to records/information
capable of recovery in any form. The Act covers information, not data or
documents. The Act also covers information in any format, no matter how it
is recorded. Understanding the term 'recovery' is therefore vital in
regards to understanding why your two requests have been refused as
invalid under the terms of the Act.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if
permitted, confirm if that public authority holds the requested
information and, if so, then communicate that information to the
applicant.

Whilst you were provided with the opportunity to contact the MPS for
assistance in how to frame your requests so they would not be further
refused under Section 8, I am of the opinion that additional assistance
should have been provided to you within the original responses, rather
than just an offer to assist. I do apologise that such assistance was not
provided and for this reason, I will go through each question and explain
why the MPS is unable to answer it and how you could frame your request so
that it could be deemed as valid under the requirements of the Act.

Question One and Four
1. I wish to know if you are going to prosecute Baroness Uddin for not
paying back public money she accumulated wrongly via her "expenses".

4. I also want to know if she has NOT returned all the aforementioned
monies, are you going to prosecute her under the Fraud Act 2006?

The most important point in regards to these questions is that the MPS
does not and can not 'prosecute' any individual. The role of the MPS is to
investigate crime. Decisions in regards to prosecutions lay with the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS). This is one reason for the problematic framing
of your requests. I appreciate that this point was not previously
explained to you.

To make a valid request, you may wish to ask the MPS for recorded
information relating to any decision to investigate Baroness Uddin, in
regards to the claiming of any expenses and the repayment of any monies.

Under my duty to assist, I refer you to a CPS press release (dated
12/3/10) which refers to charges in relation to Baroness Uddin and the
claiming of parliamentary expenses (see legal Annex).

Question Two
2. Does the MET condone or just turn a blind eye to those belonging to the
House of Lords?

I uphold the decision to class this request as invalid under the Freedom
of Information Act request, in consideration of the requirements of a
request under Section 8(2)(c). As explained within your past responses, a
request for information must be capable of being used for subsequent
reference. As this is a request for opinion and not for recorded
information, I am not required to comply with this request for
information.

As I do not believe this request relates to any held information, I do not
believe I can assist you with the reframing of this request. I can only
advise that the MPS officers take integrity, fairness and professionalism
into account in every area of business, regardless of who they may come
into contact with.

Question Three
3. I want to know if the MET Police have assisted HMG in seeing that
Baroness UDDIN has returned the money she misappropriated from the
taxpayers of this country?

I uphold the decision to class this request as an invalid under the
Freedom of Information Act request, in consideration of the requirements
of a request under Section 8(2)(c). As explained within your past
responses, a request for information must be capable of being used for
subsequent reference. As this is a request for opinion rather than for
recorded information, I am not required to comply with this request for
information. In requesting a 'yes or no' answer, you in fact not
requesting 'recorded' information.

Should you wish to reframe this question so that the MPS can log a valid
request under the Act, one suggestion is to ask for any recorded
information relating to the MPS possibly assisting HMG with the returning
of any monies from Baroness Uddin, regarding the claiming of expenses.

Whilst such a new request would be handled independently to this review,
the sensitivity of the subject is highlighted by the ICO decision notice
issued to the CPS on 23/2/11(see Legal Annex). This decision notice upheld
the CPS decision to refuse to disclose a copy of verbal interview
transcripts of Baroness Uddin created by the MPS and supplied to the CPS
for deliberation. The ICO was of the opinion that the information was
deemed to constitute sensitive personal data and that its disclosure would
breach the first data protection principle.

I would additionally advise you to refer to the House of Lords' Accounting
Officer and the House of Lords' Committee, to obtain held information
regarding their methods used to obtain the repayment of any monies from
baroness Uddin (as requested by the House of Lords). Please refer to the
House of Lords links provided in the Legal Annex in regards to the
repayment of money.

To make an FOI request to the House of Lords, please use the below contact
details:

Freedom of Information Officer,
Parliamentary Archives,
House of Lords.
London
SW1A 0PW.
Telephone 020 7219 0100.
E-mail: [email address]

Should you wish to refine any of your requests as suggested within this
letter, on their receipt they will be logged on our system and treated as
new requests for information.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Complaints Officer

Legal Annex

ICO Decision Notice for the CPS dated 23/2/11
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...

CPS Press Release dated 12/3/10
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_release...

Report from the sub-committee on Lords' Conduct
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

The Conduct of Baroness Uddin - Privileges and Conduct Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

Section 8(Request for information) of the Act provides:
(1)In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a reference
to such a request which-
(a)is in writing,
(b)states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and
(c)describes the information requested.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as
made in writing where the text of the request-
(a)is transmitted by electronic means,
(b)is received in legible form, and
(c)is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

FAO: Mr S. Strong

Dear Mr Strong,

I am most thankful for your detailed and most helpful reply; I now understand why the original requests failed.

