progress on FOI request 18426-4695466

Dear UK Border Agency,

Please send me a copy of all records and internal and external
correspondence relating to Freedom of Information request
18426-4695466 ("Baroness Scotland investigation").

If you choose to withhold information, then please keep the
redactions to an absolute minimum rather than withholding entire
documents. For example, as well as knowing the contents of these
documents, I am interested in knowing how much work you have done
and when you have done it, so even just skeletons with dates would
be useful. If you choose to redact names, please replace them with
an indication of the role and seniority of the person.

Yours faithfully,

Ganesh Sittampalam

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Thank you for your email, which I note was one day outside the
twenty working day time limit.

When considering the public interest test, please consider the fact
that you broke the law by a substantial margin in handling the
request referred to, and there is a strong public interest in
proper scrutiny of precisely why this happened.

Yours sincerely,

Ganesh Sittampalam

Dear UK Border Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of UK Border Agency's
handling of my FOI request 'progress on FOI request 18426-4695466'.

You claim that my request is "designed to circumvent the official
appeals mechanism". This entire line of reasoning in a similar case
was rejected by the High Court:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

A claim of exemption under s36 requires the reasonable opinion of a
qualified person, yet you have given no indication of who that
qualified person was.

Your response gives no indication that you have considered this
point in my request:

"If you choose to withhold information, then please keep the
redactions to an absolute minimum rather than withholding entire
documents. For example, as well as knowing the contents of these
documents, I am interested in knowing how much work you have done
and when you have done it, so even just skeletons with dates would
be useful. If you choose to redact names, please replace them with
an indication of the role and seniority of the person."

I emphasise that you were overdue by nearly three months in
responding to my original request. That is a gross breach of the
law. You also failed to meet a deadline set by the Information
Commissioner to respond to the request. My original request was
time critical in that it was a live political issue at the time I
made it, particularly given the upcoming general election. Your
delays therefore give rise to a suspicion that you are deliberately
trying to spin the case out to minimise the impact of any eventual
release.

There is thus a very strong public interest in understanding the
precise details of why this happened, and in confirming the
accuracy of any explanation you give in response to the ongoing
internal review.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...

Yours faithfully,

Ganesh Sittampalam