I have read most of the relevant documents generated from various sources in this case, and the lengths some honest MP's went to seeking justice for the nation, and I note that they unfortunately FAILED. The changes to the law/rules defining a "main residence" illustrates the debased levels the establishment takes to defend the indefensible. One wonders where Mrs Uddin lived the other 99.9% of her time - how stupid it is to pretend ones main home can be defined as a place where an MP/Upper House Member can stay "overnight". They egged-up the definition of "main residence" but did they change what is defined as "overnight"? Is the law clear on that?
(b) expenses incurred in staying overnight away from their only or main residence where it is necessary to do so for that purpose.
38. In oral evidence, Lady Uddin told us that her brother invited her to stay in his house (Q289), he was happy for her to say [sic] there (Q219) and that she lived as part of their family (Q275). She had an allocated room (Q269) in which she kept clothes and papers (QQ271-2).

39. The police did not investigate this period but the Sunday Times interviewed Lady Uddin's sister-in-law, who has lived at the property since 1999. She could not recollect Lady Uddin ever having lived at the property (p93H).

43. In oral evidence, Lady Uddin told us that her purpose in acquiring the Maidstone property was to have a place of her own (Q310) as a "bolt hole" (Q220) in the light of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (paragraph 37 above). It provided her with her own space (Q101) as a sanctuary (Q85). Her husband was either unaware of the property (p88L) or, in Lady Uddin's explanation, he knew about the flat but was clear that it was not in any way his (Q42).

48. The reason for setting out Lady Uddin's description of the flat in some detail is because her neighbours and others, both in interviews with journalists and in formal statements to the police, individually state that the flat was unfurnished until the weekend of 25-26 April 2009.

50. Mr Stuart Brown, who lived below Lady Uddin's flat from 1 April 2006 to 9 April 2009, says in relation to investigating a water leak and alarm on 4 June 2007 (p129C): "I looked through the letterbox at number 3 [Uddin's]. There must have been a light on because I could see damp on the carpet. I could see the hall and part of the living area which contained the kitchen. It reminded me of when we first moved into our flat; there were no personal items there at all. The carpets in all the flats were light in colour. We had put a rug down in our flat to prevent any mud from spreading. There was no rug in flat 3 and nothing like a glass or mug or anything to suggest the flat was occupied."

51. Mr Ian Allcock, who lives further down The Chenies, says (p123H): "Since I have lived at The Chenies, I have seen all the flats occupied apart from flat 3 which up to fairly recently has always been empty. The reason why I can be certain about the property being unoccupied was the fact that there were no curtains at the window and you could see in.

39. In the present case we have been presented with third-party statements. We intend no reflection on the quality of those statements—we simply consider that without testing the statements further it would be not be procedurally fair to draw conclusions from them. We have therefore upheld this element within Lady Uddin's appeal, and have attached no weight to the transcripts provided by The Sunday Times, and the witness statements supplied by the police, in determining this case. [ UNBELIEVABLE ! ]

42. The key issue in this case is whether or not Lady Uddin's designation of her brother's house in Frinton on Sea and, later, the flat in Maidstone as "main residences", was based on a tenable and genuinely held understanding of the meaning of that term.

50. We would go a step further. We do not consider that a "bolt hole", as described by Lady Uddin, could fall within any natural understanding of the term "main residence". A bolt hole is merely a place of escape.

51. We are aware of the minimum requirement on frequency of visits agreed by the House Committee, and applied by the Clerk of the Parliaments in his investigations, namely that "the main residence had to be visited for a minimum of one weekend per month over the year when the House was sitting and for periods during recesses" (quoted at paragraph 87 of the Sub-Committee report). But this requirement is not, and was never intended to be, a definition of "main residence". It is simply a minimum requirement, intended to be incorporated "into [the Clerk of the Parliaments'] assessment of cases where frequency of visit was an issue".[8] Frequency of visits is not an issue in a case such as the present, where no reasonable or defensible understanding of the term "main residence" has been advanced.

54. We dismiss Lady Uddin's appeal against the Sub-Committee's finding that she wrongly claimed £125,349.10 in night subsistence and mileage allowance; instead, we endorse that finding. We further find that Lady Uddin did not make her claims for night subsistence away from the properties and for the mileage allowance in good faith.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_release... That allowance can only be claimed if a peer whose 'only or main residence' is outside London stays 'overnight' in London because of House of Lords business.......... However, 'only or main residence' is not defined in the House of Lords' expenses scheme itself; nor is it defined in legislation............. on 9 February 2010, Mr Pownall published a response to complaints about expenses claims in which he made it clear that the House Committee had considered the definition of main residence and that the threshold set by the Committee was that: '...main residence has to be visited with a degree of frequency: in the order of at least once a month, over the year, when the House is sitting. Time spent at the main residence when the House is in recess is also a relevant factor. Ownership is not a requirement but is a factor in each case.' On that interpretation, in any criminal proceedings, it would almost inevitably be necessary for the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard, that any peer in question had not even visited the address they deemed their 'only or main' residence once a month. That presents a very real difficulty and we considered whether it would be open to the Crown Prosecution Service to advance a different definition of 'only or main residence' in any criminal proceedings. However, after careful consideration, we concluded that such a course would not be open to us. Evidence in this case was obtained from neighbours of Baroness Uddin and from companies supplying utility services, such as water, gas and electricity to the flat in Maidstone. But after careful scrutiny of all of the available evidence we have decided that, in applying the definition of 'only or main residence' adopted by the House Committee, there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Baroness Uddin and we have today advised the Metropolitan Police to take no further action."

Conclusion

"We further find that Lady Uddin did not make her claims for night subsistence away from the properties and for the mileage allowance in good faith". ............
With these words ringing in my ears and the despicable failure of the lamentable CPS to pursue the matter "in good faith" I find it impossible to offer any reason for me to seek a taxpayer's justice either. Therefore, I have concluded that UK taxpayers have been failed by the judiciary and the weak justice system in this unpalatable case. She clearly was at fault, and most certainly misappropriated public funds - which she still holds as I write. Changing the rules 'on the hoof' is a sham. Considering the time wasted and the calibre of the people trying to bring her to justice and failing, I have decided I would be wasting my time delving further.

I shall let this letter remain on the public record and in the public domain.

Thank you for taking the time to assist me.

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dave Mellor left an annotation ()

Sadly the corruption in our society is so widespread - why should any of us (the hoi-polloi) follow their rules? I do not intend to. Tax man - sue me!

Captain Bryn Wayt left an annotation ()

I agree with all you say.

This country has been denuded of values and justice for more years than I care to mention - with the wilful assistance of MPS and the rest.

That a member (not just 'her') of the Upper Chamber can rob the public purse and swan around with the "untouchable" notice round her neck is an utter, shameful disgrace and a slap in the face to you and I and the millions of others who are not "untouchable".

Most MP's are just as bad; the examples of the robbers is clear to see - now we all wait to see how long that debased LIAR Mr Elliot Morley will be 'send down' for. To think this clown (and the others) got Legal Aid to help them string us along whilst making their case is another outrage.

Perhaps the 'thought police' will be tapping at my door/computer soon after reading this lot?

I'll sign off now - as one disgusted taxpayer and senior citizen of this 3rd rate nation.

Bryn Wayt

Dan Daley left an annotation ()

I am an elected local councillor (County and Borough)covering the district in which Baroness Uddin has her 'home' in Maidstone. I too am astonished by the way in which seemingly straightforward cases of misappropriation of public funds can be treated almost as 'misdemeanours' rather than the criminal acts which they most certainly are.
Baroness Uddin has no locus in or with Maidstone. She purchased the flat with public money with no more intention of using it other than for gain. The amount now outstanding could easily be repaid by selling the property and reimbursing the exchequer - any shortfall being raised by other loan means. I have read the full transcripts of the police interviews which are freely available via the Lords Committee reports. For the CPS to refuse these under FoI therefore is utterly baseless. I am slightly mollified by the fact that the House of Lords has this week passed a Motion to exclude all who have not repaid for the duration of the present Parliament and that there would be a fresh Motion to continue the exclusion in the next Parliament if money is still outstanding. I fail to understand why this woman is the only one to escape prosecution when what she has done is patently to lie and to have patiently and persistently milked the system over a long period for an enormous sum which, for all sorts of reasons, was not necessary EXCEPT to feed her greed. If the press had not exposed this, it would have continued unabated until such time as she cashed in when the market was again buoyant. The thing that really annoys me is that Parliament (including the Lords) put in place a whole raft of legislation governing the actions of politicians such as me under a Code of Conduct which has been rigorously enacted - and I know that if I had acted as this wonman has done that I would by now have been barred from office and, likely also charged with fraud.

We should not give up the fight to get this case re-examined in light of the massive weight of evidence of fraud. The utility bills are a real killer of the fiction of residnece. The fact that electric lights are left on for long periods to give the pretence of residence is so easy - but it is obvious that even a slight actual occupation for living purposes would have brought about much larger utility usages than have been the case.It is much more difficult to massage the water usage. Failure to now go for prosecution in this respect is bringing the whole edifice of our parliamentary system in disrepute. I sense a great deal of frustration within the ranks of the Lords in their own inability to hold their own officers (e.g Clerk to the Parliaments who made the fatuous ruling about a main home usage) to account. It is time to disband the Crown Prosecutiion Service and return the whole process of prosecution to the Police who would not, in my opinion, be so wet.

Dan Daley
Kent County Councillor Maidstone Central

Rob Willis left an annotation ()

CPS know one of their own when they see one, hence why they will do their utmost to protect her. If there's still anyone in Britain that actually thinks that the laws that supposedly govern us also apply to those who have favour with them, then you are on your own.

Captain Bryn Wayt left an annotation ()

Hi Rob,

You and I would be eating prison food way before now. Have you seen this? http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba...

Bryn